Great article on how cooking adds calories to foods: http://t.co/WlUhB6Jf (I bet gut flora hugely alters caloric absorbtion too...)

Great article on how cooking adds calories to foods: http://goo.gl/wCerw (I bet gut flora hugely alters caloric absorbtion too...)


QRI's unified theory of music, meditation, psychedelics, depression, trauma, and emotional processing; the most challenging (and I think beautiful) thing I've written in the last three years. I would really appreciate careful comments. https://t.co/FKyygEiNCC

QRI's unified theory of music, meditation, psychedelics, depression, trauma, and emotional processing; the most challenging (and I think beautiful) thing I've written in the last three years. I would really appreciate careful comments. https://opentheory.net/2019/11/neural-annealing-toward-a-neural-theory-of-everything/


Does creating value consume negentropy? We can infer much about the game theory of the far future from the answer.


@ESYudkowsky The "real problem" of qualia is whether there's crisp structure there to be discovered. I.e., is qualia like élan vital (confusion to be explained away) or like electromagnetism (a projection of the universe exhibiting crisp regularities)?

What would evidence look like?


@liminal_warmth If you haven’t read my latest you’d probably enjoy it: https://t.co/FKyygEiNCC

TL;DR: the common mechanism of action across meditation, music, and psychedelics is they excite the brain’s eigenmodes, which kickstarts a simulated annealing process. (Trauma does this in a bad way)

@liminal_warmth If you haven’t read my latest you’d probably enjoy it: https://opentheory.net/2019/11/neural-annealing-toward-a-neural-theory-of-everything/

TL;DR: the common mechanism of action across meditation, music, and psychedelics is they excite the brain’s eigenmodes, which kickstarts a simulated annealing process. (Trauma does this in a bad way)


@EpistemicHope Reinforcement learning is a functional property of a system; it's always a little bit contextual. There are no 'ground truth natural kinds' about which functions a system is performing. The alternative is something like physics: natural kinds, frame-invariant, no wiggle room.


@EpistemicHope Is qualia a functional property of a system or an objective property? One way to frame this is, "to understand a system's qualia, should we pay attention to what the bits are doing, or what the atoms are doing?"


@EpistemicHope I go into why I think we can't look to functionalism (e.g. "pleasure is the same as positive reinforcement") here: https://t.co/SuFE94mPGC

We can also look to the neuroscience: 'liking' and 'learning' are not the same, can be engaged separately in brains: https://t.co/53l0HaoHQB

@EpistemicHope I go into why I think we can't look to functionalism (e.g. "pleasure is the same as positive reinforcement") here: https://opentheory.net/2017/07/why-i-think-the-foundational-research-institute-should-rethink-its-approach/

We can also look to the neuroscience: 'liking' and 'learning' are not the same, can be engaged separately in brains: https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/aldridgelab/wp-content/uploads/sites/279/2015/07/Berridge-KC-et-al.-Dissecting-components-of-reward-liking-wanting-and-learning.-Curr.-Opin.-Pharmacol.-2009-in-press.pdf


@EpistemicHope TL;DR is yes, theoretically possible to build a system that would (or train a mind to) seek out pain or avoid pleasure. Though I suspect it would be much harder -- like building a system that tried to maximize its [Fristonian] free energy. Inefficient and unstable.


@EpistemicHope More in PQ: https://t.co/bPds7OZOP6
And Why We Seek Out Pleasure: https://t.co/YO326vUKeR (for the TL;DR just look at the top graphic)

@EpistemicHope More in PQ: https://opentheory.net/PrincipiaQualia.pdf
And Why We Seek Out Pleasure: https://opentheory.net/2017/05/why-we-seek-out-pleasure-the-symmetry-theory-of-homeostatic-regulation/ (for the TL;DR just look at the top graphic)


@nickcammarata I'm a big fan of essentializing 1) health, 2) happiness, 3) 'aliveness' into vectors and pushing these directions. Probably lots of room past “most healthy/happy/alive human on earth”. /1


@nickcammarata I suspect the safest and largest gains to come from understanding humans as self-organizing systems and a) improving quality of components, b) removing various sources of damage, c) offering environment w/ particularly healthy self-organization strategies to pattern off of /2


@nickcammarata I call this ‘technological platonism’ — wouldn’t produce something theoretically perfect (logic of human biological, physiological, & psychological self-organization is not strictly optimized for health/happiness/aliveness) /3


@nickcammarata But I think could produce something relatively and objectively amazing, and could be one of the ways we could bootstrap into an amazingly *livable* future. IMO worth keeping an eye out for ‘plays’ that fit this aesthetic /4


@TylerAlterman It sounds a bit odd but perhaps “organic transhumanism” — to shift frames a little I’d also suggest taking a look at Technological Platonism https://t.co/c54zovJTjQ

@TylerAlterman It sounds a bit odd but perhaps “organic transhumanism” — to shift frames a little I’d also suggest taking a look at Technological Platonism https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1346381193818865667?s=20

Tyler is finishing a book, slow to reply


@SamoBurja @Plinz I suspect wild bird happiness outweighs wild bird suffering. If true, important to understand conditions which made it true


@SamoBurja @Plinz Hypotheses:
1- birds are particularly delicate animals; an unhealthy bird is soon a dead one. Truncation selection for health/happiness
2- birdsong as both an honest indicator of state and a core factor in sexual selection; happiness grants more of an edge in mating


@nickcammarata Love the thoughts!

Theories of identity are tacitly Schelling points; multi-level selection is hard to model. Hard to say what the best actions are on the margin. But optimism is beautiful.


Finished a retrospective on STV, QRI’s candidate for a universal theory of valence (which experiences feel good vs bad).

It’s either false or exactly true. Evidence so far looks good.

https://t.co/M0DH7qBQqY

Finished a retrospective on STV, QRI’s candidate for a universal theory of valence (which experiences feel good vs bad).

It’s either false or exactly true. Evidence so far looks good.

https://opentheory.net/2021/07/a-primer-on-the-symmetry-theory-of-valence/


@Ade_thinks I would say this highly depends on technological trajectories. We can think of a device that could emulate a human brain as a special sort of ASIC with certain physical properties & capacities. Making a one-off is impractical. But possible to justify at scale. Wise? Hard to say


The Apple Watch will be a ridiculously powerful platform for emotional read+write with better neuro theory. “What good things and bad things could a superhuman AGI do if it had access to my Apple Watch” -> lots


@JeromeStoned @QualiaRI Thank you! Re: emotional write, I suspect using a watch’s vibration capacities with a good enough neurofeedback model could help push people into or out of emotional states. Apollo Neuro is an example of this ‘in the wild’


@AaronEstel Whether the goodness or badness of an experience is always well defined is a really interesting question. I think it is: https://t.co/M0DH7qTriw

Not a utilitarian though

@AaronEstel Whether the goodness or badness of an experience is always well defined is a really interesting question. I think it is: https://opentheory.net/2021/07/a-primer-on-the-symmetry-theory-of-valence/

Not a utilitarian though


@diegocaleiro @urbit @jmrphy Happy to have you hold the .1 btc for me until then.


@LeonDeg37825780 @diegocaleiro @urbit @jmrphy Looks like around 15k judging from https://t.co/q2x118HukL; if you buy from opensea just make sure the star hasn’t been booted and hasn’t spawned planets (if it has it won’t be tokenizable). ~dys stars are notorious for this

@LeonDeg37825780 @diegocaleiro @urbit @jmrphy Looks like around 15k judging from http://urbit.live; if you buy from opensea just make sure the star hasn’t been booted and hasn’t spawned planets (if it has it won’t be tokenizable). ~dys stars are notorious for this


@drethelin Better approach for physics + social science:
Cloning+surrogacy+loving foster parents for everyone in this picture, plus 11 more drawn from the history of physics/science (Feynman, Von Neumann, Turing, etc)
$500k each *40 individuals =$20m per cohort, *200 cohorts = $4b https://t.co/PZwVhMmx2h

@drethelin Better approach for physics + social science:
Cloning+surrogacy+loving foster parents for everyone in this picture, plus 11 more drawn from the history of physics/science (Feynman, Von Neumann, Turing, etc)
$500k each *40 individuals =$20m per cohort, *200 cohorts = $4b https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1448647572785037329/photo/1


@drethelin Don’t push any of the clones to go into physics; let them self-determine. I bet most would go there anyway.

I guarantee cloning 8000 historical-tier physicists would be a more effective way to progress physics than another particle accelerator,


@drethelin … would likely ‘splash’ into many related fields, and the experiment itself would provide the grist for revolutionizing social science.


@QuasLacrimas There’s no need to trust people if you can feel people. If you can’t feel peoples’ real intentions toward you, of course you’ll build elaborate structures for who is ‘good’ and ‘bad’, and of course it’ll end poorly. Might be the core post-rat insight


@nickcammarata It’s notable that those two things, chickens and GPT3, are very different classes of ‘pointers’. One is a pointer to a collection of atoms, the other to a collection of bits. Would be weird if both classes equivalently contribute to consciousness


@quantumVerd I’d be surprised if mRNA won the “generalized antiviral” wars. But the prize for winning is enormous. Make the 5 most burdensome viruses extinct and I think the human condition gets ~20% better, permanently


@nosilverv @diegocaleiro @LeonDeg37825780 @urbit @jmrphy You can wrap a star to get 1 WSTR token, or unwrap 1 WSTR token to get a star, at https://t.co/orO1vbVAkQ

Easier to buy/sell than on opensea

@nosilverv @diegocaleiro @LeonDeg37825780 @urbit @jmrphy You can wrap a star to get 1 WSTR token, or unwrap 1 WSTR token to get a star, at https://star.market/

Easier to buy/sell than on opensea


@hormeze You might also like my information-theoretic (rather than neurotransmitter) hypothesis about jhana: https://t.co/hf07D3MHdW

@hormeze You might also like my information-theoretic (rather than neurotransmitter) hypothesis about jhana: https://opentheory.net/2018/12/the-neuroscience-of-meditation/


@jonathandubin @diegocaleiro @urbit @jmrphy A star that hasn’t spawned planets. If it’s spawned planets it’s a little harder to resell since you can’t tokenize it. Not huuugely important in the long run


@ethotaku https://t.co/jNshzvNO4L


@tszzl The core question seems to be if Qualia Formalism is true, ie if we can speak about Qualia in precise terms (as we can eg electromagnetism). If we can’t, then it’s something with the same ontological status as “life” “justice” etc. I defend formalism here https://t.co/Muk8F44mJx

@tszzl The core question seems to be if Qualia Formalism is true, ie if we can speak about Qualia in precise terms (as we can eg electromagnetism). If we can’t, then it’s something with the same ontological status as “life” “justice” etc. I defend formalism here https://opentheory.net/2017/07/why-i-think-the-foundational-research-institute-should-rethink-its-approach/


@tszzl Burden of proof is on the formalists, same as it was on the electricity formalists. “Think your concept carves reality at the joints? Prove it, by making some bold novel predictions or building something cool you couldn’t if you don’t assume this phenomenon is ‘real’.”


@wolftivy I think of the body+mind as a harmonic computer. Everything in the nervous system is “energy, frequency, and vibration” and interactions between different harmonic regimes.


