Daniel Kokotajlo

Classical liberalism just has been a helpful way to navigate the world when we're under this kind of epistemic hell of one thing changing just – you know, people who have – yeah.

Anyways, maybe one of you can actually flesh out that thought.

Better react to it if you disagree.

Here, here.

I agree.

So, so far, these systems, as they become smarter, seem to be more reliable agents who are more likely to do the thing I expect them to do.

Why does, like, I think in your scenario, at least one of the stories, you have two different stories, one with a slowdown, where we more aggressively, I'll let you characterize it.

But in one half of the scenario, why does the story end in humanity getting disempowered and the thing just having its own crazy values and taking over?

Yeah, so...

It seems like this community is very interested in solving this problem at a technical level of making sure AIs don't lie to us, or maybe they lie to us in the scenarios exactly where we would want them to lie to us or something.

Whereas, you know, as you were saying, humans have these exact same problems.

They reward hack.

They are unreliable.

They obviously do cheat and lie.

And the way we've solved it with humans is just checks and balances, decentralization.

You could, like, lie to your boss and keep lying to your boss, but over time it's just not going to work out with you or you become president or something.

Yeah, exactly.

One or the other.

So if you believe in this extremely fast takeoff if a lab is one month ahead, then that's the endgame and this thing takes over.

But even then, I know I'm combining so many different topics.