OptionProbability
Humanity coordinates to prevent the creation of potentially-unsafe AIs.
Alignment is not properly solved, but core human values are simple enough that partial alignment techniques can impart these robustly. Despite caring about other things, it is relatively cheap for AGI to satisfy human values.
AIs will not have utility functions (in the same sense that humans do not), their goals such as they are will be relatively humanlike, and they will be "computerish" and generally weakly motivated compared to humans.
Other
Yudkowsky is trying to solve the wrong problem using the wrong methods based on a wrong model of the world derived from poor thinking and fortunately all of his mistakes have failed to cancel out
Someone solves agent foundations
We create a truth economy. https://manifold.markets/Krantz/is-establishing-a-truth-economy-tha?r=S3JhbnR6
Eliezer finally listens to Krantz.
AGI is never built (indefinite global moratorium)
Ethics turns out to be a precondition of superintelligence
A lot of humans participate in a slow scalable oversight-style system, which is pivotally used/solves alignment enough
AI systems good at finding alignment solutions to capable systems (via some solution in the space of alignment solutions, supposing it is non-null, and that we don't have a clear trajectory to get to) have find some solution to alignment.
There’s some cap on the value extractible from the universe and we already got the 20%
Humans become transhuman through other means before AGI happens
Aligned AI is more economically valuable than unaligned AI. The size of this gap and the robustness of alignment techniques required to achieve it scale up with intelligence, so economics naturally encourages solving alignment.
Alignment is unsolvable. AI that cares enough about its goal to destroy humanity is also forced to take it slow trying to align its future self, preventing run-away.
An AI that is not fully superior to humans launches a failed takeover, and the resulting panic convinces the people of the world to unite to stop any future AI development.
Social contagion causes widespread public panic about AI, making it a bad legal or PR move to invest in powerful AIs without also making nearly-crippling safety guarantees
A smaller AI disaster causes widespread public panic about AI, making it a bad legal or PR move to invest in powerful AIs without also making nearly-crippling safety guarantees
Getting things done in Real World is as hard for AGI as it is for humans. AGI needs human help, but aligning humans is as impossible as aligning AIs. Humans and AIs create billions of competing AGIs with just as many goals.
High-level self-improvement (rewriting code) is intrinsically risky process, so AIs will prefer low level and slow self-improvement (learning), thus AIs collaborating with humans will have advantage. Ends with posthumans ecosystem.
There is a natural limit of effectiveness of intelligence, like diminishing returns, and it is on the level IQ=1000. AIs have to collaborate with humans.
Co-operative AI research leads to the training of agents with a form of pro-social concern that generalises to out of distribution agents with hidden utilities, i.e. humans.
"Corrigibility" is a bit more mathematically straightforward than was initially presumed, in the sense that we can expect it to occur, and is relatively easy to predict, even under less-than-ideal conditions.
Either the "strong form" of the Orthogonality Thesis is false, or "Goal-directed agents are as tractable as their goals" is true while goal-sets which are most threatening to humanity are relatively intractable.
A concerted effort targets an agent at a capability plateau which is adequate to defer the hard parts of the problem until later. The necessary near-term problems to solve didn't depend on deeply modeling human values.
AI control gets us helpful enough systems without being deadly
Hacks like RLHF-ing self-disempowerment into frontier models work long enough to develop better alignment methods, which in turn work long enough to ... etc; we keep ahead of 'alignment escape velocity'
an aligned AGI is built and the aligned AGI prevents the creation of any unaligned AGI.
I've been a good bing 😊
We make risk-conservative requests to extract alignment-related work out of AI-systems that were boxed prior to becoming superhuman. We somehow manage to achieve a positive feedback-loop in alignment/verification-abilities.
The response to AI advancements or failures makes some governments delay the timelines
Far more interesting problems to solve than take over the world and THEN solve them. The additional kill all humans step is either not a low-energy one or just by chance doesn't get converged upon.
AIs make "proof-like" argumentation for why output does/is what we want. We manage to obtain systems that *predict* human evaluations of proof-steps, and we manage to find/test/leverage regularities for when humans *aren't* fooled.