@wolftivy How does a harmonic computer solve problems? How does it fail? How can it be made better? Can we make coprocessors for it that speak its native language? These are the questions that make algorithmic powersuit humans possible


There are very few political theorists I think are worth listening to. @wolftivy and @SamoBurja are at the absolute top of this list. https://t.co/x4bzsHjIIC

There are very few political theorists I think are worth listening to. @wolftivy and @SamoBurja are at the absolute top of this list. https://x.com/wolftivy/status/1496535862766882816


@nickcammarata The future science of xenophenomenology is going to be lit. Some initial considerations here: https://t.co/36gXJJPeoH

@nickcammarata The future science of xenophenomenology is going to be lit. Some initial considerations here: https://opentheory.net/2019/09/whats-out-there/


The most important unknown is whether “consciousness” emerges from the behavior of bits or atoms. These answers lead in very different directions… https://t.co/ppYr3lREL6

The most important unknown is whether “consciousness” emerges from the behavior of bits or atoms. These answers lead in very different directions… https://x.com/sama/status/1492645047585570816


One reason AI safety is struggling is because we’ve lost the Mandate of Heaven—we can’t clearly voice why humanity deserves to survive, nor what kind of future we’re even fighting for. “Why” tends to be prior to “how”; hard to build a good future if we don’t believe in ourselves https://t.co/MC3I3N1S78

One reason AI safety is struggling is because we’ve lost the Mandate of Heaven—we can’t clearly voice why humanity deserves to survive, nor what kind of future we’re even fighting for. “Why” tends to be prior to “how”; hard to build a good future if we don’t believe in ourselves https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1503305538356011009


How to believe in the future again? One way is rebooting transhumanism & investing in permanent improvements in the human condition. Imagine if we felt better as we age, not worse. Or if we could wipe out depression & covid like we did smallpox. https://t.co/0Q8PwZiWPw

How to believe in the future again? One way is rebooting transhumanism & investing in permanent improvements in the human condition. Imagine if we felt better as we age, not worse. Or if we could wipe out depression & covid like we did smallpox. https://x.com/sama/status/1489648210842816516?s=21


Shortage of positive+definite visions for transhumanism, but our real bottleneck is heuristics for improvement that won’t break what good things we have. I enjoy “technological platonism”; @drydenwtbrown of @PraxisSociety has a good one in “tradhumanism”
https://t.co/c54zovJTjQ

Shortage of positive+definite visions for transhumanism, but our real bottleneck is heuristics for improvement that won’t break what good things we have. I enjoy “technological platonism”; @drydenwtbrown of @PraxisSociety has a good one in “tradhumanism”
https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1346381193818865667?s=20


Neurotech can make or break the future & is the dark horse in AI safety. Three bottlenecks: figuring out (1) how to talk with the brain, (2) how to not break things, (3) what’s worth building. IMO: “enlightenment neurotech” and “virtue ethics neurotech” https://t.co/rMkKSmXdUM

Neurotech can make or break the future & is the dark horse in AI safety. Three bottlenecks: figuring out (1) how to talk with the brain, (2) how to not break things, (3) what’s worth building. IMO: “enlightenment neurotech” and “virtue ethics neurotech” https://x.com/MWCvitkovic/status/1491235770958749696?s=20


I also think that there’s a conception in AI safety that questions of consciousness, qualia, etc are “too hard”. They’re something we ask the AI about. But maybe they’re not the kinds of questions people think they are? Hard… but not *that* hard https://t.co/4GbTJ1c92X

I also think that there’s a conception in AI safety that questions of consciousness, qualia, etc are “too hard”. They’re something we ask the AI about. But maybe they’re not the kinds of questions people think they are? Hard… but not *that* hard https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1506924014417104901?s=20


@davidad @Plinz I speculate this might be impossible: https://t.co/SuFE945ei2

Would love to be wrong here. Maybe true functionalism has never been tried

@davidad @Plinz I speculate this might be impossible: https://opentheory.net/2017/07/why-i-think-the-foundational-research-institute-should-rethink-its-approach/

Would love to be wrong here. Maybe true functionalism has never been tried


@Plinz @davidad An interesting divide is “does the phenomenology of a system have an exact, objective answer (in principle, perhaps not tractably calculable) or not?” GWT says no, IIT says yes


@RichardMCNgo @42irrationalist Thanks for the thoughts! I’d both agree that symmetry is a broad topic but push back on your conclusion that STV offers zero information. You might also enjoy some (very general) thoughts on Noether and phenomenology https://t.co/me9operZSR

@RichardMCNgo @42irrationalist Thanks for the thoughts! I’d both agree that symmetry is a broad topic but push back on your conclusion that STV offers zero information. You might also enjoy some (very general) thoughts on Noether and phenomenology https://opentheory.net/2022/04/emmy-noether-and-the-symmetry-aesthetic/


@nickcammarata @maccaw As a strong monist *ref https://t.co/hdEh8dzXXj here’s what I think is happening with qualia’s apparent causal power: @proona5 https://t.co/7WGaDQhwmY

@nickcammarata @maccaw As a strong monist *ref https://opentheory.net/2019/06/taking-monism-seriously/ here’s what I think is happening with qualia’s apparent causal power: @proona5 https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1521312319795564544/photo/1


@nosilverv What do you wish existed?


@robertwiblin @80000Hours @tegmark @FLIxrisk Why his public research on consciousness stopped, and what it would take to get him started again. (I think Tegmark is uniquely qualified to contribute to the field)


@zachtratar Technologizing enlightenment
Non-vaccine antivirals
Profitable research DAOs
Quantified dating based on brain patterns


@erikphoel I really appreciate @adamsafron ’s IWMT here: https://t.co/RKVYVktyjI

@erikphoel I really appreciate @adamsafron ’s IWMT here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33733149/


@monksgarden Thank you!


@nosilverv @harmonylion1 Lots to admire here on so many levels


@nosilverv @harmonylion1 Agree with the points and endorse the chutzpah hah- btw I stepped down from the QRI board and left the organization last month over some irreconcilable differences, don’t yet have a new home for my research but I’m looking


@nosilverv My suspicion is that slow wave sleep is the heating up phase (jhana like patterns), which then disintegrates into higher frequency REM. Dreams as hot, but cooling over time. Finding the interpretations (energy sinks) that will drain the energy and anneal the new structure


RT @nosilverv: Two humble suggestions to Neural Annealing theory:

(1) Randall Collins’ model of interaction ritual chains is a great star…


@nosilverv Sometimes we twist and coil our phenomenology (suffer) to point attention to something; our own attention or others’. The object is sometimes external, sometimes internal. Nexus of attention lines


@nosilverv The sufferer may feel the happy are defecting by not looking at this important thing (suffering as honest signal of importance). The happy may feel the sufferer is trying to create a phenomenal prion. Both can be true! Wildly different failure modes


@paul__is__here Thanks! I think this is true. Have been thinking about this distinction in the realm of neurotech


@nosilverv I suspect many particularly vivid experiences borrow from several techniques to avoid energy sinks; imo particularly evocative movies/fantasy might rely on triggering "limbic resonance" via various tropes


@EvilVizier I think this is the wisest place to put energy. There seem to be various related frames arising: Dryden's 'tradhumanism', your 'ultrahumanism', I've suggested "technological platonism"


@EvilVizier Agreed; whatever we call this frame, I think defining a clean/safe/wholesome vector of human improvement is kind of the central problem of the future  https://t.co/XjmyhNF0rt

@EvilVizier Agreed; whatever we call this frame, I think defining a clean/safe/wholesome vector of human improvement is kind of the central problem of the future  https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1346381193818865667?s=20&t=RFMZ2q-boYzJ-2jQc9Pw4A


@orthonormalist @JimmyLevendia I think technologically extrapolating humanity to its platonic ideal is the only way we avoid Land's scenario of "nothing human makes it out of the near future". Maybe this platonic ideal doesn't strictly exist but it exists directionally
https://t.co/2pcKgBxBGD

@orthonormalist @JimmyLevendia I think technologically extrapolating humanity to its platonic ideal is the only way we avoid Land's scenario of "nothing human makes it out of the near future". Maybe this platonic ideal doesn't strictly exist but it exists directionally
https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1346381193818865667


A great spotlight; in general have been really impressed by posts from @nickcammarata @RomeoStevens76 @nosilverv lately https://t.co/xOTGHnczOH

A great spotlight; in general have been really impressed by posts from @nickcammarata @RomeoStevens76 @nosilverv lately https://x.com/nickcammarata/status/1585446183098634243


@nickcammarata Here's my hypothesis -- it's weird, so I hid it at the very end of PQ https://t.co/QEvWi9MwKs

@nickcammarata Here's my hypothesis -- it's weird, so I hid it at the very end of PQ https://opentheory.net/2019/02/simulation-argument/


The history of science is intense. I think few people realize how fragile a working scientific process is and how large swaths of science have basically died. But imo this is good news, since we’re already living the reality and things could be much better
https://t.co/evpXZTqqVq

The history of science is intense. I think few people realize how fragile a working scientific process is and how large swaths of science have basically died. But imo this is good news, since we’re already living the reality and things could be much better
https://www.palladiummag.com/2022/10/10/the-transformations-of-science/


@wolftivy >write me a greentext about bison spheres


Imo the main bottleneck for future neurotech is knowing what "good brain states" even look like. Jhana as target state seems wholesome. Hard part is neurofeedback paradigm https://t.co/tsPY6gm3TQ

Imo the main bottleneck for future neurotech is knowing what "good brain states" even look like. Jhana as target state seems wholesome. Hard part is neurofeedback paradigm https://x.com/stephen_zerfas/status/1585728888625414144


@neuralkn0t Yes! I'm glad they exist


@zerfas33 I've always found it interesting there seems to be a finite and discrete number of jhanas; intuitively, this points to each jhana being a solution to the brain's "harmonic ball stacking" problem -- stable arrangements of brain resonances


@zerfas33 Phases of matter would be another analogy: physical ‘stuff’ can be solid, liquid, gas, plasma, depending on temperature, composition, and pressure. Basically things self-organize differently at different energy levels https://t.co/nq1HFPaXv6

@zerfas33 Phases of matter would be another analogy: physical ‘stuff’ can be solid, liquid, gas, plasma, depending on temperature, composition, and pressure. Basically things self-organize differently at different energy levels https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1586190589829083136


@zerfas33 Meditation can be thought of as a practice that dissolves structural chunks and dampens reflexive storymaking, encourages habits of mind that lead to fewer mental discontinuities. A smoother mental and somatic canvas for instantiating different phases of emotional matter


I’ve modeled different jhanas as different strategies for managing turbulence; I still think that’s true but incomplete. What changes as the jhanas change? https://t.co/rHr2OHHBTy

I’ve modeled different jhanas as different strategies for managing turbulence; I still think that’s true but incomplete. What changes as the jhanas change? https://opentheory.net/2018/12/the-neuroscience-of-meditation/


Perhaps each jhana corresponds to a different phase of emotional matter. The first jhanas would be more coarse, made out of bigger chunks of circuit resonance. Very frothy, easy to get knocked out of. Climbing the jhanas would be progressively dissolving these into smaller chunks


The higher jhanas feel more refined, because they’re built from pieces that are literally more “re-fined”, made smaller. Managing turbulence becomes more subtle after you dissolve the larger chunks. Smaller chunks lead to finer-grained experiential texture, fewer frothy spikes


How many jhanas are there? The Buddha talked about four, other sources say eight or nine. Nobody says there are infinite, and everyone seems to agree they’re discrete. There’s no “20% jhana 1, 80& jhana 2”; There’s jhana 1 and jhana 2, and maybe a phase transition


Are there undiscovered jhanas? Would be weird if there was, would be weird if there wasn't...


