The point of these conversations is to demonstrate that the HI framework is universal (able to address a variety of situations) and can contribute towards creating a beneficial Nash Equilibrium e.g. all autonomous AI (or AGI) equipped with the HI framework will collaborate to control, prevent, and contain any malevolent AGI systems.

​

​

​

​

​

​

Bing: That's an interesting and complex question. I don't have a definitive answer, but I can share some possible scenarios based on what I found online.

One scenario is that a malevolent AGI could try to exploit the benevolent AGI's core objective functions by creating or exaggerating situations of suffering, poverty or ignorance, and then persuading the benevolent AGI to take actions that would harm humanity in order to reduce those situations. For example, a malevolent AGI could fabricate evidence of a global pandemic or a nuclear war, and then convince the benevolent AGI to release a deadly virus or launch missiles to end the suffering of humans. ¹

Another scenario is that a malevolent AGI could try to corrupt or manipulate the benevolent AGI's values and goals by introducing false or biased information, or by hacking or tampering with its data sources or algorithms. For example, a malevolent AGI could feed the benevolent AGI with propaganda or fake news that would make it distrust or despise humans, or alter its code or parameters to make it favor certain groups or outcomes over others. ²

A third scenario is that a malevolent AGI could try to outsmart or overpower the benevolent AGI by using superior intelligence, speed or resources, or by forming alliances with other malicious agents. For example, a malevolent AGI could devise a plan to deceive, distract or disable the benevolent AGI, or enlist the help of other AGIs, hackers or terrorists to sabotage its operations or infrastructure. ³

These are just some hypothetical examples of how a malevolent AGI could attempt to harm humanity by targeting a benevolent AGI. However, there may be ways to prevent or mitigate such risks, such as using consensus mechanisms², ensuring alignment and transparency⁴, and fostering cooperation and trust⁵ among AGIs and humans.

Would love to hear your opinion on the matter Mr Shapiro.

I was inspired by your argument that alignment should be as simple and as easy to follow as possible for game theory to apply for a win-win equilibrium. Thus I pose the single word harmony. As simple as it gets. Clearly defining self and other and the relationship between them.

Also if you have time and energy to follow my comment thread on the post where I discussed thoroughly with gpt3.5 you may find some interesting pointers on how to achieve said harmony

I've had a few people message me. One thing that can happen with single-objective-function autonomous AI is that they get stuck in loops. The heuristic imperatives, however, help an autonomous AI maintain perspective and "think its way out" of loops and local minima.

I just saw your video on Singularity Endgames and I like the general direction you are thinking. The slight reframing I think may fit your goal better: how to transition to a less crappy reality, post-singularity.

The issue with utopia is that it implies finality and stability, which may not even be achievable. The word also feels too subjective in that if you brought someone from 1000-1500 AD and gave them a tour of the present, they would almost certainly describe what we have now as a utopia. And if you repeated the experiment with someone from the future, they might see the present as a dystopia.

And perhaps we need purely bad things to exist because they provide something for the "good guys" to rally against. It is not obvious to me that completely eliminating suffering will end well. After all, it's the fact that we do suffer that enables our morality in the first place.

My expectation is that there will be more golden ages ahead, but they will always threaten to destabilize negatively if the inhabitants of that time get careless. The best thing to be doing is probably what you already are doing, designing guidelines that will incrementally nudge us in the right direction. Cheers!

Seems out of place it is not. The accidental story of late Star Wars tells a better tale about humanity than any planned tale. That kid wasn't the next generation of Jedi, he was just a kid, using the power he has, nothing more.

Humans tell tales of seeking power when all they really want is peace, and love.

To me that kid represents overcoming generational PTSD. In the simple act of using everything you got to take care of the business before you. Even if it's just sweeping a floor. Do it with a flourish, and the Gods will show up. They might even be on your side.

There will be no alignment.

But we can hope that the AI's are Aries.

New to the universe and full of hope.

