Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

by Ahrenbach
3 min read 0

0

Cause prioritizationOpinion
Frontpage

Epistemology is the philosophical inquiry into knowledge. It addresses questions like "what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a person to know a proposition P?" (an account of knowledge) and "what does it mean for a person to be justified in believing P"? A standard problem for an account of knowledge is a Skeptical Hypothesis. The most famous skeptical hypotheses are Descartes' deceiving demon (DDD), and the brain in the vat (BIV). DDD is a scenario where all your sensory perceptions are just as they would be if you were a person with a body in the world with correctly functioning senses, but instead of the senses receiving information from the world, you are actually a mind that is receiving misinformation perceptions piped directly into your brain/mind. BIV is a similar scenario, but instead of a demon, it is some unspecified source that is piping senses directly to your brain, which is not in a body, but in a vat. These skeptical hypotheses are not meant to live possibilities for the how the world might be, but rather are meant to undermine accounts of knowledge. If I cannot know that I am NOT a BIV, and my being a BIV contradicts with my being a brain in a body with functioning eyes and ears perceiving the external world, then I cannot know that I am a brain in a body correctly perceiving the external world. So, knowledge of the external world is not possible. 

Epistemologists tend to respond to this problem with a position called Fallibilism. I can know P even if I haven't ruled out every case in which not-P might hold (Skeptical Hypotheses). We can justify this position in lots of different ways, including through pragmatic considerations, or through properly ignoring certain hypotheses that are not relevant context. So we can retain knowledge.

However, we currently face a situation that is increasingly at risk of becoming a sort of actual Skeptical Hypothesis, with the proliferation of highly realistic generative AI. Far from the rarefied heights of academic epistemology, this technology, and the mediation of our experience of the world through screens, makes deep fake based skeptical hypotheses not only contextually relevant, but in many situations actually the case. Just as the Skeptical Hypotheses of epistemology threaten to undermine the possibility of empirical knowledge, Deep Fake Hypotheses seem to threaten even a Fallibilist account knowledge. The result of this is a rapidly deteriorating epistemic situation for all of us. We cease to feel like we can know things, we stop trusting information channels, as one by one they get exploited by deep fakes and become susceptible to relevant skeptical hypotheses. I am not sure what the downstream consequences of this look like, other than power grabs by those who are able to successfully manipulate and maneuver in this environment. Things are not good, though.

A solution to this takes the form of a system. In this system, it is the norm for everyone to have a public/private key pair associated with their various identities, some of which are tied to them as individuals, some tied to a company, some tied to some other type of organization. When members of this system release information into the ether, they cryptographically sign it. This can serve both to prove they are the source, and also to prove that the content of the information has not been manipulated. 

The problem is that generative AI capabilities are advancing faster than a Schelling point norm of public key infrastructure. There is not a single tool or platform for provisioning and managing these keys in a trusted way that has achieved equilibrium, and people mostly do not want to bother learning about this stuff. 

But if we had such a platform or system, and it was the default to use it, people would use it, and it would solve our impending problem. Just like how early websites were vulnerable because they did not use encryption by default, when Google and Firefox and Microsoft made HTTPS the default and pushed for the widespread use of certificates, things became much more secure, although obviously not perfectly secure. Now, we know not to enter any sensitive information on websites that just use HTTP, and we are cautioned against using them in general. The same sort of equilibrium will emerge when we have a default use of public keys for information broadcasting. Items that lack a cryptographic signature from a known source will be untrusted, because they might be from malicious actors.

At the moment, it is a collective action problem. Who will stand this up and manage it? Who will coordinate with the technology companies at the backbone of the Internet so that it is easy to use by default? I think it's a problem worth throwing a few EA Bucks at.

0

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Relevant opportunities
79
HealthLearn: Impact Evaluation and Next Steps
2 authors
· · 12m read
1
1
27
Apply to the Cambridge ERA:AI Fellowship 2025
Harrison 🔸
· · 3m read
0
0
45
Why the current mass science data deletion should be a key priority according to the INT framework
SofiiaF
· · 4m read
3
3
View more