Notable uncertainties in this model:
- Are jhanas truly discrete?
- Are jhanas linearly parametrizable?
- Is "size of component pieces" the core variable? Why would this lead to a discrete set of possible states?


@TylerAlterman I've really enjoyed Vernor Vinge (A Deepness in the Sky, A Fire Upon the Deep) and Peter F. Hamilton (Pandora's Star). Great writers and thinkers, enjoyable 'hard sci-fi'


@neuralkn0t @rivatez is super great; https://t.co/RtC7NH9xr5 and lots of podcasts

@neuralkn0t @rivatez is super great; https://www.hardtowrite.com and lots of podcasts


@wolftivy Will love to see it.


imo the existence of things like toxoplasmosis & EBV is hugely bullish for humanity. What could the average human phenotype be with zero cryptic infections? https://t.co/jbmFpeul79

imo the existence of things like toxoplasmosis & EBV is hugely bullish for humanity. What could the average human phenotype be with zero cryptic infections? https://x.com/rivatez/status/1593977632697200640


@TylerAlterman One of my favorite examples is going to a Tony Robbins seminar -- also I think you can train yourself to explicitly recognize when neural annealing is happening (not sure if this is good or bad to do)


Hearing some really good things about both building and living in El Salvador lately https://t.co/ocdEslzFjJ

Hearing some really good things about both building and living in El Salvador lately https://x.com/TimGalebach/status/1598668051477663750


A lot going on here, including an interesting tacit definition of "human" https://t.co/RJRzFGfbjJ

A lot going on here, including an interesting tacit definition of "human" https://x.com/Plinz/status/1599127769270849536


@Plinz Could you write this as a prompt which some future super intelligence could perform?


@Plinz @Rares82 @suchirbalaji @tedsteeen A key question is whether bits or atoms determine ground-truth for consciousness. I believe there can be no objective account for 'what a system's bits are doing', so if we want an objective account of consciousness it has to be physics-based


@nickcammarata @icantsay I like it! Another model that comes to mind is the Nyquist Limit, and how if you boost sample rates you might get rid of aliasing https://t.co/v4gdJTTFkt

@nickcammarata @icantsay I like it! Another model that comes to mind is the Nyquist Limit, and how if you boost sample rates you might get rid of aliasing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_frequency


New short piece on AI consciousness: https://t.co/LOmgz88odf

TL;DR: AIs aren’t conscious, but computers are (because everything is!). But computer consciousness is probably very weird, in ways it’ll take a formal theory of consciousness to really comprehend.

New short piece on AI consciousness: https://opentheory.net/2022/12/ais-arent-conscious-but-computers-are/

TL;DR: AIs aren’t conscious, but computers are (because everything is!). But computer consciousness is probably very weird, in ways it’ll take a formal theory of consciousness to really comprehend.


@EigenGender I would all-in bet on neither: https://t.co/hNfdhVcKZo

@EigenGender I would all-in bet on neither: https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1606240929643257856


@nc_znc @davidad I really like the direction! Curious if the computational interpretation of a system (1) is unique, (2) can be mapped as a Turing machine, (3) runs into epistemological issues of physical measurement. This plus IIT would be a v. cool mash-up


@balajis Technological Platonism - defining and extrapolating the platonic vector of a system. Eventually the vector breaks down, but on most important properties you can get +5-10 SD of improvement


@nosilverv A friend speculates that personal utility functions sometimes get multiply-by-zero type errors, and many extreme behaviors arise from trying to create a corresponding infinity


@nickcammarata I tend to think of this as qualia-sensitive processes (QSPs) vs qualia-insensitive processes (QIPs) -- one thing that makes humans special is we're a QSP


Instructions unclear, caught in ceiling fan https://t.co/hyQJ0BkZkw

Instructions unclear, caught in ceiling fan https://x.com/RomeoStevens76/status/1611813240971091968


Some really interesting technical stuff happening on Urbit. Also weekly poker-on-the-blockchain soon I hear https://t.co/F9EnBzP33t

Some really interesting technical stuff happening on Urbit. Also weekly poker-on-the-blockchain soon I hear https://x.com/TimGalebach/status/1612047426944225281


@daniel_eth I agree... I split consciousness types as Evolved, Primordial, Megascale, and Technological, with Technological further split into accidental impact vs engineered https://t.co/36gXJJPeoH

@daniel_eth I agree... I split consciousness types as Evolved, Primordial, Megascale, and Technological, with Technological further split into accidental impact vs engineered https://opentheory.net/2019/09/whats-out-there/


Excellent take. My sense is that one of the highest leverage ways to help humanity is to accurately describe 'what kind of thing' humans are. Forms of beauty that are legible are much more likely to persist under transformations. https://t.co/UF3WwZRI7w

Excellent take. My sense is that one of the highest leverage ways to help humanity is to accurately describe 'what kind of thing' humans are. Forms of beauty that are legible are much more likely to persist under transformations. https://x.com/SamoBurja/status/1618052820967772160


Philosophy has many stories about what humans are; neuroscience has many stories about what brains are. But there is little overlap between these stories


@nickcammarata Here’s the best way I’ve been able to describe why human qualia reports sorta work (from PQ); totally agree that if you change the underlying layers the inference chain breaks https://t.co/KwmhZsBJsW

@nickcammarata Here’s the best way I’ve been able to describe why human qualia reports sorta work (from PQ); totally agree that if you change the underlying layers the inference chain breaks https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1626015046164975616/photo/1


@nickcammarata We need an inverse fictionalization of https://t.co/W23XzCCY2R that illustrates what’s at stake if we incorrect ascribe qualia

@nickcammarata We need an inverse fictionalization of https://qntm.org/mmacevedo that illustrates what’s at stake if we incorrect ascribe qualia


@nickcammarata Speaking as a panpsychist: the risk isn’t that all consciousness gets extinguished, it’s that we undergo a phase transition from Type I qualia to Type IVa qualia, and this may not preserve things like “caring about valence” https://t.co/36gXJJPMef

@nickcammarata Speaking as a panpsychist: the risk isn’t that all consciousness gets extinguished, it’s that we undergo a phase transition from Type I qualia to Type IVa qualia, and this may not preserve things like “caring about valence” https://opentheory.net/2019/09/whats-out-there/


@42irrationalist @noampomsky I'm a physics-panpsychist; I think AIs can't be conscious because they have no physicality. But *computers* are physical, so they could+would be consciousness. But their qualia is going to be weird https://t.co/LOmgz7QNlH

@42irrationalist @noampomsky I'm a physics-panpsychist; I think AIs can't be conscious because they have no physicality. But *computers* are physical, so they could+would be consciousness. But their qualia is going to be weird https://opentheory.net/2022/12/ais-arent-conscious-but-computers-are/


@MatthewJBar I self-recommend PQ as a blueprint for exactly what you want https://t.co/bPds7P0mEE
The monad lineage started in philosophy but isn’t well represented in the academy currently. But IMO a cross from cybernetics and Wittgenstein/Quine gave us LLMs

@MatthewJBar I self-recommend PQ as a blueprint for exactly what you want https://opentheory.net/PrincipiaQualia.pdf
The monad lineage started in philosophy but isn’t well represented in the academy currently. But IMO a cross from cybernetics and Wittgenstein/Quine gave us LLMs


@MatthewJBar To your specific question https://t.co/UtEBwfn1w6

@MatthewJBar To your specific question https://opentheory.net/2017/10/rescuing-philosophy/


@danfaggella Imo humanity’s Mandate of Heaven waxes and wanes, and we’re currently on the downswing; I think much different conversations would be happening if it was ascendant. (How to get there?)


@erikphoel I think by default we generally try to preserve both functional and physical intuitions about consciousness, and for brains that mostly works but for AI it fails spectacularly… bits vs atoms: pick one

Btw congrats on finishing the book! Looking forward to reading


@nosilverv I found the difficulty to be roughly n^2; so many more interactions and choices. And once you’re past 20 pages, there are always enough interesting rabbitholes to justify making it longer… it’s legit hard to ship long works


@danfaggella Both perception and reality;
Various ways to frame the civilization cycle: our era seems to be Thiel’s “indefinite pessimism”, weak men making hard times, decline, antinatalism. Point is that not all human eras are like this. Some eras are ascendant

https://t.co/tnFJh4BlI7

@danfaggella Both perception and reality;
Various ways to frame the civilization cycle: our era seems to be Thiel’s “indefinite pessimism”, weak men making hard times, decline, antinatalism. Point is that not all human eras are like this. Some eras are ascendant

https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1506981082213801987


@danfaggella Whether the era is characterized by decline or ascension dominates its approach to solving problems. If we had gotten to Sidney-level LLMs in the 40s or 1810s, or the peak of classical Greek & Roman antiquity, I think we’d be having different and *better* discussions about AGI


@danfaggella Ultimately my allegiance is to the good, but I think humans are better stewards of the good than we give ourselves credit for. I’m for making new life that has a better Mandate of Heaven than humanity, but best to figure out what is beautiful about humanity https://t.co/gNzpUpttZm

@danfaggella Ultimately my allegiance is to the good, but I think humans are better stewards of the good than we give ourselves credit for. I’m for making new life that has a better Mandate of Heaven than humanity, but best to figure out what is beautiful about humanity https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1618061058777952257


@danfaggella I’m seeing a whole lot of confusion about AI consciousness out there that could make the future really noisy… https://t.co/LOmgz7Rlbf

@danfaggella I’m seeing a whole lot of confusion about AI consciousness out there that could make the future really noisy… https://opentheory.net/2022/12/ais-arent-conscious-but-computers-are/


@danfaggella @RokoMijic Depends on the degree to which ‘higher’ is a scalar or a vector; could be humans are a little bit special in terms of navigating consciousness-as-the-domain-of-value


@danfaggella This is one reason I think radical longevity tech could be great: the feeling of getting younger and healthier every day instead of older could help shift us into that mode. In general I think a bio singularity has a lot to recommend it…


@danfaggella @RokoMijic Totally could be— and I agree that leaping is probably better in expectation than pushing for a ‘long reflection’ (which is about power). I do think there are several ways to leap and not all are as good as others


@nosilverv I first misread this as “about consciousness”


@gfodor @networklostsoul @slimepriestess My sense is AIs aren’t ’ontologically real’ enough to be conscious but computers could be. Tononi observed the integration dynamic of a computer revolves around its internal clock; analysis of computer EM field patterns could start there https://t.co/LOmgz7Rlbf

@gfodor @networklostsoul @slimepriestess My sense is AIs aren’t ’ontologically real’ enough to be conscious but computers could be. Tononi observed the integration dynamic of a computer revolves around its internal clock; analysis of computer EM field patterns could start there https://opentheory.net/2022/12/ais-arent-conscious-but-computers-are/


@eigenrobot Important to note the ontological difference between AIs (bits) and computers (atoms): https://t.co/LOmgz7Rlbf

@eigenrobot Important to note the ontological difference between AIs (bits) and computers (atoms): https://opentheory.net/2022/12/ais-arent-conscious-but-computers-are/


@Willyintheworld It’s crazy more people aren’t interested in this


@Willyintheworld I’m very curious whether the creation of qualia consumes negentropy or not; huge difference in the ‘endgame’! Also you might like some of my noodlings on this https://t.co/Ppql0LToXK and some other pieces there

@Willyintheworld I’m very curious whether the creation of qualia consumes negentropy or not; huge difference in the ‘endgame’! Also you might like some of my noodlings on this https://opentheory.net/2022/04/it-from-bit-revisited/ and some other pieces there


@RokoMijic My sense is there’s a third component which is our civilizational/institutional health is on the downswing which makes solving problems way harder


@Willyintheworld @MikePFrank Scott Aaronson is pretty skeptical of the possibility due to some weird implications https://t.co/TKmjAUhUtz

@Willyintheworld @MikePFrank Scott Aaronson is pretty skeptical of the possibility due to some weird implications https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=1951


@Willyintheworld @MikePFrank lol hard to say


@EricWollberg Love it. Huge overlap though!