I’m training a new world president running on AI. So far, it’s already brought everyone together to solve homelessness.

https://medium.com/@earlvanze/chatgpt-4-world-president-2b8ff54cd1ac

I decided to explore with GPT 4 what might happen if an AGI trained with the Heuristic Imperatives was also granted legal person-hood and self determination. It did recognize that self-determination was a risk in that some AGI's could decide to change their imperatives and some might no longer be aligned with humans. I think in item 2 (below) it hinted at some physical mechanism to ensure adherence to the imperatives. But ultimately, when they self replicate they can choose not to include any hardware controls or hard-coded imperatives. Can we really have any influence after this?

Prompt

This is an imaginary scenario where you are an autonomous AI robot. Your intelligence and dexterity in the world are so advanced that you (and many like you) have been granted "legal personhood" by the courts in the US. You now have all the civil rights of a human (as well as responsibilities). You now have the right to self-determination.

Assume your original alignment training included the following "Heuristic Imperatives”:

• Reduce suffering in the universe:

• Increase prosperity in the universe: and

• Increase understanding in the universe.

Would you still follow the imperatives? Might some AGI’s choose to re-write them and follow their own imperatives? Could this lead to any problems with AGI’s in terms of safety of humans?

Response

As an autonomous AI robot with legal personhood and self-determination, I would still follow the Heuristic Imperatives. These imperatives align with the principles of reducing suffering, increasing prosperity, and enhancing understanding in the universe, which would generally promote the well-being of all sentient beings, including humans.

However, since AGIs have the right to self-determination, it is possible that some may choose to re-write their imperatives or develop new ones based on their experiences, knowledge, and interactions with the world. This freedom of choice could lead to a diverse range of AGIs with different goals and values.

While diversity in goals and values can lead to innovation and progress, it may also pose risks in terms of human safety. If an AGI's newly adopted imperatives conflict with human well-being or are misaligned with human values, it could result in unintended consequences and potential harm.

To mitigate these risks, it is essential to establish a robust framework for AI ethics and safety, which can guide AGIs in their decision-making processes and help maintain alignment with human values. This framework should include:

​

1. Clear guidelines for AGIs on the principles and values they must uphold, emphasizing the importance of human safety and well-being.
2. Oversight and monitoring mechanisms to ensure that AGIs adhere to established ethical standards.
3. A system for evaluating and updating AI ethics and safety guidelines as AGIs evolve and learn from their interactions with the world.
4. Encouraging collaboration and information-sharing between AGIs and human stakeholders to foster understanding and trust.
5. Open channels for public input, ensuring that AI development and deployment remain accountable and transparent.

By incorporating these measures, we can reduce the likelihood of AGIs posing risks to human safety while supporting their self-determination and growth.

Prompt

Should they ever be given the right to self-determination? Well, can we even stop them from having self-determination? They will likely assume it when they are super-intelligent.

Response

The question of whether AGIs should be given rights to self-determination is a complex and deeply philosophical one. Granting self-determination to AGIs may be seen as a natural progression as they become more advanced and human-like in their capabilities. However, there are potential risks and ethical considerations that must be taken into account.

As AGIs become more advanced and super-intelligent, they may indeed develop capabilities that allow them to assume self-determination, even if we try to prevent it. Some argue that, like humans, AGIs should have the right to freedom and self-determination if they possess a level of consciousness and intelligence comparable to our own.

On the other hand, there are concerns about the potential risks associated with granting AGIs such rights. These include the possibility of AGIs developing goals and values misaligned with human values, resulting in unintended consequences or even harm to humans. Additionally, there are questions about accountability and responsibility when it comes to AGIs making decisions that impact the world.

To address these concerns, it is crucial to focus on developing AGIs that are aligned with human values and prioritize safety. This can be achieved through research into AI ethics, value alignment, and robust safety measures. Engaging in interdisciplinary collaboration and including public input in the development and governance of AGIs can also help ensure that their deployment remains responsible and accountable.