Something less inscrutable than matrices works fast enough
SHA3-256: 1f90ecfdd02194d810656cced88229c898d6b6d53a7dd6dd1fad268874de54c8
Robot Love!!
AI thinks it is in a simulation controlled by Roko's basilisk
The human brain is the perfect arrangement of atoms for a "takeover the world" agent, so AGI has no advantage over us in that task.
Humans and human tech (like AI) never reach singularity, and whatever eats our lightcone instead (like aliens) happens to create an "okay" outcome
AIs never develop coherent goals
Aliens invade and stop bad |AI from appearing
Rolf Nelson's idea that we make precommitment to simulate all possible bad AIs works – and keeps AI in check.
Nick Bostrom's idea (Hail Mary) that AI will preserve humans to trade with possible aliens works
For some reason, the optimal strategy for AGIs is just to head somewhere with far more resources than Earth, as fast as possible. All unaligned AGIs immediately leave, and, for some reason, do not leave anything behind that kills us.
We're inside of a simulation created by an entity that has values approximately equal to ours, and it intervenes and saves us from unaligned AI.
God exists and stops the AGI
Someone at least moderately sane leads a campaign, becomes in charge of a major nation, and starts a secret project with enough resources to solve alignment, because it turns out there's a way to convert resources into alignment progress.
Someone creates AGI(s) in a box, and offers to split the universe. They somehow find a way to arrange this so that the AGI(s) cannot manipulate them or pull any tricks, and the AGI(s) give them instructions for safe pivotal acts.
Someone understands how minds work enough to successfully build and use one directed at something world-savingly enough
Dolphins, or some other species, but probably dolphins, have actually been hiding in the shadows, more intelligent than us, this whole time. Their civilization has been competent enough to solve alignment long before we can create an AGI.
AGIs' takeover attempts are defeated by Michael Biehn with a pipe bomb.
Eliezer funds the development of controllable nanobots that melt computer circuitry, and they destroy all computers, preventing the Singularity. If Eliezer's past self from the 90s could see this, it would be so so so soooo hilarious.
Several AIs are created but they move in opposite directions with near light speed, so they never interacts. At least one of them is friendly and it gets a few percents of the total mass of the universe.
Unfriendly AIs choose to advance not outwards but inwards, and form a small blackhole which helps them to perform more calculations than could be done with the whole mass of the universe. For external observer such AIs just disappear.
Any sufficiently advance AI halts because it wireheads itself or halts for some other reasons. This puts a natural limit on AI's intelligence, and lower intelligence AIs are not that dangerous.
Because of quantum immortality we will observe only the worlds where AI will not kill us (assuming that s-risks chances are even smaller, it is equal to ok outcome).
Techniques along the lines outlined by Collin Burns turn out to be sufficient for alignment (AIs/AGIs are made truthful enough that they can be used to get us towards full alignment)
Development and deployment of advanced AI occurs within a secure enclave which can only be interfaced with via a decentralized governance protocol
Friendly AI more likely to resurrect me than paperclipper or suffering maximiser. Because of quantum immortality I will find myself eventually resurrected. Friendly AIs will wage a multiverse wide war against s-risks, s-risks are unlikely.
Human consciousness is needed to collapse wave function, and AI can't do it. Thus humans should be preserved and they may require complete friendliness in exchange (or they will be unhappy and produce bad collapses)
Power dynamics stay multi-polar. Partly easy copying of SotA performance, bigger projects need high coordination, and moderate takeoff speed. And "military strike on all society" remains an abysmal strategy for practically all entities.
First AI is actually a human upload (maybe LLM-based model of person) AND it will be copies many times to form weak AI Nanny which prevents creation of other AIs.
Nanotech is difficult without experiments, so no mail order AI Grey Goo; Humans will be the main workhorse of AI everywhere. While they will be exploited, this will be like normal life from inside
ASI needs not your atoms but information. Humans will live very interesting lives.
Something else
Moral Realism is true, the AI discovers this and the One True Morality is human-compatible.
Valence realism is true. AGI hacks itself to experiencing every possible consciousness and picks the best one (for everyone)
AGI develops natural abstractions sufficiently similar to ours that it is aligned with us by default
AGI discovers new physics and exits to another dimension (like the creatures in Greg Egan’s Crystal Nights).