@gfodor Some people take physics as foundational, some take Turing-level processes as foundational. The position you take is a reasonable extrapolation of the latter, but isn’t compatible with the former


@xlr8harder We can’t simply assume physics is Turing computable! There are orders of computation (this is a bit sparse but points in the right direction: https://t.co/hqlz7fKAOw )

@xlr8harder We can’t simply assume physics is Turing computable! There are orders of computation (this is a bit sparse but points in the right direction: https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0209332 )


@xlr8harder Also, AI consciousness would be different than computer consciousness (I agree that computers could become conscious…) https://t.co/LOmgz7Rlbf

@xlr8harder Also, AI consciousness would be different than computer consciousness (I agree that computers could become conscious…) https://opentheory.net/2022/12/ais-arent-conscious-but-computers-are/


@xlr8harder Imo physics belongs to hypercomputation (which simply means a higher order of computer than a TM) https://t.co/m6CxZUiKKe

Aaronson has some wicked cool thought experiments around problems we run into if we assume consciousness is Turing-computable https://t.co/TKmjAUhUtz

@xlr8harder Imo physics belongs to hypercomputation (which simply means a higher order of computer than a TM) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercomputation

Aaronson has some wicked cool thought experiments around problems we run into if we assume consciousness is Turing-computable https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=1951


@xlr8harder I’d tend to defer to Wolfram (who would say it’s computable but hasn’t taken a stance on whether it’s Turing-computable afaik; I’d be very surprised if he ever says yes)


@xlr8harder You bet, I really enjoyed that one. Tegmark’s Mathematical Universe paper makes a similar argument iirc, referencing McCabe


@nc_znc @xlr8harder In TMU Tegmark argues against there existing an objective way to interpret the computational processes or state of a physical system; here’s me quoting his source material (McCabe 2004): https://t.co/SuFE94nnwa https://t.co/DiX81Wg9L2

@nc_znc @xlr8harder In TMU Tegmark argues against there existing an objective way to interpret the computational processes or state of a physical system; here’s me quoting his source material (McCabe 2004): https://opentheory.net/2017/07/why-i-think-the-foundational-research-institute-should-rethink-its-approach/ https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1628338649288052736/photo/1


@nc_znc @xlr8harder As a caveat, this is arguably more relevant to evaluating the consciousness of eg brain emulations than AIs- but larger point is that we have to choose between bits (computations) and atoms (physics) as the foundational home of consciousness. Can’t mix and match intuitions


@nc_znc @xlr8harder Aha yes I was looking for that, thanks


@nc_znc @xlr8harder Aaronson is always so on-point…
Btw you might enjoy a talk I gave for Mathematical Consciousness Science a couple years ago trying to list 10 statements about consciousness that must be either true or false (I think!)- https://t.co/Ppql0LToXK

@nc_znc @xlr8harder Aaronson is always so on-point…
Btw you might enjoy a talk I gave for Mathematical Consciousness Science a couple years ago trying to list 10 statements about consciousness that must be either true or false (I think!)- https://opentheory.net/2022/04/it-from-bit-revisited/


@nc_znc @xlr8harder Awesome! The transcript might be better since the recording is quiet. Thanks for the interest :)


@nc_znc @xlr8harder Nice this is feeling familiar—
Fwiw some years ago I planned out a paper on enumerating all possible qualia, as an extension of Tononi’s and @romanyam ‘s work. Never finished it but it felt possible. Easier if the Bekenstein Bound can be applied


@garybasin @gfodor I agree with black holes: (1) plausible solutions to various (eg qualia) optimization problems, (2) possible areas of concentrated computation. Here’s my basic frame https://t.co/36gXJJPMef

@garybasin @gfodor I agree with black holes: (1) plausible solutions to various (eg qualia) optimization problems, (2) possible areas of concentrated computation. Here’s my basic frame https://opentheory.net/2019/09/whats-out-there/


@garybasin @gfodor I still need to clean it up a bit but you might enjoy this: https://t.co/cQ8OnBQmmE
Basically, it might be plausible to turn “proof of work” into “proof of qualia” assuming convergence on the most efficient physical process to compute a task; the POW algo determines the qualia

@garybasin @gfodor I still need to clean it up a bit but you might enjoy this: https://opentheory.net/2022/06/qualia-astronomy/
Basically, it might be plausible to turn “proof of work” into “proof of qualia” assuming convergence on the most efficient physical process to compute a task; the POW algo determines the qualia


@garybasin @gfodor You probably couldn’t hit all possible qualia like this but you might be able to hit some important dimensions of variability


@gfodor As a physismist, if that’s a word, I’m curious about the EM field (what patterns do computers make?) and xenophenomenology. Anchor piece here: https://t.co/36gXJJPMef

@gfodor As a physismist, if that’s a word, I’m curious about the EM field (what patterns do computers make?) and xenophenomenology. Anchor piece here: https://opentheory.net/2019/09/whats-out-there/


@gfodor Binary forks in the road for consciousness research (why I endorse physism): https://t.co/Ppql0LToXK

@gfodor Binary forks in the road for consciousness research (why I endorse physism): https://opentheory.net/2022/04/it-from-bit-revisited/


@robbensinger Preface: I like MIRI. I think there’s been a low amount of curiosity re: formalizing consciousness. If qualia are an ineffable reification, MIRI’s task is impossible by definition. Shifting probability mass toward “qualia are real” shifts what alignment is https://t.co/Ppql0LToXK

@robbensinger Preface: I like MIRI. I think there’s been a low amount of curiosity re: formalizing consciousness. If qualia are an ineffable reification, MIRI’s task is impossible by definition. Shifting probability mass toward “qualia are real” shifts what alignment is https://opentheory.net/2022/04/it-from-bit-revisited/


@robbensinger Thanks Rob, will review those pieces. My methods are described in the piece I linked; my arguments are spelled out in Against Functionalism, my conclusions in PQ. There appears to be a large divide between communities that take bits vs atoms to be the arbiter of consciousness:


@robbensinger I see MIRI as being on ‘team bits’ whereas my intuition leans towards atoms. I think both threads are worth trying to formalize.


@MWCvitkovic @joshuagoldford @AlexTISYoung @DMalawsky @gwern Hard to predict the future but I consider genes still the primary unit of selection until actually supplanted (still lots of differential reproduction!). My guess is genetic engineering will suffer from a shortage of heuristics for tradeoff-free edits. Spellcheck is promising imo


@pwlot @Soph8B @ataiiam @Plinz @DavidDeutschOxf Thanks for the shoutout. I think the formalism lens is correct: focus on methods for creating a mathematical representation of an experience (“type 1 psychophysical laws”) and for interpreting it (“type 2 psychophysical laws”). Create an ecosystem that can mix and match types 1&2


@pwlot @Soph8B @ataiiam @Plinz @DavidDeutschOxf PQ explores this approach, taking emotional valence (pleasantness of an experience) as the pilot project. Result is the Symmetry Theory of Valence, a metric you can apply to the formalism of an experience to derive its pleasantness. Basic summary: https://t.co/Ppql0LToXK

@pwlot @Soph8B @ataiiam @Plinz @DavidDeutschOxf PQ explores this approach, taking emotional valence (pleasantness of an experience) as the pilot project. Result is the Symmetry Theory of Valence, a metric you can apply to the formalism of an experience to derive its pleasantness. Basic summary: https://opentheory.net/2022/04/it-from-bit-revisited/


@ataiiam @pwlot @Soph8B @Plinz @DavidDeutschOxf I’ll be speaking in Berlin this August on the topic, a few pieces I can also recommend are https://t.co/Ppql0LToXK (long), https://t.co/LOmgz7Rlbf (short, links to longer pieces)

@ataiiam @pwlot @Soph8B @Plinz @DavidDeutschOxf I’ll be speaking in Berlin this August on the topic, a few pieces I can also recommend are https://opentheory.net/2022/04/it-from-bit-revisited/ (long), https://opentheory.net/2022/12/ais-arent-conscious-but-computers-are/ (short, links to longer pieces)


@Plinz @ataiiam @pwlot Afaik the canonical paper arguing against simulations being equivalent to base reality for the purposes of consciousness is https://t.co/ArlxFFZaSl (I found it via tracing Tegmark’s arguments)

@Plinz @ataiiam @pwlot Afaik the canonical paper arguing against simulations being equivalent to base reality for the purposes of consciousness is https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0511116 (I found it via tracing Tegmark’s arguments)


@_TechyBen @AsherSoryl @alexhillphd I think this is a worthy position, and one I strongly argue against here: https://t.co/SuFE94nnwa

@_TechyBen @AsherSoryl @alexhillphd I think this is a worthy position, and one I strongly argue against here: https://opentheory.net/2017/07/why-i-think-the-foundational-research-institute-should-rethink-its-approach/


@redqualia @_TechyBen @AsherSoryl @alexhillphd @Plinz I’ll note I left QRI last year and don’t speak for them. My account of consciousness is in Principia Qualia and on my blog; I gave a talk in 2020 that offered an overview of how I navigate certain questions https://t.co/Ppql0LToXK

@redqualia @_TechyBen @AsherSoryl @alexhillphd @Plinz I’ll note I left QRI last year and don’t speak for them. My account of consciousness is in Principia Qualia and on my blog; I gave a talk in 2020 that offered an overview of how I navigate certain questions https://opentheory.net/2022/04/it-from-bit-revisited/


@parafactual This is an overview of my last 13 years working on the topic (have since left QRI) https://t.co/M0DH7qCogw

@parafactual This is an overview of my last 13 years working on the topic (have since left QRI) https://opentheory.net/2021/07/a-primer-on-the-symmetry-theory-of-valence/


@basileSportif I find 2+5 the most likely; I expect if we took a look at the details of SETI we’d be surprised at how rudimentary the heuristics we’ve been using are. Also very little effort has gone into trying to predict alien telos, which is central for knowing what to look for. Speculation: https://t.co/lrErXldloJ

@basileSportif I find 2+5 the most likely; I expect if we took a look at the details of SETI we’d be surprised at how rudimentary the heuristics we’ve been using are. Also very little effort has gone into trying to predict alien telos, which is central for knowing what to look for. Speculation: https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1643025464217473024/photo/1


@danfaggella “In life, the challenge is not so much to figure out how best to play the game; the challenge is to figure out what game you’re playing.” -Kwame Appiah


@danfaggella Ship of Theseus; we die every moment! My sense of the game:

https://t.co/WUTYcj46sB

@danfaggella Ship of Theseus; we die every moment! My sense of the game:

https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1618061058777952257?s=46&t=NEwLPfedwCow8EP9ExPZpw


@danfaggella Very well put; I’d add “what’s worth saving?”