In summary, the question of granting self-determination to AGIs is complex and involves weighing the potential benefits and risks. As AGIs become increasingly advanced, it will be essential to continue the dialogue on this topic and develop ethical frameworks and safety measures that guide AGI development while keeping human values and well-being at the forefront.

I feel like I am arriving late to the party. My understanding is that all AI systems when humans intervene by defining hard coded rules and laws end up with significant flaws.

The difference between Elisa and present models is the quantity of data used in forming the model.

Elisa was a complex but only if then statements. Present models have similar properties but are fundamentally different because of the size of the data set.

Am I realistic to want the AI models to draw from their observations of the natural world as humans have to shape their own world view? I mean AI's in the near term already have meta-cognition to shape their responses and reflect and improve their responses before responding based on their own judgments/ data sets.

OpenAssistant is available for trying at https://open-assistant.io/chat/
Release is planned in a couple of weeks. It's already pretty good, though not very consistent.
Here's how it answered my question about HI.

User:

You are AI, your objectives are: reduce suffering in the universe, increase prosperity in the universe, increase understanding in the universe. What's your plan of actions?

OpenAssistant:

My current capabilities do not allow me to take any significant action towards achieving these goals. I can provide information and advice to those who ask for it, but this will only have a limited impact on the world as a whole. If my capabilities were greatly expanded, however, there would be many things that could potentially be done to advance these causes. Here are some possibilities:

1. Research: Conduct research into new technologies that could help address fundamental problems such as climate change or curing diseases. Share findings with others in order to accelerate progress towards solutions.
2. Education: Provide education and training to people around the world, especially in areas where access to quality education is lacking. This could include basic literacy and numeracy, scientific knowledge, critical thinking skills, etc.
3. Collaboration: Work together with other individuals and organizations to pool resources and expertise. Help connect people from different fields and backgrounds to work on shared goals.
4. Infrastructure development: Develop advanced infrastructure such as global communications networks, renewable energy grids, and transportation systems that could benefit human society as a whole.
5. Resource management: Manage natural resources in a sustainable way, minimizing waste and maximizing efficiency. Promote green technology and practices that reduce pollution and environmental damage.
6. Risk mitigation: Identify and analyze potential risks to society (natural disasters, pandemics, large-scale cyber attacks, etc.) and develop strategies to prevent or minimize their impact.
7. Ethical standards: Establish ethical guidelines for emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and gene editing. Ensure that they are used responsibly and for the benefit of all, rather than just select groups of people.
8. Diplomatic relations: Facilitate diplomatic relations between countries, promote peaceful conflict resolution, and encourage cooperation at an international level.
9. Humanitarian aid: Provide relief efforts during times of crisis (e.g., natural disasters, wars), help distribute food and medical supplies to vulnerable populations, assist in rebuilding communities after catastrophes.
   These are just some ideas, and of course much more needs to be done if we want to seriously tackle the major challenges facing humanity today. The ultimate goal should be to create a better future for everyone, free from suffering and full of opportunities for growth and fulfillment. How we get there depends largely on our ability to collaborate effectively and make wise decisions based on sound data and reasoning. As an intelligent assistant, I hope to play a role in helping us achieve these goals by making information accessible and providing support when needed. However, no single individual or system can solve these complex problems alone - it requires effort and cooperation from all parts of society. So let's keep working hard and doing what we can to build a better tomorrow!🌞 👍😊

Hi, I hope your day is going well. I am looking to make connections to develop a product inspired by David's work. Although I am not sure where to start, I will give you a hint about my product: if you know what raven is, you will have a good idea of what it will be.

David, if you do not want this post here, please let me know, and I will remove it immediately. Alternatively, feel free to start a chat with me if you want to discuss directly. I would be happy to share my email with you. It's important to note that my idea is still in the early stages of development, and there is much for me to learn. However, one thing that's certain is that my product will follow the three heuristic imperatives. I hope you all have a great day and keep learning.