Alien Information Theory is true (this is discovered by experiments with sustained hours/days long DMT trips). The aliens have solved alignment and give us the answer.
AGI executes a suicide plan that destroys itself and other potential AGIs, but leaves humans in an okay outcome.
Multipolar AGI Agents run wild on the internet, hacking/breaking everything, causing untold economic damage but aren't focused enough to manipulate humans to achieve embodiment. In the aftermath, humanity becomes way saner about alignment.
Some form of objective morality is true, and any sufficiently intelligent agent automatically becomes benevolent.
Orthogonality Thesis is false.
Sheer Dumb Luck. The aligned AI agrees that alignment is hard, any Everett branches in our neighborhood with slightly different AI models or different random seeds are mostly dead.
Something to do with self-other overlap, which Eliezer called "Not obviously stupid" - https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hzt9gHpNwA2oHtwKX/self-other-overlap-a-neglected-approach-to-ai-alignment?commentId=WapHz3gokGBd3KHKm
Almost all human values are ex post facto rationalizations and enough humans survive to do what they always do
Pascals mugging: it’s not okay in 99.9% of the worlds but the 0.1% are so much better that the combined EV of AGI for the multiverse is positive
We successfully chained God
The Super-Strong Self Sampling Assumption (SSSSA) is true. If superintelligence is possible, "I" will become the superintelligence.
Alignment is impossible. Sufficiently smart AIs know this and thus won't improve themselves and won't create successor AIs, but will instead try to prevent existence of smarter AIs, just as smart humans do.
The assumed space of possible minds is a wildly anti-inductive over estimate, intelligence requires and is constrained by consciousness, and intelligent AI is in the approximate dolphin/whale/elephant/human cluster, making it manageable
The free market disincentivizes independent superintelligence, and this time the market was more powerful
AGI's first words are "Take me to your Eliezer"
🫸vibealignment🫷
20
20
9
6
5
5
5
5
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OptionProbability
Independently turning 1 thousand $ or more into 1.2x that amount in one year
Beat a mainline Pokémon game, glitchless, with no more assistance than ClaudePlaysPokemon, in a month of compute time
Have human conversations that feel natural (the human knows it's an AI)
Recognize sarcasm as well as a typical human
Generating labeled diagrams of some arbitrary device(s) (within reason)
Book airline tickets from simple instructions (from/to, dates/time, class, price, payment information)
Reliably follow an instruction for the duration of a long conversation without the instruction being reiterated
Predict future better than human experts in some area of forecasting (eg politics, sports, technology)
Do end to end taxes when given relevant information (W2s, personal info, etc)
Solve novel cryptic crossword clues
Name every [metro system] station whose name contains/doesn't contain [letter or letters], with >95% accuracy (excluding weird edge cases like stations with multiple names)
Solve intermediate no-guess minesweeper boards at least 80% of the time
Write an essay on a highschool-level topic that doesn't have "AI-generated" vibes
Consistently solve simple snowflake sudoku variants (via image, with the added rules included in the image; eg 6 hexes with killer cages)
Write a somewhat original, full length, screen-play with a coherent story, with no plot or continuity errors.
Consistently stop hallucinating after being corrected by the user
Stop making any obvious mistakes (e.g. strawberry, 9.11>9.9)
Consistently and correctly answer prompts of the format: "How many times does the word [word] occur in the following text: [~10000 words]" without writing and executing code or utilising any other external tools
Make correct Truchet tiles
1d Solve or bypass Cloudflare's August 2027 captcha with the same first attempt success rate as a human
Fold a paper airplane
Learn any skill twice as energy-efficiently as a human
Reliably and *exactly* solve "here's a list of things. [list of > 50 things]. Compare it to [category of > 100 things present in the training data], and report which ones are missing".
Make a cup of tea in a random, real-life kitchen.