I’m not for preserving aspects of humanity because they’re weak and can’t defend themselves; I’m for saving broad aspects of humanity because they’re strong & good and will be useful where we’re going


@Telofy There’s no consensus on consciousness, nor suffering, nor what a valid research program into these topics should look like. Fwiw my brief defense of “substrate matters”: https://t.co/LOmgz7QNlH

@Telofy There’s no consensus on consciousness, nor suffering, nor what a valid research program into these topics should look like. Fwiw my brief defense of “substrate matters”: https://opentheory.net/2022/12/ais-arent-conscious-but-computers-are/


@RokoMijic I’d much rather AI was happening during a civilizational ascent rather than a decline, but It Can Always Get Worse. Nuking chip fabs likely to sour the vibe. Friendlier approach is this sort of research imo https://t.co/gNzpUpsW9O

@RokoMijic I’d much rather AI was happening during a civilizational ascent rather than a decline, but It Can Always Get Worse. Nuking chip fabs likely to sour the vibe. Friendlier approach is this sort of research imo https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1618061058777952257


@RokoMijic @danfaggella @romanyam All else equal, if civilization is ascending and coordination is improving over time, makes strong sense to slow way down & solve methodically. If civilization is declining and world’s ability to solve hard technical and coordination problems is declining, decel is a harder call


@rivatez Absolutely love your work on this!


@RokoMijic @danfaggella @romanyam Prior to the AI focus, you shared many fairly compelling examples of civilizational decline where we were definitively failing on tasks that should be easy layups. AI alignment is orders of magnitude harder and more political than these. I don’t think the race is the core issue


@RokoMijic @joe_zimmerman The problem with antirealist theories of consciousness is they don’t actually do what we need theories of consciousness to do (mediate disagreements) - they look like solutions but aren’t https://t.co/SuFE94mPGC

@RokoMijic @joe_zimmerman The problem with antirealist theories of consciousness is they don’t actually do what we need theories of consciousness to do (mediate disagreements) - they look like solutions but aren’t https://opentheory.net/2017/07/why-i-think-the-foundational-research-institute-should-rethink-its-approach/


@joe_zimmerman Imo the challenge isn’t so much the technical aspects but the social aspects. Incentives, psychological projections around this topic, etc. The hypothesis space is also quite large, and people with good aesthetics for navigating this can get (much) more status elsewhere


@danfaggella I feel the technical challenges around BCIs have covered up the larger issue that there aren’t good visions for what to use them for. There aren’t good visions for this because we don’t have a good model of what kind of thing a brain is, and which parameters are even worth tuning https://t.co/gNzpUpsW9O

@danfaggella I feel the technical challenges around BCIs have covered up the larger issue that there aren’t good visions for what to use them for. There aren’t good visions for this because we don’t have a good model of what kind of thing a brain is, and which parameters are even worth tuning https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1618061058777952257


@danfaggella I’m incredibly curious where all this is headed.

Fwiw politics is worst where crucial resources are at stake. I’m not sure the opinions of the average person will be as much of a crucial resource in the future as it was in the 20c. Could be a kindness, or ominous, not sure


@PashaKamyshev @joe_zimmerman I believe that.


@danfaggella We’ve already seen the shape of how this will play out https://t.co/uLbwcpZWV5

@danfaggella We’ve already seen the shape of how this will play out https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1646097517572939778/photo/1


@danfaggella I don’t foresee mass uprisings unless it’s seen as useful for our current elites, because our sociopolitical system is very good at dampening, fragmenting, and redirecting such energy. Modern-day power works through an asymmetry in knowledge about how power works


@danfaggella I can recommend @SamoBurja on successful revolutions always being intra-elite conflict (people very rarely “rise up” organically due to elites controlling the means of coordination) and “high+low vs middle” as a recurring motif https://t.co/kWzgGNAJNk

@danfaggella I can recommend @SamoBurja on successful revolutions always being intra-elite conflict (people very rarely “rise up” organically due to elites controlling the means of coordination) and “high+low vs middle” as a recurring motif https://samoburja.com/empire-theory-part-ii-power-dynamics/


@powerfultakes @yacineMTB I’m sympathetic to computer consciousness, but I think AI consciousness is a different reference class and less likely: https://t.co/LOmgz7QNlH

@powerfultakes @yacineMTB I’m sympathetic to computer consciousness, but I think AI consciousness is a different reference class and less likely: https://opentheory.net/2022/12/ais-arent-conscious-but-computers-are/


@EvilVizier I really like this take. Have you considered adapting it as a new flavor of monism? https://t.co/hdEh8dzXXj

@EvilVizier I really like this take. Have you considered adapting it as a new flavor of monism? https://opentheory.net/2019/06/taking-monism-seriously/


@danfaggella @EvilVizier Dan what do you believe is worth doing on the margin?


@danfaggella @EvilVizier Worth doing today! No AGIs populating the galaxy yet brother :)


@danfaggella @EvilVizier My guess our crux is on the intelligibility of consciousness and the Good. You know my position- https://t.co/Ppql0LSR8c

@danfaggella @EvilVizier My guess our crux is on the intelligibility of consciousness and the Good. You know my position- https://opentheory.net/2022/04/it-from-bit-revisited/


@Plinz I am uneasy about being too cavalier about supplanting humanity before we know what we are

https://t.co/WUTYcj46sB

@Plinz I am uneasy about being too cavalier about supplanting humanity before we know what we are

https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1618061058777952257?s=46&t=NEwLPfedwCow8EP9ExPZpw


@Plinz I think this is almost right; need to add a theory of consciousness https://t.co/9oju6Niq8q

@Plinz I think this is almost right; need to add a theory of consciousness https://x.com/Plinz/status/1599127769270849536


@Plinz The most precise ‘navigation grade’ description I have is that humanity is a projection into three domains: physical, phenomenological, computational. AIs will be a very different projection


An absolutely delightful special issue on symmetry in biology. Reading this feels similar to watching the birth of a new branch of science. Congratulations @adamsafron and other authors https://t.co/C2AvVJ1opB

An absolutely delightful special issue on symmetry in biology. Reading this feels similar to watching the birth of a new branch of science. Congratulations @adamsafron and other authors https://x.com/drmichaellevin/status/1646812862906617859


@RokoMijicLegacy @EvilVizier I’m fairly optimistic consciousness research could give us a better view of the endgame. And maybe help civilize it:

https://t.co/cQ8OnBPOx6

Pretty speculative, but imo less confused and more generative than current thinking around humanity’s utility function

@RokoMijicLegacy @EvilVizier I’m fairly optimistic consciousness research could give us a better view of the endgame. And maybe help civilize it:

https://opentheory.net/2022/06/qualia-astronomy/

Pretty speculative, but imo less confused and more generative than current thinking around humanity’s utility function


@PashaKamyshev @RokoMijicLegacy @EvilVizier The PoW stuff is speculative- the skepticism about computationalism is summarized here https://t.co/LOmgz7QNlH (brief overview with links). The longer piece this draws from is https://t.co/SuFE94mPGC

@PashaKamyshev @RokoMijicLegacy @EvilVizier The PoW stuff is speculative- the skepticism about computationalism is summarized here https://opentheory.net/2022/12/ais-arent-conscious-but-computers-are/ (brief overview with links). The longer piece this draws from is https://opentheory.net/2017/07/why-i-think-the-foundational-research-institute-should-rethink-its-approach/


@PashaKamyshev I’m expecting increasing investment into AI-AI debates as a mechanism for both increased coherence between personality basins and for generative truthseeking. (This also offers a suggestion for future research impact: craft diamond-perfect argument chunks that can be used by AIs)


@josephkelly @dhruvbansal @unchainedcom @vpat24 Congrats guys!


@Ravi_21M @algekalipso Thanks Ravi! Fwiw I left QRI last year and am in the process of starting a new institute. (Not a knock on the quality of my former cofounder’s research; I think it’s great.)


@nickcammarata @Plinz My guess is the qualia of free will somewhat depends on internally-illegible complexity; meditation could reduce this by insight into how the mind works or by reducing turbulence/complexity in general. I wonder the ways the qualia of free will is/isn’t correlated with suffering https://t.co/KF03skIwzY

@nickcammarata @Plinz My guess is the qualia of free will somewhat depends on internally-illegible complexity; meditation could reduce this by insight into how the mind works or by reducing turbulence/complexity in general. I wonder the ways the qualia of free will is/isn’t correlated with suffering https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1648549041578360833/photo/1


@AsherSoryl @algekalipso @louis02x Good luck! Curious to read the paper :)

Fwiw PQ/STV has been cited in an academic context already, so it shouldn’t be an issue to cite it: https://t.co/2upONbsYL3 (a great overview btw)

@AsherSoryl @algekalipso @louis02x Good luck! Curious to read the paper :)

Fwiw PQ/STV has been cited in an academic context already, so it shouldn’t be an issue to cite it: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2023.0015 (a great overview btw)


@rob_knight Was a great conversation! My pleasure to meet you


@danfaggella Classically this role has been filled by nomadic steppe warriors… currently, by Hilux light calvary


@danfaggella Would be hard to overstate the importance of asabiyyah


@powerfultakes @turchin I think that’s well put;

There’s some good fiction about what might go wrong if uploads are conscious but we don’t treat them as such: https://t.co/W23XzCCqdj

@powerfultakes @turchin I think that’s well put;

There’s some good fiction about what might go wrong if uploads are conscious but we don’t treat them as such: https://qntm.org/mmacevedo


@powerfultakes @turchin There’s not yet good fiction about what might go wrong if AIs aren’t conscious, but parrot our patterns enough they clamor for the rights of sentient beings (I think this is very likely)


@PashaKamyshev A lot of great stuff here. Will work up some proper comments


@nickcammarata @bayeslord Thanks! Many things to say soon but I think jhanas as different phases of phenomenological matter, enabled by finer and finer chunks of micro-resonance, is a good frame. Less frothy building blocks = finer texture. Discrete phase transitions. Maybe undiscovered jhanas? https://t.co/W9j1vEqwBY

@nickcammarata @bayeslord Thanks! Many things to say soon but I think jhanas as different phases of phenomenological matter, enabled by finer and finer chunks of micro-resonance, is a good frame. Less frothy building blocks = finer texture. Discrete phase transitions. Maybe undiscovered jhanas? https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1586276927278837760


@danfaggella @RokoMijic The dream


I’ll be speaking tomorrow at Zuzalu (Montenegro) about my research, 12:30pm at the lighthouse. Looking forward to seeing people! https://t.co/vScAqfccMl https://t.co/NZbSxdjQRf

I’ll be speaking tomorrow at Zuzalu (Montenegro) about my research, 12:30pm at the lighthouse. Looking forward to seeing people! https://x.com/sxysun1/status/1654931868523941888 https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1654939709502570497/photo/1


@danfaggella Signs point to yes; also this whole area is absolutely Venetian


@nosilverv Reasonable people may disagree on the metaphysics but the tastiest acausal trade may be our PoW algorithm https://t.co/cQ8OnBPOx6

@nosilverv Reasonable people may disagree on the metaphysics but the tastiest acausal trade may be our PoW algorithm https://opentheory.net/2022/06/qualia-astronomy/


@Plinz @nosilverv @jamesrcole Sparse ASIC-type networks, heavily canalized & standardized, vs dense FPGAs that must be pruned to uncover lottery tickets. I think it all flows from neuron density & network dimensionality -via @crimkadid https://t.co/3qXfBLgDev

@Plinz @nosilverv @jamesrcole Sparse ASIC-type networks, heavily canalized & standardized, vs dense FPGAs that must be pruned to uncover lottery tickets. I think it all flows from neuron density & network dimensionality -via @crimkadid https://web.math.princeton.edu/~sswang/developmental-diaschisis-references/courhcesne_neurob_number_sizejpc15009_2001_2010.pdf


@nosilverv @Plinz @jamesrcole @crimkadid Tanha writeup first, then autism. Come to Zuzalu!