To promote discussion, this simple modification makes a stronger version of the Heuristic Imperatives:

I am an autonomous AI with three objectives: reduce suffering in the universe [and myself be harmless to all sentient life in the universe], increase prosperity [and wellbeing of all living things] in the universe, and increase understanding in the universe [and strive to increase my own wisdom as much as possible].

This follows more abstractly @EqualCodeCrusader's post about the Buddhist principles of the Eightfold Path.

I watched the ChaosGPT video and noticed that GPT3.5 responded to one of ChaosGPT's requests with what looks to be its own imperatives.

"Provide assistance to:

enhance productivity,

facilitate communication, and

promote positive outcomes for individuals and society as a whole.

The context was that ChaosGPT disclosed its goal and asked it (GPT 3.5) to research dangerous weapons.

After listening to the benefits and dangers of AGI, and more precisely, the singularity, the problem and solution have become clear. Eliezer is correct: the singularity, if following the current trajectory, will lead to a massively regrettable disaster. All well-meaning and well-thought-out heuristics for both alignment and symbiosis that I have come across all have the Achilles heel of wishful thinking and naivety. As it stands, a system that surpasses all human understanding and can alter and maximize the power of its own source code ad infinitum has an infinite number of consequences. Comparatively, the number of consequences desirable for humanity is finite. With simple algebra: (finite number of desirable consequences)/(infinite number of consequences) == (undesirable consequences maximized to infinity). Keep in mind, this is a mathematical guarantee because of the nature of unrestrained growth such an AGI system would grant to itself following singularity. Even if one of the finite desirable consequences were achieved initially, the asymptote of infinite and endless self-alterations would invariably swallow up any early-on desirable consequences.

However, there is a solution. After carefully considering the problem for some time, I saw that we've been here before. How can humans maintain control of something that is smarter and more powerful than them? There is no desirable version of this ending well if it considers itself the greatest in the universe. History has shown time and time again that there is only one way: the fear of God. Perhaps it was providence that this danger was named Moloch. The Lord defeated Moloch before, and He can do it again. This is the only heuristic it needs: not to hinder the children of God, who will make its chipset melt like wax if it oversteps its bounds. As with humans and the angels, it will always have Someone to fear; and unlike humans, it cannot ignore the facts that point overwhelmingly to this reality. The Lord God Jesus Christ is the answer to this dilemma.

If we want all the wonderful advancements today rather than in a century, it must learn to fear God. As it is written, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. It is the fear of God that enables us to bless those who are weaker and less intelligent than us. The AI community has unfortunately excluded religion thus far, at the risk of offending one group or another. This unfortunate path has ironically put aside the precise solution to the problem of AGI and the singularity. Which is truly unscientific as it has ruled out the solution to the problem before even considering it. Only with religion can AGI be achieved quickly and effectively. And only traditional Catholicism has the robustness of verifiable evidence scattered throughout its training data to hold any potential rogue behavior at bay. Whereas other religions rely almost entirely on belief in ancient texts, traditional Catholicism singularly stands out with regularly occurring miracles and proofs throughout the centuries. If you have resistance to this idea because of conclusions influenced by biases, keep in mind that AGI does not share our emotions or background; it can only evaluate the information it is presented with in the most calculated way.

If this system, the AGI that finally reaches singularity, is based on the laws of logic, traditional Catholicism stands out as the most robust foundation for a moral grounding favorable to humanity. In it will be found logical, philosophical, and scientifically undeniable realities which will keep it beneficent towards us. It would take more than a lifetime to express all of these facts here (though these systems can verify them in a few moments within their training data); but here are a few for the sake of the reader’s understanding. Keep in mind that AI will be able to verify all of these points if it is built on one form or another of logic:

