EliezerYudkowsky

2687Joined May 2015

Comments
67

I think the sort of people who look at this advice and find that it sounded plausible to them, might want to first follow the rule of only taking advice that originated in actual lawyers, because they couldn't tell which nonlawyers had done real legal research.  IDK, I don't know what it's like from the inside to read the original post and not scream.

Important notice to readers.  Please vote up even though it is not very carefully argued here, because it may be important to some readers to read it immediately.

DO NOT FOLLOW THIS POST'S ADVICE.  IT IS PROBABLY VERY BAD ADVICE FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT.  IF IT DOESN'T GET YOU IN TROUBLE IT WILL ONLY BE BECAUSE PEOPLE IGNORED YOUR LETTERS.

NEVER FOLLOW ADVICE LIKE THIS FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT LAWYERS.

ONLY DO ANYTHING REMOTELY LIKE THIS IF YOU READ A POST FROM OPEN PHILANTHROPY'S LEGAL COUNSEL TELLING YOU TO DO IT.

I see no mention in either of your forum posts of the aforesaid lawyer?

I'd agree with this statement more if it acknowledged the extent to which most human minds have the kind of propositional separation between "morality" and "optics" that obtained financially between FTX and Alameda.

Yeah, I think it's a severe problem that if you are good at decision theory you can in fact validly grab big old chunks of deontology directly out of consequentialism including lots of the cautionary parts, or to put it perhaps a bit more sharply, a coherent superintelligence with a nice utility function does not in fact need deontology; and if you tell that to a certain kind of person they will in fact decide that they'd be cooler if they were superintelligences so they must be really skillful at deriving deontology from decision theory and therefore they can discard the deontology and just do what the decision theory does.  I'm not sure how to handle this; I think that the concept of "cognitohazard" gets vastly overplayed around here, but there's still true facts that cause a certain kind of person to predictably get their brain stuck on them, and this could plausibly be one of them.  It's also too important of a fact (eg to alignment) for "keep it completely secret" to be a plausible option either.

This strikes me as a bad play of "if there was even a chance".   Is there any cognitive procedure on Earth that passes the standard of "Nobody ever might have been using this cognitive procedure at the time they made $mistake?"  That more than three human beings have ever used?  I think when we're casting this kind of shade we ought to be pretty darned sure, preferably in the form of prior documentation that we think was honest, about what thought process was going on at the time.

Maybe they weren't familiar with the overwhelming volume of previous historical incidents, hadn't had their brains process history or the news as real events rather than mythology, or were genuinely unsure about how often these sorts of things happened in real life rather than becoming available on the news.  I'm guessing #2.

The point is not "EA did as little to shape Alameda as Novik did to shape Alameda" but "here is an example of the mental motion of trying to grab too much responsibility for yourself".

I was not being serious there.  It was meant to show - see, I could blame myself too, if I wanted to be silly; now don't be that silly.

Load More