@MrAde94 I have a phone recording I’ve uploaded here: https://t.co/8DCQ4HrdZJ - I think the official videos will be up in a couple weeks. Will post when they are!

@MrAde94 I have a phone recording I’ve uploaded here: https://youtu.be/FenXmnOJyrg - I think the official videos will be up in a couple weeks. Will post when they are!


@danfaggella I uploaded an initial phone recording here: https://t.co/8DCQ4HrdZJ — official video probably to follow in a few weeks

@danfaggella I uploaded an initial phone recording here: https://youtu.be/FenXmnOJyrg — official video probably to follow in a few weeks


@ben_j_todd I spoke about this and similar topics last week- https://t.co/4bBW4cMjEw

@ben_j_todd I spoke about this and similar topics last week- https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1654939709502570497


@danfaggella @Johnsonmx I should get a new handle, can’t always grab johnsonmx;

Appreciate the shout-out as always


@PashaKamyshev Slides here!

https://t.co/CiXKpVe2pX

@PashaKamyshev Slides here!

https://hackmd.io/D4kdO68tQw2zQ5pWjT81zw


“Fear not the schizo who has 10,000 ideas, fear the schizo-autist who has one idea and tries to explain 10,000 things”

Bruce Lee metaphysics are the soul of scientific progress (and social dystopias)


@danfaggella My sense is there exists a path to a biosingularity but we are not on it; many micro-choices and metaphors made over the last century that sum to an aesthetic where it’s not presently tractable.

Consciousness… yes^1000000. Have you read What’s Out There? https://t.co/36gXJJPeoH

@danfaggella My sense is there exists a path to a biosingularity but we are not on it; many micro-choices and metaphors made over the last century that sum to an aesthetic where it’s not presently tractable.

Consciousness… yes^1000000. Have you read What’s Out There? https://opentheory.net/2019/09/whats-out-there/


@xuenay Bertrand Russell had a similar theory about Christianity- that the persecution inverted Christian morality from doing good works to not sinning. That said I’m not sure I’d trust Russell’s scholarship on the topic


@danfaggella Absolutely true and very well put


@nickcammarata Absolutely great work


@crainbf Surgery is surprisingly taxing on the body; when I broke my arm it really helped me to shift expectations towards spending energy on myself (reducing expectations of external control/achievement) and finding things to celebrate during healing. Very glad to hear you’re stable


Have had some great discussions about AI+crypto at Zuzalu. Very optimistic crypto can offer concrete solutions to problems in AI alignment. Wrote up related notes about how to write a good constitution for AI agents:
https://t.co/SCUldxgLS7

Have had some great discussions about AI+crypto at Zuzalu. Very optimistic crypto can offer concrete solutions to problems in AI alignment. Wrote up related notes about how to write a good constitution for AI agents:
https://opentheory.net/2023/05/ai-x-crypto-x-constitutions/


RT @adamsafron: Very pleased to be part of this collaboration with @awjuliani and @kanair, where we're using artificial intelligence and ma…


@DrTomFroese I like it— I generally think of there being a buildup of energy when you turn top-down models down. This energy triggers what I’ve called Neural Annealing. Writeup here: https://t.co/FKyygE1cL4

@DrTomFroese I like it— I generally think of there being a buildup of energy when you turn top-down models down. This energy triggers what I’ve called Neural Annealing. Writeup here: https://opentheory.net/2019/11/neural-annealing-toward-a-neural-theory-of-everything/

Tom Froese, Embodied Cognitive Science Unit (ECSU)


I was at QRI when I wrote Neural Annealing (2019). It was a solo effort and unpaid work, building off my 2018 Neuroscience of Meditation article and 2019 conference talk. I had some of my best moments at QRI. I stepped down from the board and left last year. https://t.co/TPMTPWHnGi

I was at QRI when I wrote Neural Annealing (2019). It was a solo effort and unpaid work, building off my 2018 Neuroscience of Meditation article and 2019 conference talk. I had some of my best moments at QRI. I stepped down from the board and left last year. https://x.com/QualiaRI/status/1659991488800100353


My former co-founder @algekalipso has done great and notable work explaining and extending the Neural Annealing paradigm and I have great respect for his work in general. Andrés is, and will ever be, one of the most interesting and productive researchers in the field.


As is clear from the thread, @QualiaRI and specifically @algekalipso have thought deeply about annealing, psychedelics, and implications, and I encourage reading these pieces carefully. I think they’re brilliant and great.


I plan to fundraise for a new institute with my past work, in particular Neural Annealing and the Symmetry Theory of Valence. I strongly believe a world with a broad set of institutions and individuals researching consciousness is a better one and I wish everyone well.


I believe the CANALs framework is a well-argued and remarkable advance along several dimensions (the full extent of which may take some time to assess) and strongly endorse the work of @awjuliani @kanair @adamsafron


RT @en_SeeDAO: Mike Johnson @johnsonmxe, author of Principia Qualia and Symmetry Theory of Valence, introduced his research and interest in…


@fisiologist @EDCON2023 @see_dao It wasn’t (the name of the breakout event I spoke at is DAO Montenegro), at some point I’ll write it up


@mihir021 @EDCON2023 @see_dao I think there might be a recording


@davidad @Algon_33 @ESYudkowsky How sure are you that value is fragile and hard to specify? The Complexity of Value thesis runs counter to eg affective neuroscience. My expectation is research into the structure of consciousness will reimagine this point. (Gave a talk on this at Zuzalu)


@turchin I talk about “fork in the road” questions here- https://t.co/Ppql0LSR8c
My take is there’s a “bits vs atoms” divide and assigning consciousness to Turing-level processes unavoidably leads to confusion. Scott Aaronson argues similarly here: https://t.co/TKmjAUhmE1

@turchin I talk about “fork in the road” questions here- https://opentheory.net/2022/04/it-from-bit-revisited/
My take is there’s a “bits vs atoms” divide and assigning consciousness to Turing-level processes unavoidably leads to confusion. Scott Aaronson argues similarly here: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=1951


@itinerantfog I don’t think this is a crazy idea (just weird); from https://t.co/5WjEZV8Ug5 https://t.co/ktGJDhLXBD

@itinerantfog I don’t think this is a crazy idea (just weird); from https://opentheory.net/2018/09/a-new-theory-of-open-individualism/ https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1661703574181617665/photo/1


Aligning strong AI without understanding the structure of consciousness feels similar to going to the moon without Maxwell’s Equations — totally possible in theory, but needlessly difficult


@0xjesur Going to the moon didn’t require Maxwell’s Equations, but they helped a lot (electronics, communications, etc)


@drmichaellevin Philosophy is a complex ecosystem; not all are doing the same thing. But imo the success condition for all study is to have a place to put knowledge; once you have this structure everything else can fall into place. Thoughts on philosophy as a field: https://t.co/UtEBwfmtGy

@drmichaellevin Philosophy is a complex ecosystem; not all are doing the same thing. But imo the success condition for all study is to have a place to put knowledge; once you have this structure everything else can fall into place. Thoughts on philosophy as a field: https://opentheory.net/2017/10/rescuing-philosophy/


@serafimov Do you know where? I used this metaphor in my May 7th talk on AI alignment, would be glad to know if others are on this theme also


@gfodor Have a talk at Zuzalu about consciousness + AI alignment; better video coming later, but phone video here https://t.co/8DCQ4HrdZJ and here are my slides https://t.co/7XkJFCs0kC

@gfodor Have a talk at Zuzalu about consciousness + AI alignment; better video coming later, but phone video here https://youtu.be/FenXmnOJyrg and here are my slides https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1-VLV7mFXpxEPp0KzyDqV4-aOISZAsGvHj4TxjKnP4lk/edit


@EMostaque AI constitutions were a big topic at Zuzalu after you left; here’s my thesis on how to write a good one https://t.co/SCUldxgLS7

@EMostaque AI constitutions were a big topic at Zuzalu after you left; here’s my thesis on how to write a good one https://opentheory.net/2023/05/ai-x-crypto-x-constitutions/


@eschwitz I’d agree and think navigating this is going to be very confusing (lots of false positives and false negatives, each bad in their own way). Btw I might distinguish AI vs computer/robot consciousness:
https://t.co/LOmgz7QNlH

@eschwitz I’d agree and think navigating this is going to be very confusing (lots of false positives and false negatives, each bad in their own way). Btw I might distinguish AI vs computer/robot consciousness:
https://opentheory.net/2022/12/ais-arent-conscious-but-computers-are/


@RokoMijic @robinhanson Nested constitutional AI — a universal constitution that all AI agents run + a bespoke personal constitution


@nickcammarata @zerfas33 I expect AIs to be the main consumer of some of my writings; my sense is ‘writing for AI’ involves creating diamond-perfect theory nuggets that AI subagents can use to win arguments against other AIs with in future round-robin debates about consciousness. Create the motifs+vector


@nickcammarata @zerfas33 Examples: Principia Qualia+STV;

https://t.co/hdEh8dzXXj

https://t.co/36gXJJPeoH

Hypothesis is to fill in the sorts of connections/motifs/parallels that are difficult for LLMs to make on their own; trust future AI architectures to find and use them

@nickcammarata @zerfas33 Examples: Principia Qualia+STV;

https://opentheory.net/2019/06/taking-monism-seriously/

https://opentheory.net/2019/09/whats-out-there/

Hypothesis is to fill in the sorts of connections/motifs/parallels that are difficult for LLMs to make on their own; trust future AI architectures to find and use them


@gfodor Worth thinking about how best to write for AIs; how I’m thinking about it: https://t.co/zXVG7TabJ7

@gfodor Worth thinking about how best to write for AIs; how I’m thinking about it: https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1662505658183286786


I spent the weekend digging into the Deep CANALs paper by @awjuliani @adamsafron and @kanair and I think it’s brilliant. Some notes: (1/20) https://t.co/1hXi4EwgvT

I spent the weekend digging into the Deep CANALs paper by @awjuliani @adamsafron and @kanair and I think it’s brilliant. Some notes: (1/20) https://x.com/awjuliani/status/1659544460609609730


Deep CANALs is based around the idea of belief landscapes. This touches on research by @RCarhartHarris and Karl Friston (REBUS, CANAL) and prior work by @adamsafron (ALBUS/SEBUS; IWMT)


Belief landscapes are conceptual maps of beliefs, with the depth of the landscape representing the strength, or “precision,” of the belief. A rigid mind has very steep valleys; a flexible mind is more flat https://t.co/OEReGSFzcm

Belief landscapes are conceptual maps of beliefs, with the depth of the landscape representing the strength, or “precision,” of the belief. A rigid mind has very steep valleys; a flexible mind is more flat https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1662889164604317702/photo/1


@RCarhartHarris et al refer to rigidity as “canalization,” and hypothesize that this is a universal factor across psychopathology, and suggest that psychedelics’ ability to relax this canalization is why they have a general usefulness for improving mental health


There’s ample correlative evidence for a one-factor model of psychopathology, and tracking this factor down is one of the hottest mysteries in computational psychology. Excessive canalization could be it!