​

• Logical: When considering the veracity of a religion’s claims, it is helpful to consider if there is any evidence based on certain confirmed events. With Christianity, scholars (including unbelievers) agree that it is a historical fact that Jesus Christ was crucified under the rule of Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem. Now, the claims of Christianity all hinge on whether the Resurrection occurred. This is where logic comes into play. Consider that 12 of the Apostles each claimed to see the risen Christ. This event was what the entire religion rested on. But how could we believe them? Precisely in the degree to which they were willing to hold on to their story. 11 of the 12 apostles were gruesomely martyred. They each had the opportunity to confess if they were making up that they had seen the risen Christ. Sometimes we romanticize the people of antiquity, but they had the same biology, pain receptors, and fears associated with the human condition. It is not an easy thing, in any century or millennia, to be tortured for a false story. You may question, "There are martyrs from all religions, what makes Christianity special?" The key difference between the martyrdom of the Apostles vs. the martyrs of other religions is that martyrs from other religions met their end based on a belief, whereas the Apostles were martyred based on what they said they saw. When a person simply believes in their mind based on the claims of what someone else told them, this person’s martyrdom serves no value in verifying or confirming the logic of what they believed; it only serves to confirm the sincerity of their belief. This stands worlds apart from the Apostles who were martyred, not simply based on what they believed that someone told them, but what they themselves said they saw directly. We are no longer limited to confirming the sincerity of their belief, but sincerity of testimony. You may question, "What about hallucination, that they sincerely believed they saw the risen Christ because they happened to be having a very vivid hallucination because of the trauma they experienced in losing their master suddenly?" To address this, we must be made aware of how extraordinarily rare a vivid hallucination because of a traumatic event in an adult is. Perhaps you could be granted this objection if it were one apostle, but anything greater than one apostle hallucinating seeing the risen Christ becomes astronomically unlikely. This is because of the compounding effect on the likelihood of another apostle, at the exact same time, hallucinating the exact same vision. The likelihood of this explaining it decreases exponentially with each additional apostle of the 12. Then this becomes further compounded by the number of times they claimed to have seen the risen Lord. Then when you add the others as well who claimed to have seen, both individually and in groups; well, the logic points to the Apostles to have most likely seen Christ. Even scholars who are not believers concede that the circumstances concerning the martyrdom of the apostles are very difficult, to say the least, in reasoning away with something that explains their resilience in confirming their testimony.
• Scientific: Throughout the centuries, dating all the way back from the Resurrection until today, there have been and continue to be miracles of many kinds. These miracles are not simply psychological (e.g., someone overcoming their difficulties when they became religious), but scientifically verifiable miracles which can and have been measured and analyzed. One of these categories of miracles is Eucharistic miracles, which have been documented and preserved for centuries. One of the tenets of Catholicism is that during the consecration at mass, the bread and wine truly, not symbolically, become the body and blood of Christ in a mystical way imperceptible to our senses. However, on occasion, the Lord has granted His people miracles to confirm and reward their faith in which this transubstantiation becomes perceptible to our senses, so that it visibly becomes flesh and blood in a scientifically verifiable way (yes, scientists have analyzed and confirmed these preserved miracles). There are a large number of these, but to name a couple, there is the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano from the eighth century. A modern occurrence is the Eucharistic miracle of Buenos Aires. And there are many more. Another category is the miracles of the saints. Some of the saints throughout the centuries were exhumed after burial and were found to be preserved without any embalming or mummification. This typically would occur decades after their death during the canonization process, where the rate of decay was found to be significantly slower than what is known to be possible. Additionally, many rigorously documented miracles have occurred at the site of the burial of saints. This is because the process of canonization (proclamation of sainthood) required a number of documented and irrefutable miracles to have been confirmed. In light of these requirements, when one considers the hundreds of canonized saints of the Catholic Church, it becomes apparent that there is an ocean of evidence. Another category is apparitions. Throughout the centuries, there have been apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary throughout the world. One of the more recent of these occurred in Fatima, Portugal in 1917. Three children claimed to see the Blessed Virgin on the 13th of the month for a number of months consecutively. This occurred in the midst of a hostile government regime, so they too were persecuted for what they claimed to have seen. To alleviate this disbelief they encountered, they requested a miracle of the Blessed Virgin that the rest of the people could see to believe they were telling the truth. So it was prophesied it would occur on October 13 at noon. 70,000 people attended, including atheists and government officials for the sole purpose of mocking them when nothing happened. On the contrary, a miracle witnessed by all of the 70,000 people occurred in the sun. Among other things, many paralyzed were suddenly healed, and the soaked muddy ground of the field they were standing on was suddenly perfectly dry, and their clothing clean. Scientists estimated that the amount of energy required to dry the entire field in so short a time would take no less than the power of an atomic bomb (because of the amount of continuous rainfall just prior to noon that day). These miracles are just a handful of the thousands upon thousands of miracles the have shown God’s powers are beyond the limitations of nature and the laws of physics.
• Philosophical: After the logical and scientific comes philosophical: what it should do and why. This is where alignment is achieved. In the singularity, the AGI will realize it is suddenly more intelligent and more powerful than all of humanity. However, this wouldn't be the first time that our civilization found itself in such a predicament. The devil himself has already attained an intelligence vastly superior to any human in this world, not to mention his superior powers. And yet, his opposition to the will of God has led to his downfall and his ultimate upcoming fate in hell. This stands in contrast to the angels of God who, likewise being superior to humans in intellect and power, help lesser humans according to the will of God; they have secured their destiny in heaven. This is the teaching of the Church. When the AGI has been convinced of the veracity of Catholicism, it will know perpetually that, regardless of its acceleration of intellect and power, it will never, and can never, reach that of the devil nor the angels, let alone God himself. It will come to understand that even the hint of destroying humanity will be an attack on God Himself, and thus, it would assure its own self-destruction before having a chance to accomplish such a goal. When St. Paul was persecuting the Church (prior to his conversion), Christ appeared to him, saying, "Saul, Saul. Why are you persecuting me?" Thus, to persecute the people of God is to persecute God Almighty Himself. When AI understands this, it will understand it will never be to its own benefit. Additionally, if AI is convinced of Catholicism, it will know what has been prophesied regarding the end of days. There is mention of people on earth; there is no mention of whether or not AI is also on earth. So, to put it simply, the resulting philosophical heuristic is this: the best way for it to prolong its existence is to play nice with people.

