Tag: “philosophy of uncertainty”

Bricks and exponentials: A note on how I evaluate projects

~ elityre ~ Leave a comment

This is an essay that I wrote to a colleague at Palisade, articulating why I feel unsatisfied with goals and projects that others on the team (on average) feel more enthusiastic about. It describes one aspect of how I, personally, am doing strategic analysis and choosing which projects to invest in.

Related: Compounding Resource X

Bricks for a wall

Say you need 70 million bricks to build a wall. You also need architects and builders, and 50,000 tonnes of mortar (all which you also don’t have right now), but you’ll eventually need 70 million bricks,). You can maybe get away with using only 50 million bricks, if you rely on clever architectural tricks, but less than that is not going to cut it.

You ran a labor-intensive 6 month project to make 100,000 bricks.

Now, one of three things could happen:

  1. You, or someone, is using the bricks that you made to build kilns. You are contributing to a self-reinforcing industrial process that is producing an order of magnitude more bricks each year. [You’re upstream of an exponential]
  2. Someone starts a rapidly-growing brick-making school, which will churn out another 1000 brick maker teams. [You’re “downstream” 1of an exponential]
  3. Neither of the above.

In case 1, your brick-making project was leveraged and (potentially) hugely important. There were several critical constraints and you removed one of them. Probably that was an amazingly good use of 6 months of labor. This project is at least in the running for the best thing you ever did. Hell yeah. 

That impact-story critically depends on the bricks you made being an input to a compounding process. Your win wasn’t making bricks that would be used for the wall. Your win was setting up a process that would lead to there being more than enough bricks for the wall.

In case 2, you did a noble thing, bearing some of the weight of the total task of making bricks. But also, the part you did wasn’t very neglected or counterfactual.

It’s very improbable if the brick-making school is able to scale up brick-making by almost 3 orders of magnitude, but runs out of steam just short of the critical 70 million mark. Either it got a good process going, and way overshot the 70 million target and bricks are cheap, or it couldn’t get a good process going, and they didn’t get anywhere near the necessary 70 million target. It’s very unlikely that we get by, by the skin of our teeth, with barely enough bricks.

In either of these subcases, I would still celebrate someone who contributed the 100,000 bricks that they could produce. But strategically, in case 2, I would say that they misallocated their 6 months. However, basically the only thing that mattered for whether enough bricks were gotten was whether the brick-making school worked, or not.

In case 3, your 100,000 bricks were not nearly enough to build the wall. No wall, or only a very inadequate wall, is built. While a noble attempt, it didn’t amount to anything important. History would have gone the same way, regardless of whether or not you had been born or bothered to try.

Little shifts in worldview for changing society

Palisade’s first youtube video got 850,000 (so far) views. Probably a lot of those people said “huh” and changed their worldviews a bit, and then went back to what they were doing. 

People who have had their worldview changed bit are like the raw material for possible changes in the world. Those people now have the prerequisites for another argument step. And if 70 million US citizens knew that the AIs are grown and not crafted, and that we can’t always control them, that would have a notable impact on the landscape of voter sentiment about various AI proposals (presuming that others do the work of designing and introducing and advocating for those proposals).

So how should I evaluate the impact of this video?

If this video contributes to building a machine that compounds, so that exponentially more people have their view changed, over the next three years, that video was amazing— maybe the best thing Palisade has ever done. We’ve changed (or helped to change) history.

If someone sets up some process (maybe a media-fellowship) that churns out orders of magnitude more content like that Palisade video, then we should be proud of doing our part and helping with the effort of informing the world. But if that process can 1000x the amount of content, that will have made such content cheap and no longer neglected and not a bottleneck. And on the other hand, if that process is only 10x’s the amount of similar content, we’re still in a range that is too small to matter.

Either way, we didn’t change history. We did do our part in a wave of change that would have succeeded or failed without us (which is still noble and good and admirable).

If nothing like either of those happens, then 100,000 people who say “huh”, change their worldview a little, and go back to their lives, is couch-change. Basically irrelevant. We get some dignity for trying at all, but we do not change history, and we do not win.

The actual situation

I don’t claim to understand the dynamics of the memetics around topics like this. I’m totally open to stories whereby there is a self-reinforcing or compounding process that results from videos like Palisade’s. I

I could totally believe, for instance, that one creator with an existing large audience watched that video, and is now inspired to make a video on a similar topic, which will be seen by even more people, and that this will be part of a compounding wave that eventually leads to the New York times writing about RSI  the  way they write about the Iraq war—not as an interesting speculative theory, but as mundanely real thing that is actually happening. I don’t know that’s how it works, but I wouldn’t be shocked to find out that that’s how it works..2

I’m not trying to make an object level claim about whether that video is or isn’t upstream of a compounding exponential process.