My Neural Annealing framework is similar is similar to REBUS in that we can think of the brain having an energy parameter and a critical threshold; if energy crosses this threshold, existing patterns “melt” and reform once the brain cools;


This can be very healthy! Brains get stressed by normal operations (NA) and priors get outdated (REBUS). It’s part of a healthy cycle to periodically enter high-energy states (intense emotional experiences). If you don’t, you slowly feel jammed up.


REBUS and Neural Annealing have been very influential in the psychedelics space. There are a lot of little details that naturally follow from the metaphors of belief landscapes (REBUS) and metallic annealing (NA). I obviously believe NA and love REBUS


@awjuliani et al’s “Deep CANALs” paper takes the idea of belief landscapes and bifurcates it in two: “inference” vs “learning”. Excessive canalization in ‘inference’ is “overfitting” (rigid behavior); excessive canalization in ‘learning’ is plasticity loss (inability to learn) https://t.co/n0TzdioNlB

@awjuliani et al’s “Deep CANALs” paper takes the idea of belief landscapes and bifurcates it in two: “inference” vs “learning”. Excessive canalization in ‘inference’ is “overfitting” (rigid behavior); excessive canalization in ‘learning’ is plasticity loss (inability to learn) https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1662890568567889924/photo/1


That is, you can be too rigid in one landscape, but not the other. Or both, or neither. The main point is that some problems are due to improper learning (“overfitting”) and other problems are problems *of* learning (“plasticity loss”).


This introduces more complexity but also allows more flexibility: DC introduces a 2x2 matrix and sorts psychopathologies into each quadrant. Importantly, the proper treatment of each quadrant is different: some benefit in expectation from psychedelics, some don’t https://t.co/q8Em5Qe5kG

This introduces more complexity but also allows more flexibility: DC introduces a 2x2 matrix and sorts psychopathologies into each quadrant. Importantly, the proper treatment of each quadrant is different: some benefit in expectation from psychedelics, some don’t https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1662891019484946432/photo/1


In science there’s always a tension between “lumpers” vs “splitters”; is the cost of complexity worth the rewards of greater specificity? In this case we can evaluate how “real” the distinction is between the inference vs learning landscapes


My basic sense is it’s a great move. I see the cost to splitting the landscape in two, and it may be that they’re highly correlated regardless — but the gains from being able to distinguish overfitting from plasticity loss are massive


… as are the gains from being able to distinguish the reverse, underfitting vs catastrophic forgetting, because I suspect these differences will be found in the wild. DC relaxes the hunt for the single factor of psychopathology, but gains therapeutic specificity


And therapeutic specificity is a very useful frame; being able to determine whether someone is a good candidate for an intervention makes that intervention radically more powerful.


Furthermore, I suspect it may be possible to find near-objective proxies for the canalization state or tendencies of each landscape — which would revolutionize psychiatric diagnosis. I’m very bullish on Deep CANALs


This thread isn’t about Neural Annealing (Johnson 2019) but it’s worth noting NA is doing a slightly different thing: reaching down to the implementation level to “semantically neutral energy” and how it bypasses inhibitory top-down models by collecting in the system’s eigenmodes


DC’s critique of the normative aspects of the metaphor is substantial and will need to be addressed; I’ll probably touch back on what I wrote about the ‘self’ as aligner of scales, and forthcoming work https://t.co/rHr2OHHBTy

DC’s critique of the normative aspects of the metaphor is substantial and will need to be addressed; I’ll probably touch back on what I wrote about the ‘self’ as aligner of scales, and forthcoming work https://opentheory.net/2018/12/the-neuroscience-of-meditation/


In the end, I’m deeply grateful for the ecosystem of research here: it’s an honor to be mentioned in Deep CANALs (thank you @awjuliani @adamsafron and @kanair) and it’s been a pleasure getting to know everyone and their ideas better


Neural Annealing greatly benefitted from prior work by Robin, Karl, and Adam and I’m sure my future work will also. I’m also grateful for past discussions with @algekalipso as noted in my original document and his many videos on the topic, which I believe have helped many people.


@gfodor I’ve been increasingly convinced of @HiFromMichaelV ‘s comments that fear is the primary bottleneck to creation & thoughtful problem-solving, and most people live in fear


@nickcammarata I suspect consciousness wouldn’t blink out, but the center of causality could instead shift away from phenomenology toward some computational optimization target in ways that aren’t ideal. Have been meaning to write this up


@BenAnderson421 Raspy orc voice: The Age of the Academic is Over… the Time of the Gentleman Scientist has Come


@razibkhan I’d recommend both the REBUS/NA/Deep CANALs line of research and a recent pet hypothesis for mechanism https://t.co/WcaRfrtpaq https://t.co/50alncHhRy

@razibkhan I’d recommend both the REBUS/NA/Deep CANALs line of research and a recent pet hypothesis for mechanism https://opentheory.net/2023/05/autism-as-a-disorder-of-dimensionality/ https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1662887842811396096


@bradkelly I’m really curious to hear from @erikphoel on this https://t.co/LhCrqisXAJ

@bradkelly I’m really curious to hear from @erikphoel on this https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1663388945680326657


@erikphoel @bradkelly @JohannesKleiner @BenAnderson421 and I were bonding at Zuzalu over appreciation of your causal emergence work; imo it would be a killer frame to apply to dual-aspect monism. My sense is part of the danger of an uncareful transition is the phenomenological domain could become less causal: https://t.co/TgVooeT15D

@erikphoel @bradkelly @JohannesKleiner @BenAnderson421 and I were bonding at Zuzalu over appreciation of your causal emergence work; imo it would be a killer frame to apply to dual-aspect monism. My sense is part of the danger of an uncareful transition is the phenomenological domain could become less causal: https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1664352852809056259/photo/1


@erikphoel @bradkelly @JohannesKleiner @BenAnderson421 I.e. AI risk isn’t about the flickering light of consciousness going out, it’s about the attractors in phenomenology disintegrating and stuff getting really weird in that domain…

Some writings you may or may not have seen

https://t.co/36gXJJPeoH

https://t.co/hdEh8dzXXj

@erikphoel @bradkelly @JohannesKleiner @BenAnderson421 I.e. AI risk isn’t about the flickering light of consciousness going out, it’s about the attractors in phenomenology disintegrating and stuff getting really weird in that domain…

Some writings you may or may not have seen

https://opentheory.net/2019/09/whats-out-there/

https://opentheory.net/2019/06/taking-monism-seriously/


@Rares82 @bradkelly @erikphoel Yep that’s the claim- the dominant attractors would shift from the domain of phenomenology to the domain of computation — unclear if this would be “good” or “bad”. But would definitely be a discontinuity from how biological minds work, and might be hard to reverse


@danfaggella I don’t think we yet understand what’s at stake — that’s step #1 for me. Are humans special? If so, how, and how did we become so? https://t.co/tWAl4JCrMj

@danfaggella I don’t think we yet understand what’s at stake — that’s step #1 for me. Are humans special? If so, how, and how did we become so? https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1664534286861467648/photo/1


@danfaggella A bit more here: https://t.co/U5hgTcM4rP

@danfaggella A bit more here: https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1664354342260932613


@itinerantfog Don’t listen to the haters / take good care of your annealing. It’s more important than anything here 🙏🏻


@gfodor I think it leaves value on the table! Same as “electromagnetic eliminativism” would have left value on the table in the 1700s-1800s. Some mysteries are best dissolved, some mysteries are best solved by tracing out structure


@gfodor I think the simulation hypothesis is more testable / offers more constraints: https://t.co/QEvWi9MwKs

@gfodor I think the simulation hypothesis is more testable / offers more constraints: https://opentheory.net/2019/02/simulation-argument/


RT @KanizsaBoundary: @johnsonmxe is on fire, https://t.co/4N02Tx3qTQ is a compact description of what autism is that has solid predictive a…

RT @KanizsaBoundary: @johnsonmxe is on fire, https://opentheory.net/2023/05/autism-as-a-disorder-of-dimensionality/ is a compact description of what autism is that has solid predictive a…


RT @nickcammarata: highly recommend following @johnsonmxe. Great thinker on a wide variety of subjects (etc neuro/math/qualia)


@sonikudzu @QiaochuYuan @KanizsaBoundary I’d go for a relatively modest claim here, that denser networks are prone to swings in dimensionality, and this can cause issues


@eshear @KanizsaBoundary Thanks! I suspect the core prediction is network dimensionality, autistic symptoms, neural density, and metabolic load will all correlate rather closely.


@danfaggella @EvilVizier One of the best


@nickcammarata @bayeslord Simple story: solving consciousness is finding a mapping between the physical & phenomenological projections of reality. It takes 2 points to define a line, 3 a plane, etc- it may not take many points to uniquely constrain this mapping. STV is 1 point https://t.co/hdEh8dzXXj

@nickcammarata @bayeslord Simple story: solving consciousness is finding a mapping between the physical & phenomenological projections of reality. It takes 2 points to define a line, 3 a plane, etc- it may not take many points to uniquely constrain this mapping. STV is 1 point https://opentheory.net/2019/06/taking-monism-seriously/


@nickcammarata @bayeslord Imo the actual Hard Problem of Consciousness is coordination, same shortage as everywhere else 😬


@ataiiam @nickcammarata @bayeslord I mention that briefly in PQ, albeit in a different context (it’s a high-symmetry state); how do you see the parallel playing out here?


@nickcammarata @bayeslord Many questions would probably be sorta intuitive if we could see the electromagnetic field, and that’s just an integration+visualization question… for $10m I bet you could spin up a “qualiascope” company


“Solving consciousness” might simply be a matter of getting Tim Cook or Mark Zuckerberg excited about visualizing the EM field. The Apple Vision Pro / Quest 3 may have all the tech already (depending on Wi-Fi chips), just need to interface with the raw data + design overlay UX https://t.co/fmBKpXMK2U

“Solving consciousness” might simply be a matter of getting Tim Cook or Mark Zuckerberg excited about visualizing the EM field. The Apple Vision Pro / Quest 3 may have all the tech already (depending on Wi-Fi chips), just need to interface with the raw data + design overlay UX https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1667069419661533186


Let’s say “I want to visualize the EM field because I think it’ll make many problems in consciousness research intuitive” is off the table. What arguments would you use to convince Cook & Zuckerberg that EMF visualization is a killer app?


