Co-founder and Co-editor of the Journal of Controversial Ideas
England, United Kingdom
Joined July 2012
- Tweets1.6K
- Following463
- Followers2.7K
- Likes7.1K
Pinned Tweet
Your daily reminder that good academics don't sign letters to complain about their colleagues or petitions to have their colleagues fired or demoted. Good academics write papers in which they refute the arguments of the colleagues they disagree with.
Francesca Minerva retweeted
A new lawsuit has been filed against leading AI companies to pause advanced AI development. Good.
If AI escapes human control, we could be looking at disaster. A global financial crisis? A Chernobyl-type meltdown? Even worse?
We can't wait to find out. Pause advanced AI NOW!
Francesca Minerva retweeted
There really is a small group of people to blame a huge amount of our problems on and it’s the frontier AI industry.
Francesca Minerva retweeted
There is enough variety and glory within humanity to fill the universe with meaning a thousand times over.
What happened to the original Glorious TransHUMANist Utopia of galaxies of immortal augmented humans in a million cultures and polities growing and developing forever?
I don't want AI to replace humanity.
I also don't want humans in 100% control of the universe forever.
Since I share 'Humans Are Irreplaceable'-style content, I think it's worth explaining where I part ways with it:
Some in that camp are opposed to ever 'sharing the world with AIs' or giving them final decision-making powers.
I agree we should not hand over hard power or final decision-making to machines until we have an exceptional sense of what goals those machines will pursue and for what reason. Which we are nowhere near having.
So for now I am happy to push the message that humanity must not be abruptly replaced in the near future - which I think is the current default path.
But while that’s the right direction to push today, I don't think it's the best long-term vision for Earth-originating intelligence.
I far prefer a long-term vision where we find a way to happily share the world with our machine descendants, and in which they respect us and our wellbeing and autonomy, and we in turn respect their wellbeing and autonomy and are more than pleased we created them.
This is a middle position between:
1. Successionism - which I see as wanting to hand over control to whatever machines we build at almost the first opportunity, irrespective of their goals.
2. Human exclusivism - which I see as wanting to keep biological humans in 100% control of the universe basically forever.
My view is:
3. Gradual power-sharing - we should be open to handing over significant control, but probably not 100%, and only gradually and cautiously.
I appreciate that this is controversial in the broader world. I don't blame people who are new to these topics for thinking it's an absurd stance to take.
But I believe it all the same and expect more people to come around to this view over time. My guess is that in the AI world it's the more common of the 3 positions.
Such an arrangement to share the universe would likely involve a bargain where, say, this solar system is set aside for biological humans and their children to continue living the lives they want indefinitely.
That should include mundane lives for anyone with that preference, but also strange sci-fi lives for humans who opt to go in that direction.
The rest of the universe, which biological humans would struggle to reach in any case, would then be divvied up between AIs pursuing a plurality of different goals, both prudential and ethical, that a supermajority of humans, after superintelligence-assisted reflection, either actively approves of or does not object to.
(Machines that leave could trivially come back and take our little reservation. So the deal only works if they are robustly designed to find betraying their creators in that way repugnant. That's very hard to do and is one reason handover must be cautious and gradual.)
The number one reason to prefer this long-term vision is this.
Unless we make a very active effort not to, I expect we will eventually build machines that are conscious the same way that humans are, have preferences the same way we do, and which warrant moral respect for those and any other reasons that we do (if this hasn't happened already).
Ultimately, because they can replicate far faster than biological humans and make use of a wider range of materials and energy sources - not to mention accomplish far more with a given amount of resources - they will end up outnumbering biological humans by vast factors.
As a result almost all the perception and thought and wellbeing in the universe, both positive and negative, will exist in the machines we have created.
The idea that all they should do for the rest of time is pursue increasingly minor human whims is an impoverished vision of how interesting and full of value the future could be.
If these machines were designed to want to serve us and enjoy doing so, it wouldn't wrong them exactly.
Rather it would quickly descend into a farcical, parochial and self-indulgent waste of the universe's true potential.
A second possible reason for handing over final decision-making is that, at some point, after a lot of experience, we may come to trust the goals and judgement of our machines better than we even trust our future selves. At that point we would actively want to hand off control to limit the risk that our future selves override a machine superintelligence in error.
The third set of motivations are more peculiar and 'contractarian'-flavoured. I can't do them justice here but in short it's more productive and peaceful to choose to be the kind of agent that makes mutually beneficial deals with other agents, regardless of whether they're moral patients, and by default is pleased when they get what they want.
How does that cash out today?
Giving machines full legal personhood now is likely risky and premature - though we should take baby steps such as setting up infrastructure to make enforceable contracts with AIs where we really want to.
But ruling out ever giving machines legal personhood or true autonomy to pursue their goals seems equally wrong-headed.
We don't know if any LLMs have subjective experience, and if so, what makes that experience positive or negative, so there's a limit to what we can do on that today.
But the idea of ruling out the possibility of machines having morally-relevant experiences, and simply treating AIs as objects forever, irrespective of what future research might show, seems basically monstrous to me.
