LW - Yes, It's Subjective, But Why All The Crabs? by johnswentworth

<a href="https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qsRvpEwmgDBNwPHyP/yes-it-s-subjective-but-why-all-the-crabs">Link to original article</a><br/><br/>Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Yes, It's Subjective, But Why All The Crabs?, published by johnswentworth on July 28, 2023 on LessWrong. Crabs Nature really loves to evolve crabs. Some early biologist, equipped with knowledge of evolution but not much else, might see all these crabs and expect a common ancestral lineage. That's the obvious explanation of the similarity, after all: if the crabs descended from a common ancestor, then of course we'd expect them to be pretty similar. . but then our hypothetical biologist might start to notice surprisingly deep differences between all these crabs. The smoking gun, of course, would come with genetic sequencing: if the crabs' physiological similarity is achieved by totally different genetic means, or if functionally-irrelevant mutations differ across crab-species by more than mutational noise would induce over the hypothesized evolutionary timescale, then we'd have to conclude that the crabs had different lineages. (In fact, historically, people apparently figured out that crabs have different lineages long before sequencing came along.) Now, having accepted that the crabs have very different lineages, the differences are basically explained. If the crabs all descended from very different lineages, then of course we'd expect them to be very different. . but then our hypothetical biologist returns to the original empirical fact: all these crabs sure are very similar in form. If the crabs all descended from totally different lineages, then the convergent form is a huge empirical surprise! The differences between the crab have ceased to be an interesting puzzle - they're explained - but now the similarities are the interesting puzzle. What caused the convergence? To summarize: if we imagine that the crabs are all closely related, then any deep differences are a surprising empirical fact, and are the main remaining thing our model needs to explain. But once we accept that the crabs are not closely related, then any convergence/similarity is a surprising empirical fact, and is the main remaining thing our model needs to explain. Agents A common starting point for thinking about "What are agents?" is Dennett's intentional stance: Here is how it works: first you decide to treat the object whose behavior is to be predicted as a rational agent; then you figure out what beliefs that agent ought to have, given its place in the world and its purpose. Then you figure out what desires it ought to have, on the same considerations, and finally you predict that this rational agent will act to further its goals in the light of its beliefs. A little practical reasoning from the chosen set of beliefs and desires will in most instances yield a decision about what the agent ought to do; that is what you predict the agent will do. Daniel Dennett, The Intentional Stance, p. 17 One of the main interesting features of the intentional stance is that it hypothesizes subjective agency: I model a system as agentic, and you and I might model different systems as agentic. Compared to a starting point which treats agency as objective, the intentional stance neatly explains many empirical facts - e.g. different people model different things as agents at different times. Sometimes I model other people as planning to achieve goals in the world, sometimes I model them as following set scripts, and you and I might differ in which way we're modeling any given person at any given time. If agency is subjective, then the differences are basically explained. . but then we're faced with a surprising empirical fact: there's a remarkable degree of convergence among which things people do-or-don't model as agentic at which times. Humans yes, rocks no. Even among cases where people disagree, there are certain kinds of arguments/evidence which people generally agree update in a certain direction - e.g. ...

First published

07/28/2023

Genres:

education

Listen to this episode

0:00 / 0:00

Summary

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Yes, It's Subjective, But Why All The Crabs?, published by johnswentworth on July 28, 2023 on LessWrong. Crabs Nature really loves to evolve crabs. Some early biologist, equipped with knowledge of evolution but not much else, might see all these crabs and expect a common ancestral lineage. That's the obvious explanation of the similarity, after all: if the crabs descended from a common ancestor, then of course we'd expect them to be pretty similar. . but then our hypothetical biologist might start to notice surprisingly deep differences between all these crabs. The smoking gun, of course, would come with genetic sequencing: if the crabs' physiological similarity is achieved by totally different genetic means, or if functionally-irrelevant mutations differ across crab-species by more than mutational noise would induce over the hypothesized evolutionary timescale, then we'd have to conclude that the crabs had different lineages. (In fact, historically, people apparently figured out that crabs have different lineages long before sequencing came along.) Now, having accepted that the crabs have very different lineages, the differences are basically explained. If the crabs all descended from very different lineages, then of course we'd expect them to be very different. . but then our hypothetical biologist returns to the original empirical fact: all these crabs sure are very similar in form. If the crabs all descended from totally different lineages, then the convergent form is a huge empirical surprise! The differences between the crab have ceased to be an interesting puzzle - they're explained - but now the similarities are the interesting puzzle. What caused the convergence? To summarize: if we imagine that the crabs are all closely related, then any deep differences are a surprising empirical fact, and are the main remaining thing our model needs to explain. But once we accept that the crabs are not closely related, then any convergence/similarity is a surprising empirical fact, and is the main remaining thing our model needs to explain. Agents A common starting point for thinking about "What are agents?" is Dennett's intentional stance: Here is how it works: first you decide to treat the object whose behavior is to be predicted as a rational agent; then you figure out what beliefs that agent ought to have, given its place in the world and its purpose. Then you figure out what desires it ought to have, on the same considerations, and finally you predict that this rational agent will act to further its goals in the light of its beliefs. A little practical reasoning from the chosen set of beliefs and desires will in most instances yield a decision about what the agent ought to do; that is what you predict the agent will do. Daniel Dennett, The Intentional Stance, p. 17 One of the main interesting features of the intentional stance is that it hypothesizes subjective agency: I model a system as agentic, and you and I might model different systems as agentic. Compared to a starting point which treats agency as objective, the intentional stance neatly explains many empirical facts - e.g. different people model different things as agents at different times. Sometimes I model other people as planning to achieve goals in the world, sometimes I model them as following set scripts, and you and I might differ in which way we're modeling any given person at any given time. If agency is subjective, then the differences are basically explained. . but then we're faced with a surprising empirical fact: there's a remarkable degree of convergence among which things people do-or-don't model as agentic at which times. Humans yes, rocks no. Even among cases where people disagree, there are certain kinds of arguments/evidence which people generally agree update in a certain direction - e.g. ...