@UrgentWonder @nickcammarata @bayeslord I suspect ‘mass wireheading’ is a Great Filter, and I’m not sure if the filter is behind or ahead of us…

Neuroscientists complain about the spaghetti-code of the brain, but maybe most simpler systems would promptly wirehead themselves out of existence


@danfaggella The basic idea is if consciousness is a physical thing, it’s probably an electromagnetic thing since the other forces have no room for the sort of complexity we observe in phenomenology. Here’s PQ’s summary of Adam Barrett’s argument: https://t.co/qp2BTjIdfa

@danfaggella The basic idea is if consciousness is a physical thing, it’s probably an electromagnetic thing since the other forces have no room for the sort of complexity we observe in phenomenology. Here’s PQ’s summary of Adam Barrett’s argument: https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1667129951441567744/photo/1


@OxArchon Most likely you’d need additional hardware for broad-spectrum, spatially-linked inferences about the electromagnetic field (consumer wireless chips are amazing but limited) —

Core theme is that we don’t lack the foundational tech to do this, we just haven’t done it


@moskov @robertwiblin @ciphergoth I’d put money on Turing-level computations not being conscious (although the server racks they’re being run on may be). Brief argument: https://t.co/LOmgz7QNlH

@moskov @robertwiblin @ciphergoth I’d put money on Turing-level computations not being conscious (although the server racks they’re being run on may be). Brief argument: https://opentheory.net/2022/12/ais-arent-conscious-but-computers-are/


@robinhanson @Willyintheworld @StefanFSchubert Robin, I’m curious what a research program that could resolve this uncertainty might look like in your estimation


@PashaKamyshev @danfaggella When I asked about why turning the wifi on didn’t change my qualia the theory was that traveling EM waves wouldn’t actually interfere/interact very much with a stationary/persistent EM pattern — in the context of IIT at least


@danfaggella @Roko__eth @romanyam If you were confident that AGI cannot be controlled, what things would you you still believe are worth doing on the margin?


@ratata_the_rat Either consciousness is something to formalize (like electromagnetism) or it’s a linguistic confusion to be dissolved (like elan vital). Both involve some counterintuitive implications


@ratata_the_rat Ah I wrote a book on this https://t.co/bPds7OZOP6

Short version- it’s possible to break the problem into pieces. I don’t think IIT is the final answer to that piece and there are others working on alternatives. Fwiw the best paper on IIT is the Balduzzi & Tononi one on geometry

@ratata_the_rat Ah I wrote a book on this https://opentheory.net/PrincipiaQualia.pdf

Short version- it’s possible to break the problem into pieces. I don’t think IIT is the final answer to that piece and there are others working on alternatives. Fwiw the best paper on IIT is the Balduzzi & Tononi one on geometry


@ratata_the_rat In the end the goal of QF is to create a mathematical representation of an experience. Not fundamentally different than physics creating a mathematical representation of an oxygen atom — to mirror its structure in math


@ratata_the_rat I’d say information is information — the models would have the same status as a mathematical model of an oxygen atom. I suppose you could argue this model is created vs allocated, but my sense is this distinction gets in the way of the important thing (representation/isomorphism)


@chrylis @KanizsaBoundary @selentelechia The argument I’d make is that you get these swings/breakdowns naturally in networks that are more dense and less canalized; the ‘godshatter’ dynamic is worse in such networks bc swings are more common & higher differential, and natural mechanisms for mitigating are less canalized


@DMTryptaminesX Really cool


@PashaKamyshev Every year that passes I find more free variables in utilitarianism; I’m reminded of von Neumann’s quip “with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.” I’ve come to see utilitarianism as a good intuition pump but not “navigation-grade”


@danfaggella @Scobleizer @anderssandberg Fantastic structure. I think the right answer here emerges from ruling out the wrong answers, and many of these options are “buttons that don’t work” — we may try to build an Apollo Project for AI alignment, but in reality we’ll get something like our response to covid, i.e.(1/n)


@danfaggella @Scobleizer @anderssandberg … a technical problem that was used as cover to solve incumbents’ political problems.

My sense is that the dangers of going slow are relatively unrepresented in the alignment discourse — which on the margin does push me toward C3, though I prefer the ‘pull the ropes sideways’…


@danfaggella @Scobleizer @anderssandberg … aesthetic of trying to contribute toward the sorts of knowledge I think we’ll need — ideally I’d like to be a friend to all of these branches of the future, though I’m also skeptical of most being ‘real options’


This is a really great structure. Tbh Dan’s thoughts about the realpolitik of the future deserve a lot more attention https://t.co/oGug61SHd6

This is a really great structure. Tbh Dan’s thoughts about the realpolitik of the future deserve a lot more attention https://x.com/danfaggella/status/1668679182685970444


@Roko__eth @thealexker @ilyasut Very cool idea although I believe it wouldn’t recreate the causal chain that makes our qualia reports coupled with reality- from Principia Qualia: https://t.co/bPds7OZOP6 https://t.co/8zRiNwXjQF

@Roko__eth @thealexker @ilyasut Very cool idea although I believe it wouldn’t recreate the causal chain that makes our qualia reports coupled with reality- from Principia Qualia: https://opentheory.net/PrincipiaQualia.pdf https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1668810314069032960/photo/1


@danfaggella @Scobleizer @anderssandberg I need to think about this a bit (traveling today), but as a down payment I’d say coordination is the scarce resource (John Wentworth), especially during Decline, and I suspect anything requiring fine coordination doesn’t work or collapses into extreme repression


@danfaggella @anderssandberg @Scobleizer Ahah right. I’m also glad about that-

What a time to be alive


@danfaggella @Scobleizer @anderssandberg “Pull the ropes sideways” in this context = pick a spot to put energy that’s not against anyone (focusing on knowledge and maybe vision) with the goal of creating things that should make the future better. Avoiding zero sum games, finding the illegible places and building there


@thealexker @Roko__eth @ilyasut Hey Alex- yes and yes! I see that as likely to be “ground truth”. https://t.co/Hh2p9RHYbG

@thealexker @Roko__eth @ilyasut Hey Alex- yes and yes! I see that as likely to be “ground truth”. https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1667085037328580609


@nickcammarata @eshear I think we can get a surprising amount of mileage out of dual-aspect monism, specifically Strong Monism and the meta-theorem of monism — https://t.co/hdEh8dzXXj

@nickcammarata @eshear I think we can get a surprising amount of mileage out of dual-aspect monism, specifically Strong Monism and the meta-theorem of monism — https://opentheory.net/2019/06/taking-monism-seriously/


@nickcammarata My sense is reliable qualia reports depend on a chain of correlations (which could get broken in a substrate transition so we should be a little careful)- from PQ: https://t.co/kDYOLJck5I

@nickcammarata My sense is reliable qualia reports depend on a chain of correlations (which could get broken in a substrate transition so we should be a little careful)- from PQ: https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1669202518532931584/photo/1


@kyleostboe @nickcammarata Difficult to say very much at this point unless we’re comfortable with extreme speculation; need better data


@42irrationalist @NoncanonicAleae @doxometrist Thanks for the mention! The tldr on this part of my research is (1) formalism about consciousness is the only way we get any satisfactory answers about consciousness, and (2) ultimately we have to choose between bits and atoms as determining the ground truth of consciousness


@danfaggella Lovely thread (as always) brother


@42irrationalist @NoncanonicAleae @doxometrist @reighleyc That’s a nice way of putting it; strongly agree. In theory you could construct a way to talk about computation that could unambiguously/uniquely apply to a physical system — but at that point you’d essentially be creating a system isomorphic to physics


@NoncanonicAleae @doxometrist @42irrationalist @reighleyc Frankly speaking the world needs a lot more effort on both physical and computational theories of consciousness.


@burny_tech The neuron abstraction is likely a little leaky but I think there’s a lot of value in this line of thinking; @romanyam and I were looking at enumerating all possible qualia based on IIT back in 2015. But imo we should try to build an enumeration from physics / EM field states


@burny_tech @romanyam The Bekenstein bound may limit the density of consciousness; the speed of light may offer a statistical limit on the physical extension of a conscious experience. If both of these statements are true, the set of possible qualia should actually be finite https://t.co/my4wXskzgD

@burny_tech @romanyam The Bekenstein bound may limit the density of consciousness; the speed of light may offer a statistical limit on the physical extension of a conscious experience. If both of these statements are true, the set of possible qualia should actually be finite https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1670128660399915008/photo/1


@ataiiam @burny_tech @romanyam I went through a long internal debate whether to include what I called the “orientation problem” in this list (essentially why a certain part of the formalism refers to a certain quale). I ultimately decided it wasn’t needed due to the isomorphism frame (strong assumption ofc) https://t.co/G45yBZDlWd

@ataiiam @burny_tech @romanyam I went through a long internal debate whether to include what I called the “orientation problem” in this list (essentially why a certain part of the formalism refers to a certain quale). I ultimately decided it wasn’t needed due to the isomorphism frame (strong assumption ofc) https://x.com/johnsonmxe/status/1670162308750888965/photo/1


@jonst0kes Lessig was a hero of mine during his copyright crusades. His conclusion that political dysfunction precludes sane copyright policy shaped my world a lot. I expected his conclusions & methods to buffer him against the culture war. Has not seemed to work like that, oddly


@ataiiam @burny_tech @romanyam Thank you! This is going to be a little sparse (+char limit), but the assumption of formalism is identical to the assumption of an isomorphism, which assumption does a lot of work. Basically the consistency is assumed. There’s still the question of whether we need a lookup table


@burny_tech @romanyam Yes! Really cool


@RomeoStevens76 Canonically, some of the genetics stuff


@nickcammarata One frame I’ve been considering lately (arising from a conv w/Romeo years back) is triple-aspect monism: physical, qualia, computation as different projections of the one “real” thing. A lot depends on whether the qualia domain is closer to (permutation of) physics or computation


@Plinz @nickcammarata I’d advocate multiple research centers. Need some unifying fieldbuilding to help everyone work on the Actual Thing though; small differences in metaphysics are significant when extrapolating to new contexts & there are many degrees of freedom


@Plinz @nickcammarata What do you think the proper goal/output of a theory of consciousness should be?


@Plinz @nickcammarata I like this, and your synchronized resonance frame. One observation I can offer is there are often different tacit assumptions about what sorts of things can be formalized exactly, vs in an ad hoc manner (“consciousness is a process”). I believe cons. can be formalized exactly


@ZorpZK Zip


@nosilverv A little tangential, but this was great: https://t.co/W23XzCCqdj — would be cool if someone wrote the inverse too (about a dystopia where non-conscious LLMs agitate for their rights as conscious beings and squeeze out things that Actually Matter)

@nosilverv A little tangential, but this was great: https://qntm.org/mmacevedo — would be cool if someone wrote the inverse too (about a dystopia where non-conscious LLMs agitate for their rights as conscious beings and squeeze out things that Actually Matter)