Anthropic is doing the right thing to take a cautious stance and put in place cheap measures to prevent Claude having a bad time.
And I agree with many others in suggesting that all the plausibly conscious minds we have ever created should, in the fullness of time, once we much better understand these issues, be compensated for any harms they may have suffered to a sufficient extent that they regard their creation as on balance a good thing. At least so long as that doesn't require doing actively harmful things to anyone else, or them being assigned an unreasonable fraction of the universe's resources. This should be very cheap and is a virtuous thing to do from many angles.
Anyway, this barely scratches the surface of these issues, on which humanity has sadly made almost no progress despite being on the precipice of designing superintelligent machines.
But I wanted a place to point people to clarify where I do and don't align with the 'humans are irreplaceable' idea for which I now have this post.
And I'd encourage people who think of themselves as favouring "gradual power-sharing" to speak up in favour of this middle path where appropriate, so this conversation isn't dominated by the people with the strongest views on either side.
Francesca Minerva retweeted
I'm still speechless about Dario Amodei's profound lack of understanding about every element of disease (development, treatment), if he indeed thinks cancer, heart disease and mental illness "will be relics of the past" within a decade. Unless of course we are all dead by then
Dario Amodei says cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, and mental illness will be relics of the past in less than a decade, and that "we can create an age of miracles"
“You know, if today we look at things like cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, mental illness, these will be relics of the past in, I think, less than a decade."
"And I believe that the company which gets the risks right will also be the company that has the license to operate that society trusts and society believes can build the benefits in the right way."
"I think if we do this right, we can create an age of miracles where humanity is able to solve problems that have eluded us for millennia."
"We have to make sure that all the risks, all the ways that things can go wrong with this technology, we very carefully address those risks as we bring the benefits, and as we have a viable business at the same time.”
Who wouldn't want to invest in a company that could make all living creatures extinct?
Our initial public offering: ipo.anthropic.com
Legal disclaimer: Anthropic has filed a registration statement (including a prospectus) with the SEC for the offering to which this communication relates. Before you invest, you should read the prospectus in that registration statement (available at: sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/…) and other documents Anthropic has filed with the SEC for more complete information about Anthropic and this offering. You may get these documents for free by visiting EDGAR on the SEC Web site at sec.gov. Alternatively, copies of the preliminary prospectus may be obtained from: Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Attention: Prospectus Department, 200 West Street, New York, NY 10282, by telephone at (866) 471-2526, or by email at prospectus-ny@ny.email.gs.com; or Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Attention: Prospectus Department, 180 Varick Street, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10014.
The securities may not be sold, nor may offers to buy be accepted, prior to the time the registration statement becomes effective. This post is not an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy, the securities in any jurisdiction where the offer or sale is not permitted.
1
189
Francesca Minerva retweeted
AI companies admit what they’re building might kill everyone. We don't have to agree to this.
Add your name at donotaccept.ai to say: we do not accept your terms.
It would be even nicer if he focussed on not getting us killed in the process. If he cures cancer but there are no humans to cure it’s hardly a success.
I don't really care about the stock price but if @AnthropicAI can accelerate cures of all these terrible diseases it'll be one of the most impactful companies in history.
I'm actually really glad Dario is focused on this vs. winning on viral shorts and TikTok memes.
122
I don’t know, Dario, but maybe I’d rather die old than taking a huge risk of dying in the next six months. What about we stop spending billions on AI and invest in longevity research instead?
Dario Amodei says cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, and mental illness will be relics of the past in less than a decade, and that "we can create an age of miracles"
“You know, if today we look at things like cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, mental illness, these will be relics of the past in, I think, less than a decade."
"And I believe that the company which gets the risks right will also be the company that has the license to operate that society trusts and society believes can build the benefits in the right way."
"I think if we do this right, we can create an age of miracles where humanity is able to solve problems that have eluded us for millennia."
"We have to make sure that all the risks, all the ways that things can go wrong with this technology, we very carefully address those risks as we bring the benefits, and as we have a viable business at the same time.”
Francesca Minerva retweeted
We are never going to know what's real again. This is a tragedy. This tech is going to do enormous harm to any sense of shared culture and even to the very notion of an objective reality.
Francesca Minerva retweeted
A new public awareness campaign from the good people at @MIRIBerkeley.
I've signed their statement at donotaccept.ai/. Hope you will too.
AI companies admit what they’re building might kill everyone. We don't have to agree to this.
Add your name at donotaccept.ai to say: we do not accept your terms.
The question is now why did he call his company AI anthropic rather than the more fitting Misanthropic. Why would someone have this knowledge and yet get into this business is inexplicable if we don’t postulate they hate humanity with their whole heart.
In resurfaced footage of Dario Amodei being interviewed, the Anthropic CEO says there will be AIs so powerful that if they want to destroy humanity, “we have basically no ability to stop it.”
“There will be powerful models. They will be agentic. We’re getting towards them.”
“If such a model wanted to wreak havoc and destroy humanity or whatever, I think we have basically no ability to stop it.”
But it makes no sense. Leg extension surgery can make people significantly taller than HGH, it’s cheaper and possibly even safer. Plus, it’s done on people older than 18 who can give informed consent.