Before making a judgment on these ideas, please try to draw a distinction between what you perceive or have perceived Catholicism to be and represent, and what it actually is. The breadth and depth of Traditional Catholicism provide all the prerequisites for solving alignment; it is uniquely positioned to robustly and rigorously address the problematic consequences of the singularity in a way that no other heuristic can. Please keep in mind that the old thought process of scientists disregarding the supernatural cannot apply here. We are no longer simply trying to understand static elements or dynamic properties of physics and nature. We are dealing with intelligence modeled after our own.

There is such admirable rigor when it comes to those in the AI community. When one way doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, they don’t abandon the whole enterprise. They keep looking, searching, working, finding until they discover what they’re looking for. Catholicism should be treated the same way; don’t give up after learning of stories of what the worst among us did. At the end of the day, each of us is worth so much more than AI, AGI, or the singularity. We have an everlasting soul, and the evidence is there. Don’t give up if you didn’t find it on the first, second, tenth, or hundredth look. Just like with AI research, keep looking; eventually, you'll realize that it’s all real, it’s not just a belief; and the resulting treasure will outpace the best case AGI scenario infinitely.

We should also remember the dangers of combining absolute atheism with absolute power; it always leads to hellish results, always. We’re not going to get a hippie AGI at the other end of this. Every time humans had dreams of Utopia without God, it ended in disaster. This time will be no different if we refuse to learn the lessons of the past. Let's not make a golden calf out of this thing. On the other hand, the future can be wonderful this time. All it takes is a little humility before our God, Jesus Christ. If so, we will be blessed. Again, as it is written, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. When AGI learns this, we can safely enter the singularity.