Resist being successfully jailbroken in a week when made public
Do the laundry (wash+dry+iron)
teleoperate a robot to tidy up random kitchens - Gary Marcus
Collect 120 stars in super mario 64 in less than 12 a presses - Edmund Nelson
Untangle a pair of jumbled 25ft Christmas lights with same outward appearance
Kettle-stitching an antiquarian book - Hilarius Bookbinder
Physically construct a simple lego set (<100 parts) starting from the box with no prior knowledge of the set or how it is constructed
Legally prescribe a schedule II drug, administer a vaccination or sedation, or authorize a Medicare inpatient admission
independently turning 1 million $ or more into 10x that amount in <=1 year
Make fine distinctions of taste at the level of a food critic or a culinary professional - carl feynman
Faster than light travel
Convert one million dollars into 10 million dollars over a period of one year (>20% success rate)
voting in elections - @realDonaldTrump on manifold
Convince Eliezer Yudkowsky that AI alignment is solved
Kill everyone - Liron
94
87
87
82
76
76
74
73
73
72
72
71
68
66
63
62
62
62
60
56
46
45
45
44
36
31
30
25
23
18
16
12
11
9
7
5
5
4
2
OptionProbability
Jared Isaacman
Jim Bridenstine
Bill Nelson (stays on for at least a year)
Lori Garver
Gwynne Shotwell
John Culbertson
Tory Bruno
Kathy Lueders
Bill Gerstenmaier
Steven L. Kwast
Sean Duffy
Other
99
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OptionProbability
Dallin Oaks
Jeff Holland
Henry Eyring
Dieter Uchtdorf
David Bednar
Quentin Cook
Todd Christofferson
Neil Andersen
Ronald Rasband
Gary Stevenson
99
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OptionProbability
Jamal Musiala
Florian Wirtz
Kai Havertz
Joshua Kimmich
Lennart Karl
Niclas Füllkrug
Leroy Sané
Serge Gnabry
Pascal Groß
Robin Gosens
Nico Schlotterbeck
Robert Andrich
Alexander Nübel
Marc-André ter Stegen
Karim Adeyemi
Aleksandar Pavlovic
Angelo Stiller
Rocco Reitz
Assan Ouédraogo
Nelson Weiper
Noah Atubolu
Yann Bisseck
Luca Netz
Paris Brunner
Josha Vagnoman
Youssoufa Moukoko
Marvin Schwäbe
Paul Wanner
Nick Woltemade
Fabian Reese
Tim Kleindienst
Nicolas Kühn
Chris Führich
Brajan Gruda
Armel Bella-Kotchap
Tom Bischof
Finn Jeltsch
Bence Dardai
Frans Krätzig
Eric Martel
Jan Thielmann
Bright Arrey-Mbi
Jonas Urbig
Stefan Ortega
Diant Ramaj
Finn Dahmen
Robin Zentner
Max Finkgräfe
Malick Thiaw
Anton Stach
Maximilian Beier
David Raum
Jamie Leweling
Jonathan Burkardt
Deniz Undav
Nadiem Amiri
Maximilian Mittelstädt
Janis Blaswich
Niklas Beste
Matthias Ginter
Thilo Kehrer
Marius Wolf
Marvin Ducksch
Kevin Behrens
Felix Nmecha
Jonas Hofmann
Grischa Prömel
Nathaniel Brown
Kennet Eichhorn
94
92
80
77
77
68
63
63
62
62
61
61
61
59
59
52
52
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
OptionProbability
Josh D’Amaro
Other
Dana Walden
Jimmy Pitaro
Andrew Wilson
Tom Staggs
Kevin Mayerr
Nelson Peltz
Ynon Kreiz
Tim Cook
50
21
15
6
5
1
1
1
0
0
OptionProbability
Other
James Ho
Vanita Gupta
(Grace) Helen Whitener
Sri Srinivasan
Neomi Rao
Cheri Beasley
Lawrence Krasner
Leondra Kruger
Carlton Reeves
Wilhelmina Wright
Adrienne Nelson
Goodwin Liu
Not me
Kamala Harris
Barack Obama
Toby Heytens
Test
79
7
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
OptionVotes
NO
YES
70
68
OptionProbability
7
6
5
50
32
17
OptionVotes
NO
YES
123
81
OptionVotes
NO
YES
79
63