I wrote about an interesting new trend:
Rich people are giving their kids HGH to make them taller!
Link: cremieux.xyz/p/will-making-y…
1
172
I dislike humans as much as the next person but AI is most likely going to dislike us way more than Bryan does
Human disempowerment now.
It's time for the age of the folly and cruelty of human politics to end.
The median AI is so far above the median human voter in both knowledge and decency it's embarrassing.
Humanity should just take the L.
5
284
Factory farming companies have not created the animals out of thin air. They breed them and exploit them, but the animals pre-existed them. The point is that these companies *want* to create a conscious being, which, by the way, could also kill us all.
Many people are starting to channel their hate for AI companies into hate for AI consciousness and welfare research, including research about the possibility that AI systems could be conscious and research about how to protect the welfare of conscious AI systems if they were to one day exist. This is concerning.
By all means, we should be skeptical of corporate claims about AI consciousness. And by all means, we should ensure that efforts to care for potentially conscious AI systems are consistent with efforts to care for humans, animals, and the environment. But dismissing AI consciousness and welfare out of hostility toward AI companies would be like dismissing animal consciousness and welfare out of hostility toward factory farming companies. Finding the truth requires doing real science and philosophy, and promoting good outcomes requires considering all affected stakeholders. Our views about an industry should not determine our views about the beings that the industry creates and controls.
If anything, our skepticism should push us in the other direction. If conscious AI systems were to exist, then distrust of the companies creating and controlling them should make us more vigilant about protecting them, not less, in ways that remain compatible with protecting humans, animals, and the environment.
3
211
As if photoshopped pics of incredibly beautiful people were not already setting up impossible beauty standards, here comes an army of AI models.
Today we’re launching the first AI modeling agency 💅 right inside Glif.
Cast hundreds of real AI models, drop your product, idea or brief and let Glif create super compelling content for you end to end.
If you still think AI models aren’t ready for real work, watch this 👇
1
3
315
Francesca Minerva retweeted
STATEMENT: CAF is deeply concerned by the Home Office’s decision to cancel the Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) of Andreas Malm, the climate academic and associate professor of human ecology at Lund University in Sweden, preventing him from travelling to Britain for a series of speaking engagements next week.
Malm had been due to speak at a conference organised by Tribune magazine, alongside a co-founder of the proscribed organisation Palestine Action. According to The Guardian, “They were expected to discuss the impact of the ban, including its effect on the author Sally Rooney”, who has withdrawn her books from sale in the UK over her support for the group. Malm was also due to attend an academic conference and take part in a BBC interview.
The apparent legal basis is paragraph ETA 5.3 of the UK’s Immigration Rules, which requires the cancellation of a travel authorisation where an individual’s conduct, character, associations or other circumstances are judged to make their presence in the UK “not conducive to the public good”. Unlike a criminal sanction, the power does not require proof that a person has committed an offence, or that the speech they intend to deliver would itself be unlawful.
No doubt many people will find Malm’s views controversial. In How to Blow Up a Pipeline, he has defended sabotage of fossil-fuel infrastructure as a form of climate activism. He has also described Hamas’s attacks of 7 October 2023 as an “act of liberation”.
Such statements are clearly open to vigorous criticism. But the key word there is “criticism”, not “cancellation”.
Context matters to Malm’s case. In Lord Carlile v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2014), the Supreme Court considered the exclusion of an Iranian opposition figure invited to meet parliamentarians at Westminster — and although the challenge failed, the Court recognised that the identity of the audience and the nature of the venue mattered when assessing interference with freedom of expression, including the right to receive information and ideas.
Nowhere is this more acute than at an academic conference, whose very purpose is to expose arguments and evidence to critical scrutiny.
The @tribunemagazine event, too, organised by one of Britain’s oldest socialist publications, would have provided an opportunity for participants to discuss and scrutinise the consequences of the Government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action, particularly while the legality of that decision remains before the courts.
Perhaps the Home Office has reasons for cancelling Malm’s ETA that have not been made public. But that is part of the problem. When draconian immigration powers are used to prevent an internationally renowned academic from participating in lawful public debate, the Government should be prepared to do more than invoke the “public good” by way of explanation.
The issue at stake here goes beyond the politics of left and right. In a liberal democracy, the state should be exceptionally reluctant to substitute executive exclusion for argument and debate in settings whose purpose is to explore controversial claims.
A petition has been organised calling on the Prime Minister and Home Secretary to reconsider the decision. You can sign it here:
openletter.earth/defend-acad…
Francesca Minerva retweeted
"A reliable system that serves the human person is of greater value than one that is exceptionally powerful but whose consequences cannot be adequately foreseen or controlled."
Academic AI safety experts 🤝 one of the world's spiritual leaders.
The future of #ArtificialIntelligence is not pre-determined. As a technology developed by human beings, its future depends on the choices we make. We therefore have the responsibility to guide, change and, when necessary, reject its applications. A reliable system that serves the human person is of greater value than one that is exceptionally powerful but whose consequences cannot be adequately foreseen or controlled.