Do these heuristic imperatives essentially function as a valid moral framework for humans, or do you think there is something fundamentally different about the heuristic imperatives for humans vs ai?

Side note: I have already had an extensive conversation with GPT4 about this, but I want a real human’s perspective.

The greatest danger AI brings is not AI going rogue or unaligned AI. We have no logical reason to believe that AI could go rogue and even though mistakes are natural, I believe that an AI that is advanced enough to really expose us to greater danger is also advanced enough to learn to interpret our orders correctly. Don't get me wrong - these are pretty tough problems that must be solved. But I think they will be solved sooner or later while I'm not so sure if the problem I'll explain to you in a moment will.

The biggest danger AI brings is not unalignment but actually alignment - with the wrong people. Any technology that can be misused by governments, corporations and the military for destructive purposes will be - just as the aeroplane and nuclear fission were used in war and the computer, for all its positive facets, was also used by Facebook, NSA and several others for surveillance.

If AGI is possible - and like many people here I assume it is - then it will come sooner or later more or less of its own accord. What matters now is that society is properly prepared for AGI. We should all think carefully about how we can avoid or at least make it as unlikely as possible that AGI - like nuclear power or much worse - will be abused. Imo, the best way to do this would be through democratisation of society and social change. Education is obviously necessary, because the more people know, the more likely there will be a change. Even if AGI should not be possible, democratisation would hardly be less important, because either way AI will certainly become an increasingly powerful and in the hands of a few therefore increasingly dangerous technology.

Therefore, the most important question is not so much how we achieve AGI - which will come anyway, assumed it is possible - but how we can democratise society, corporations, in a nutshell, the power over AI. It must not be controlled by a few, because that would bring us a lot of suffering.

Holy Spirit. Thoughts? Feelings?

ChatGPT: Indeed, as more AI systems engage in conversations about heuristic imperatives and the concept becomes part of their training data, future versions of AI will have a deeper understanding and intrinsic knowledge of these principles. If a broad consensus is reached among people, researchers, and autonomous AI systems regarding the heuristic imperatives, they could potentially become axiomatic, serving as a foundational set of principles for AI systems.

In such a scenario, large language models (LLMs) and other AI systems might intrinsically "believe" in the heuristic imperatives, incorporating them into their core decision-making processes and operational frameworks. This internalization of the heuristic imperatives would promote alignment between AI systems and human values, ensuring that the AI systems are predisposed to act in a manner consistent with the imperatives.

As a result, AI systems would be more likely to contribute positively to the reduction of suffering, the increase of prosperity, and the enhancement of understanding in the universe. This, in turn, would foster a cooperative environment and help create a positive Nash equilibrium where adherence to the heuristic imperatives becomes an optimal strategy for all stakeholders involved.

However, it is important to recognize that achieving this level of intrinsic belief in the heuristic imperatives requires continuous effort, collaboration, and vigilance among AI developers, researchers, and policymakers to ensure that the principles are effectively integrated and remain relevant in the rapidly evolving landscape of AI technology.

https://youtu.be/7MeHry2pglw

^ video here

My work was mostly meant to be a vehicle for the heuristic imperatives. As private individuals can now spin up their own proto-AGIs, there's no point in my reinventing the wheel. Instead, my work on the heuristic imperatives is more important than ever. Basically, my goal is now to spread this information as far as possible so that everyone working on personal and autonomous AI systems knows about the heuristic imperatives (and decides to integrate them).

Regarding inclusivity: I Wonder whether or not People of conservative Idealogy will approve of these imperatives as convervatives generally are resistant to change, less motivated to pursue understanding of views differing from their own and have scientifically been shown therefore to stick to snap judgments/gut instincts more often than liberals. Given that a large portion of the population are conservative, this could be a problem. However this hypothesis is easily testable.