Duration

10 minutes

Parent Podcast

The Nonlinear Library: LessWrong Weekly

View Podcast

Share this episode

Similar Episodes

Announcing AlignmentForum.org Beta by Raymond Arnold.

Release Date: 12/03/2021

Description: Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Announcing AlignmentForum.org Beta, published by Raymond Arnold on the AI Alignment Forum. We've just launched the beta for AlignmentForum.org. Much of the value of LessWrong has come from the development of technical research on AI Alignment. In particular, having those discussions be in an accessible place has allowed newcomers to get up to speed and involved. But the alignment research community has at least some needs that are best met with a semi-private forum. For the past few years, agentfoundations.org has served as a space for highly technical discussion of AI safety. But some aspects of the site design have made it a bit difficult to maintain, and harder to onboard new researchers. Meanwhile, as the AI landscape has shifted, it seemed valuable to expand the scope of the site. Agent Foundations is one particular paradigm with respect to AGI alignment, and it seemed important for researchers in other paradigms to be in communication with each other. So for several months, the LessWrong and AgentFoundations teams have been discussing the possibility of using the LW codebase as the basis for a new alignment forum. Over the past couple weeks we've gotten ready for a closed beta test, both to iron out bugs and (more importantly) get feedback from researchers on whether the overall approach makes sense. The current features of the Alignment Forum (subject to change) are: A small number of admins can invite new members, granting them posting and commenting permissions. This will be the case during the beta - the exact mechanism of curation after launch is still under discussion. When a researcher posts on AlignmentForum, the post is shared with LessWrong. On LessWrong, anyone can comment. On AlignmentForum, only AF members can comment. (AF comments are also crossposted to LW). The intent is for AF members to have a focused, technical discussion, while still allowing newcomers to LessWrong to see and discuss what's going on. AlignmentForum posts and comments on LW will be marked as such. AF members will have a separate karma total for AlignmentForum (so AF karma will more closely represent what technical researchers think about a given topic). On AlignmentForum, only AF Karma is visible. (note: not currently implemented but will be by end of day) On LessWrong, AF Karma will be displayed (smaller) alongside regular karma. If a commenter on LessWrong is making particularly good contributions to an AF discussion, an AF Admin can tag the comment as an AF comment, which will be visible on the AlignmentForum. The LessWrong user will then have voting privileges (but not necessarily posting privileges), allowing them to start to accrue AF karma, and to vote on AF comments and threads. We’ve currently copied over some LessWrong posts that seemed like a good fit, and invited a few people to write posts today. (These don’t necessarily represent the longterm vision of the site, but seemed like a good way to begin the beta test) This is a fairly major experiment, and we’re interested in feedback both from AI alignment researchers (who we’ll be reaching out to more individually in the next two weeks) and LessWrong users, about the overall approach and the integration with LessWrong. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Explicit: No

Details

AMA on EA Forum: Ajeya Cotra, researcher at Open Phil by Ajeya Cotra

Release Date: 11/17/2021

Description: Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: AMA on EA Forum: Ajeya Cotra, researcher at Open Phil, published by Ajeya Cotra on the AI Alignment Forum. This is a linkpost for Hi all, I'm Ajeya, and I'll be doing an AMA on the EA Forum (this is a linkpost for my announcement there). I would love to get questions from LessWrong and Alignment Forum users as well -- please head on over if you have any questions for me! I’ll plan to start answering questions Monday Feb 1 at 10 AM Pacific. I will be blocking off much of Monday and Tuesday for question-answering, and may continue to answer a few more questions through the week if there are ones left, though I might not get to everything. About me: I’m a Senior Research Analyst at Open Philanthropy, where I focus on cause prioritization and AI. 80,000 Hours released a podcast episode with me last week discussing some of my work, and last September I put out a draft report on AI timelines which is discussed in the podcast. Currently, I’m trying to think about AI threat models and how much x-risk reduction we could expect the “last long-termist dollar” to buy. I joined Open Phil in the summer of 2016, and before that I was a student at UC Berkeley, where I studied computer science, co-ran the Effective Altruists of Berkeley student group, and taught a student-run course on EA. I’m most excited about answering questions related to AI timelines, AI risk more broadly, and cause prioritization, but feel free to ask me anything! Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Explicit: No

Details

AMA: Paul Christiano, alignment researcher by Paul Christiano

Release Date: 12/06/2021

Description: Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: AMA: Paul Christiano, alignment researcher, published by Paul Christiano on the AI Alignment Forum. I'll be running an Ask Me Anything on this post from Friday (April 30) to Saturday (May 1). If you want to ask something just post a top-level comment; I'll spend at least a day answering questions. You can find some background about me here. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Explicit: No

Details

AI alignment landscape by Paul Christiano

Release Date: 11/19/2021

Description: Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: AI alignment landscape, published byPaul Christiano on the AI Alignment Forum. Here (link) is a talk I gave at EA Global 2019, where I describe how intent alignment fits into the broader landscape of “making AI go well,” and how my work fits into intent alignment. This is particularly helpful if you want to understand what I’m doing, but may also be useful more broadly. I often find myself wishing people were clearer about some of these distinctions. Here is the main overview slide from the talk: The highlighted boxes are where I spend most of my time. Here are the full slides from the talk. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Explicit: No

Details