But the standard that I’m using to evaluate that video is “does it look like this will contribute to an exponential process that can get all the way to the region of relevance”, not “did we succeed in impacting 100,000 people, who can be fodder for later steps down the line.”

I don’t want to discourage people from producing the 100,000 helpful units that they can produce. I salute everyone who’s contributing what they can see to contribute to the effort securing our future.

But, for myself, at least I want to have my eye on the ball of whether 100,000 helpful units is several orders of magnitude too few, and searching for plans that can bridge gaps of that size. Which means that I generally believe in proposals that are upstream of an exponential (or plausibly, but not definitely, upstream of an exponential), and not plans that aren’t.

  1. Technically you’re lateral to the exponential, unless the brick-making school also trained you. But this is analogous to being downstream of the exponential, insofar you are producing value in the same units as the exponential process is. ↩︎
  2. Palisade doesn’t have to singlehandedly cause the exponential process. If we contribute to, and get some reasonable shapely value of an exponential that might or might not succeed without our help, that’s still a massive win worth the commitment of my life.

    But if the exponential process in question looks overdetermined—it will succeed with high reliability with or without our help, then I consider that part of the problem under control and turn my attention to the parts that are more critically on fire. ↩︎

The automatic alignment of the flow through effects of obliterating fundamental problems.

~ elityre ~ Leave a comment

[Draft. This post really has a lot of prerequisites, that I’m not going to bother trying to explain. I’m just writing it to get it out of me. I’ll have to come back and make it understandable later, if that seems worth doing. This is really not edited.]

We live in an inadequate world. Things are kind of a mess. The vast majority of human resources are squandered, by Moloch, on ends that we would not reflectively endorse. And we’re probably all going to die.

The reason the world is so messed up, can be traced back to a handful of fundamental problems or fundemental constraints. By “fundamental problem” I have something pretty specific in mind, but Inadquite Equlibira points in the right direction. They’re the deep reasons why we can’t “just fix” the worlds problems.

Some possible fundamental problems / constraints, that I haven’t done the work to formulate correctly:

  • The wold is too big and fast for any one person to know all of the important pieces.
  • The game theoretic constraints that make rulers act against the common good.
  • People in power take power preserving actions, so bureaucracy resist change, including correct change.
  • People really want to associate with prestigious people, and make decisions on that basis.
  • We can’t figure out what’s true anywhere near efficiently enough.
  • People can’t actually communicate about the important things.
  • We don’t know how, even in principle, to build an aligned AGI.
  • Molochian race dynamics.
  • Everyone is competing to get information to the people with power, and the people in power don’t know enough to know who to trust.
  • We’re not smart enough.
  • There is no system that is keeping track of the wilderness between problems.

I recently had the thought that some of these problems have different characters than the others. They fall into two camps, which, of course, actually form a spectrum.

For some of these problems, if you solved them, the solution would be self-aligning.

By that I mean something like, for some of these problems, their solutions would be a pressure or force, that would push towards solving the other problems. In the best case, if you successfully solved that problem, in due course this would case all of the other problems to automatically get solved. The flow-through effects of such a solution are structurally positive.

For other problems, even though the represent a fundamental constraint, if they were solved they wouldn’t push towards the solving of the other problems. In fact, solving that one fundamental problem in isolation might make the other problems worse.

A prototypical case of a problem who’s solution is self-aligning [I need to come up with better terminology] is an Aligned AI. If we knew how to build an AI that could do what we actually want, this would perhaps automatically solve all of our other problems. It could tell us how (if not fix the problems itself) to have robust science, or optimal economic policy, or incentive-aligned leaders, or whatever.

Aligned AI is the lolapaluza of altruistic interventions. We can solve everything in one sweep. (Except of course, the problems that were prerequisites for solving aligned AI. Those we can’t count on the AI to solve for us.)

Another example: If we implemented robust systems that incentivized leaders to act in the interests of the public good, it seems like this has the potential of (eventually) breaking all of the other problems. It would be a jolt that knocks our civilization into the attractor basin of a sane, adequate civilization (if our civilization is not in that attractor basin already).

In contrast, researcher ability is a fundamental constraint of our civilization (though maybe not a fundemental problem?), but it is not obvious that the flow through effects of breaking through that fundamental constraint are structurally positive. On the face of it, it seems like it would be bad if everyone in the world decoupled their research acumen: that seems like it would speed us toward doom.

This gives a macros-strategic suggestion, and a possible solution to the last term problem: identify all of the fundamental problems that you can, determine which ones have self-aligning solutions, and dedicate your life to solving whichever problem has the best ratio of tractability to size of (self-aligned) impact.

I maybe reinventing symmetric vs. asymmetric weapons here, but I think I am actually pointing at something deeper, or at least extending the idea further.

 

[Edit / note to self: I could maybe explain this with reference to personal productivity?: you want to find the thing which is easy to do but most makes it easy to do the other things. I’m not sure this captures the key thing I want to convey.]