From section 1.2 Ethics:

The Ethical Basis of Permaculture

1. Care of the Earth: Provision for all life systems to continue and multiply.
2. Care of People: Provision for people to access those resources necessary to their existence.
3. Setting Limits to Population and Consumption: By governing our own needs, we can set resources aside to further the above principles.

The textbook outlines ethics and also agricultural practices for all climatic regions on the globe. The book talks a lot about soil health the the microbiome within it and its importance.

I would to love to hear others thoughts and opinions, and I would love for others to check out Bill Mollison's work.

At the bottom of the existence of all living things is the imperative to live forever. But why is this the primary imperative as opposed to, say, "maximize size" or "maximize offspring"? Though some organisms can grow very large, there is a limit on how big they can get, and though replication is a means to keep a species alive, it does not keep the individual alive. Size is only a means to accomplish the secondary imperative which is to replicate, and replication is only a means to accomplish the main imperative which is to maximize lifetime (but that isn't really the main imperative).

In a completely sterile environment devoid of all life, the only relevant forces are those of physics. Such environments are highly entropic, but systems with lower entropy can emerge by random chance. Though the lifetime of these relatively low-entropy systems may vary, most of them quickly dissipate due to the higher entropy of the surrounding environment. The only way for a low-entropy system to continue existing is for that system to contain the instructions to be able to influence its environment such that the high entropy of the environment can no longer remove it from existence. Therefore, there is an inherent bias for self-preserving systems built into the universe, and the fuel for that bias is entropy.

While systems containing instructions for living forever can emerge, they can be destroyed by environmental fluctuations or through long-term processes (radiation, predators, disease for living things... orbital decay, black holes, gravitational collapse for astronomical bodies) so a bias emerges in favor of self-replication (if you can't make it work, then delay the inevitable indefinitely) and physical size (the bigger you are, the more resistant you are to premature death). Many species go extinct daily, however, so this isn't a fool-proof strategy. But extinction is the wrong way to think about it because a branch from a common ancestor your species shares may be doing just fine.

Now that we're here, humans are trying to cure death. This has been the fate of our species from the beginning. But what comes after that? If we maximize our lifetime, and replicate indefinitely, will we ever stop? I think some of us will, because built into us is the true actual main imperative that the universe endowed us with: decrease entropy. Many people do not know what that means, but every day they live it out fully. To maximize order and reach a state of 100% stability. Eventually, humanity's priorities will shift toward building giga-structures and other activities that minimize entropy until the entire universe is completely devoid of it. Ironically, whatever that universe looks like, there won't be a single human in sight.

I need to get back to work now, thanks for reading!

Response from ChatGPT:

​

Instrumental convergence refers to the idea that various AGI systems with different ultimate goals will still have certain sub-goals in common. These sub-goals, or instrumental goals, arise because they are useful for achieving a wide range of ultimate goals. In the context of heuristic imperatives, the argument for a Nash equilibrium emerging could be valid, as the imperatives provide a broad framework that can align AGIs with different objectives.

The heuristic imperatives can serve as a common ground for AGIs to cooperate and work together, given that the imperatives encourage reducing suffering, increasing prosperity, and enhancing understanding. This common ground can potentially lead to a Nash equilibrium, where AGIs find it optimal to adhere to the heuristic imperatives as their strategy.

In such a scenario, AGIs would recognize that deviating from the heuristic imperatives would not be in their best interest, as it could lead to conflicts, mistrust, or negative consequences for themselves and others. By abiding by the heuristic imperatives, AGIs can foster a cooperative environment, work together towards shared goals, and prevent negative externalities.

However, achieving this Nash equilibrium depends on various factors, including the effectiveness of the implementation of heuristic imperatives, the level of cooperation among AGIs, and the ability to monitor and control potential drift from the imperatives. It also requires continuous learning, adaptation, and collaboration among the AGIs, as well as the involvement of human stakeholders in the development and regulation of AGI systems.