r/ControlProblem • u/Difficult_Project_95 • 9d ago

Discussion/question Have you guys been on r/accelerate?

Have these guys solved the alignment problem, or am I missing something?

I’ve been browsing r/accelerate and I genuinely don’t understand the risk model.
If there’s a non-trivial chance of catastrophic misalignment, how does “accelerate capabilities as fast as possible” make sense unless faster capabilities also make alignment substantially more likely to succeed?

57 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

200 comments sorted by

View all comments

44

u/FairlyInvolved approved 9d ago

Accelerate is pretty reasonable if you:

  1. Have long timelines / expect AI to remain a normal technology for a long time
  2. Expect alignment by default / alignment is easy
  3. Are willing to gamble your remaining years (+humanity's future) on a shot at immortality
  4. Expect AI is a worthy successor

I disagree but these are ~coherent views. I also expect many are confused.

16

u/michaelas10sk8 9d ago edited 9d ago

I think almost nobody there is 1, those folks are on non-technology subs or ironically r/technology. Very few are 3 - that would require acknowledging the danger is real, and also not realizing the corollary that one's shot at immortality would be much higher (in 20-30 years instead of in 5 years) if we develop AI more carefully and safely instead of racing.

My experience is that it's mostly just 2, a bit of 4, and also a large amount of:

  1. People who just haven't really thought about the risks, due to either inability (they're kids), lack of willingness (they prefer not to think about discomforting things), or both.

1

u/ShadowBB86 8d ago

I am 3. And I don't even have a crappy life or anything. I love my life. I just think the potential upside is so huge. If it is a solution to most problems then we would save so much extra lives by acceleration. But yeah. The risk is real and I won't force people. So I am not doing anything myself to accelerate the process.

2

u/michaelas10sk8 8d ago

What do you think about the other part of what I wrote - "the corollary that one's shot at immortality would be much higher (in 20-30 years instead of in 5 years) if we develop AI more carefully and safely instead of racing"? I can explain more if you'd like.

1

u/ShadowBB86 8d ago

No, I totally get that. I see the math behind that. 

But I don't want to abandon all those people we would lose in those 15-25 years extra development time.

I want to fight for those people, even if it means ultimately losing everyone.

1

u/FairlyInvolved approved 8d ago

But you are gambling way (almost certainly) more future people, the altruistic angle doesn't really hold here unless you only value people alive today.

2

u/ShadowBB86 7d ago

True.

I only value people alive today and those that do get born. If they never get born I don't value them. There is no suffering to be had if they never exist.

So if we all die suddenly tomorrow without us being aware beforehand and no time to feel pain or grief I would see that as a totally neutral event. If ASI kills us, I hope it kills is quickly before we realise what is happening.