>>16444971 (PB)

flts both landed okay

(Eliezer just might be right about AGI)

"Here, from my (Eliezer Yudkowsky) perspective, are some different true things that could be said, to contradict various false things that various different people seem to believe, about why AGI would be survivable on anything remotely remotely resembling the current pathway, or any other pathway we can easily jump to.

Section A:

This is a very lethal problem, it has to be solved one way or another, it has to be solved at a minimum strength and difficulty level instead of various easier modes that some dream about, we do not have any visible option of ‘everyone’ retreating to only solve safe weak problems instead, and failing on the first really dangerous try is fatal.

1. Alpha Zero blew past all accumulated human knowledge about Go after a day or so of self-play, with no reliance on human playbooks or sample games. Anyone relying on “well, it’ll get up to human capability at Go, but then have a hard time getting past that because it won’t be able to learn from humans any more” would have relied on vacuum. AGI will not be upper-bounded by human ability or human learning speed. Things much smarter than human would be able to learn from less evidence than humans require to have ideas driven into their brains; there are theoretical upper bounds here, but those upper bounds seem very high. (Eg, each bit of information that couldn’t already be fully predicted can eliminate at most half the probability mass of all hypotheses under consideration.) It is not naturally (by default, barring intervention) the case that everything takes place on a timescale that makes it easy for us to react.

2. A cognitive system with sufficiently high cognitive powers, given any medium-bandwidth channel of causal influence, will not find it difficult to bootstrap to overpowering capabilities independent of human infrastructure. The concrete example I usually use here is nanotech, because there’s been pretty detailed analysis of what definitely look like physically attainable lower bounds on what should be possible with nanotech, and those lower bounds are sufficient to carry the point. My lower-bound model of “how a sufficiently powerful intelligence would kill everyone, if it didn’t want to not do that” is that it gets access to the Internet, emails some DNA sequences to any of the many many online firms that will take a DNA sequence in the email and ship you back proteins, and bribes/persuades some human who has no idea they’re dealing with an AGI to mix proteins in a beaker, which then form a first-stage nanofactory which can build the actual nanomachinery. (Back when I was first deploying this visualization, the wise-sounding critics said “Ah, but how do you know even a superintelligence could solve the protein folding problem, if it didn’t already have planet-sized supercomputers?” but one hears less of this after the advent of AlphaFold 2, for some odd reason.) The nanomachinery builds diamondoid bacteria, that replicate with solar power and atmospheric CHON, maybe aggregate into some miniature rockets or jets so they can ride the jetstream to spread across the Earth’s atmosphere, get into human bloodstreams and hide, strike on a timer. Losing a conflict with a high-powered cognitive system looks at least as deadly as “everybody on the face of the Earth suddenly falls over dead within the same second”. (I am using awkward constructions like ‘high cognitive power’ because standard English terms like ‘smart’ or ‘intelligent’ appear to me to function largely as status synonyms. ‘Superintelligence’ sounds to most people like ‘something above the top of the status hierarchy that went to double college’, and they don’t understand why that would be all that dangerous? Earthlings have no word and indeed no standard native concept that means ‘actually useful cognitive power’. A large amount of failure to panic sufficiently, seems to me to stem from a lack of appreciation for the incredible potential lethality of this thing that Earthlings as a culture have not named.)

https://intelligence.org/2022/06/10/agi-ruin/

"Psychological Operations" "Non linear war" "Information War" "Unrestricted War"

Psychological operations are by far the most potent weapons in warfare, and psycho-social effects of these weapon may develop slowly, certainly over decades oor even longer.

Often a change is so gradual as to be almost imperceptible, and when we do notice we take it to be natural. The change is always negative, always portrayed as beneficial, a social step forward. One example.

Porno was and is a high priority mob/CIA social subversion project.

In the 1950s the US Post office employed hundreds of agents to police the mails. Pornography was seized regularly.

Freedom of speech arguments prevailed in our courts and allowed the cult/mob to take us from no-sexual- material-goes-through -the-US mail in the 1950s to Deep Throat opens in regular theaters and drive-ins in 1972.

Masturbation was declared by 'experts' to be harmless and pornography was said to be wholesome and natural sexual expression of delight in the beauty of the opposite sex and to offer a safe outlet to perverts who might otherwise rape children.

Porn was marketed and promoted professionally. When Meyer said "We're bigger than US Steel," in the 1950s he was being modest. That the former mob business "went legit" is another way of saying our entire culture adopted a ruthless efficient and extractive economy that has no concern for destructive effects on the host population.

US porn was a NY based, Gambino family business, run by Robert DiBernadino partnered with the Cleveland porno distributor and dildo manufacturer Reuben Sturman. The two men controlled almost all the print and film/video porno produced and distributed in the US and worldwide � with exception of honeypots like Playboy magazine which was C_A controlled from Langley. The idea that the 50s were staid and uptight is myth. This was a planned psychological attack, it created a hyper sexualized culture where media is perfused with overt and subliminal imagery and people count orgasms and leave the driving to the Uber.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/03/10/empire-of-the-obscene

Pop culture is an entirely artificial medium. It was and is engineered to control purchasing habits, regulate our mental capacity, our morality and guide our choices for the future by controlling the range of possibilities we are aware of.

Information Operations or "psyops" use our powerful innate drives or instincts against us.

Our reproductive drive is among our most powerful. When we are sexually aroused we do not think clearly and are more vulnerable to hypnotic induction techniques which alter our belief systems, slowly, over time, in ways we are not consciously aware of. The population is kept in a perpetual state of low key sexual arousal. Promiscuity is promoted etc.

Pornography, promoted as naturally healthy, harmless and a safe outlet for sexuality, is not. It is part of the comprehensive social subversion and social control operation intended to weaken and distract our attention from the looting of the US treasury, the infiltration of financial, judicial, legislative, and regulatory systems.

The pedovore cult controls all media content and distribution infrastructure, including porno.

Our civilization rests on the integrity of an information distribution system controlled by entirely corrupt individuals, uniformly devoted to the enslavement and/or destruction of human beings.

Some may recall that Gambino wiseguy Robert (DiB) DiBernardo the Gambino family's czar of pornography, including, disturbingly, child pornography who was made to disappear on Gambino boss John Gotti’s orders, played a role in the 1984 presidential election.

Porn is good for you

https://www.dailydot.com/nsfw/guides/porn-benefits/

https://www.joe.ie/fitness-health/porn-sex-relationship-dating-601240

https://www.quora.com/Is-porn-good-for-us

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/why-porn-is-good-for-you

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/news/a20436/porn-is-actually-good-for-you/

https://www.healthline.com/health/healthy-sex/is-porn-bad

https://www.jordangrayconsulting.com/3-major-benefits-of-porn-that-no-one-talks-about/

https://www.salon.com/2017/09/02/9-surprising-reasons-why-you-should-be-watching-porn_partner/

https://metro.co.uk/2015/11/24/6-reasons-why-your-porn-habit-might-actually-be-good-for-you-5522338/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_DiBernardo

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-scarface-of-sex

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuben_Sturman