agi-risk/24-IDM-based-AGI-APS-X-Risk-Response.html at main · HyperCrowd/agi-risk · GitHub

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
  <!-- Basic Meta Tags -->
  <meta charset="UTF-8">
  <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge">
  <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">

  <!-- SEO Meta Tags -->
  <meta name="description" content="Comprehensive AGI Risk Analysis">
  <meta name="keywords" content="agi, risk, convergence">
  <meta name="author" content="Forrest Landry">
  <meta name="robots" content="index, follow">

  <!-- Favicon -->
  <link rel="icon" href="https://github.githubassets.com/favicons/favicon-dark.png" type="image/png">
  <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://github.githubassets.com/favicons/favicon-dark.png" type="image/png">

  <!-- Page Title (displayed on the browser tab) -->
  <title>Comprehensive AGI Risk Analysis</title>
</head>
<body>
  <p>
  TITL:
    <b>IDM based AGI/APS X-Risk Response</b>
    <b>By Forrest Landry</b>
    <b>Oct 4th, 2022</b>.
  </p>
  <p>
  ABST:
    - where answers to key questions
    as given/known from within the context
    of the Immanent Metaphysics.
  </p>
  <p>
  TEXT:
  </p>
  <p>
    - where in another essay (@ "APS Details" https://mflb.com/ai_alignment_1/aps_detail_out.html);
    that three important questions were asked.
      - as questions which are considered primary relevant
      to understanding the actual degree of AGI x-risk.
    - that these questions are restated here,
    along with the relevant IM responses/answers,
    as given from within that context.
  </p>
  <p>
    - where it is acknowledged that the means and methods
    of assessment/response to these questions will likely/largely
    be unfamiliar to nearly all readers,
    and that therefore, there can be questions
    as to what actually is established thereby:.
      - that these responses are provided here
      more for the sake of completeness
      and for the actual absolute fullness of reasoning,
      insofar as the basis used for these assessments below,
      though it may not already be in itself obvious,
      are much more directly tied to
      the very foundations of epistemological process itself,
      and thus actually have a <b>very</b> much higher
      overall proof value
      than any other means would ever ultimately suggest.
  </p>
  <p>
      - that the methods and tools of evaluation and review
      that I might have available to me
      are generally unlikely to overlap and be common with
      the tools and methods of evaluation/insight/reason
      that others might have.
        - as that each person has their own heuristics
        and toolkit of intellectual reasoning methods,
        as a kind of language of insight
        native to themselves.
        - ie; as considering (@ "Presumptive Listening" https://mflb.com/ai_alignment_1/presumptive_listening_out.html).
  </p>
  <p>
      - that the fact of their being used
      majority unknown tools and methods
      does not in itself imply any failure
      to express active valid reasoning.
      - where the Axioms and the modalities
      are directly expressions of the very basis of:.
        - <b>ontology</b>, as about being/truth;..
        - <b>epistemology</b>, as knowing/proof; and;.
        - <b>axiology</b>, as the ultimate basis of value;.
      - ^; all of which are intrinsically required
      for any assessment of x-risk.
        - ie; ?; can we actually protect
        that which we all (at least implicitly)
        hold as most valued, most sacred, most relevant?.
      - than/that/therefore these methods/tools
      are simply structurally more relevant than
      most other methods of arguing about these ideas
      could ever even possibly be.
  </p>
  <p>
      - that sometimes, with some tools/methods,
      that the overall result is much easier to obtain --
      that some tools/methods, and/or domains of operation
      are simply more well suited to certain tasks than others.
        - that it is better to just use the right tool
        for the right kind of job.
        - that the simplicity of the application
        and/or the ease by which relevant connections are made,
        is not in itself an indicator
        of anything against of their actual validity.
        - that although the work be easier,
        that in itself is not an absense of 'showing the work',
        ie; of showing the reasoning involved.
  </p>
  <p>
      - that it is sometimes incumbent on the reader/reviewer
      to come to know and understand the tools themselves,
      especially if they are new,
      especially if they are relevant/useful
      in important and/or otherwise unexpected
      key, critical, and essential ways.
  </p>
  <p>
        - that it is only <b>sometimes</b> partially possible,
        for the convenience of the reader/reviewer,
        that their existing native tools/methods/understandings
        can be used/adapted to the proof purposes
        that are actually needed
        so as to construct an 'also valid parallel path'
        from what is currently known/believed
        to what is currently unknown, yet essential,
        and not <b>yet</b> believed to be the case.
        - that such adaptations and alternate forms
        of establishing the validity/proof
        of the same truth outcomes
        will be attempted, when and as possible,
        whenever possible.
          - as expressive of the needs/ethics
          of the situation itself; ie; mitigating x-risk.
  </p>
  <p>
      - where regardless of the proof method,
      the same outcome/result should be obtained.
        - as to have an absence of contradiction.
      - where herein as stated;
      that each of these three questions
      are structurally strictly isomorphs of one another.
        - that each of the different phrasings
        gives access to different ways
        of being able to know/prove the response.
      - that therefore the outcome answer (yes/no)
      to any one of them <b>should</b> be the same
      as for any of the others.
        - that each of the different ways of arriving
        at the same outcome therefore strongly <b>reinforces</b>
        the degree to which the actual outcome/answer
        can be epistemically trusted to be correct.
        - as inherently providing multiple distinct
        overlapping means/methods of establishing a truth.
  </p>
  <p>
  :avs
    - where listing the three AGI x-risk questions:.
  </p>
  <p>
      - Q1; ?; is there <b>any</b> chance at all, over time,
      that processes/changes of/in/within the 1st order (immanent)
      do not eventually (cannot not) result in
      process/changes/capability
      in/of/within dynamics of the 2nd order (omniscient),
      and/or thus eventually of dynamics of
      the 3rd order (transcendent)?.
  </p>
  <p>
      - ^; no; ie; that there is exactly zero chance
      of this cycle of Axiom II <b>not</b>
      closing/completing <b>eventually</b>.
        - where Axiom II has been elsewhere shown
        to exactly descriptive the fundamental
        and most essential nature of all process,
        and common to all process, and concepts of process,
        inclusive of all epistemic process,
        (as observed/abstracted),
        that the tautology of "process will happen"
        and "all process is process",
        and "all is process; there are no things"
        will fundamentally also apply.
  </p>
  <p>
      - Q2; ?; is there any possibility that some engineering method
      (as technique operating purely in the omniscient)
      could somehow inhibit the immanent 1st order process
      from eventually impacting 2nd order omniscient process?.
  </p>
  <p>
      - ^; no; the omniscient by itself, as the complicated,
      cannot ever fully and completely
      contain/constrain the complex/immanent,
      indefinitely.
        - as considering Cynefin framework intrinsics
        and also as per the intrinsic nature
        of the referenced modalities themselves,
        their known and validated correspondances,
        the nature of what is meant by the concept of "soundness"
        when considering proof scope of application, relevance etc.
  </p>
  <p>
      - Q3; ?; is there any possibility that some engineering method
      (as technique operating purely in the omniscient)
      could somehow inhibit other system process also operating
      in the omniscient (as learning/adapting systems
      and thus so inherently, self modifying systems)
      from eventually having/being/operating/becoming
      in transcendent ways (ie, of shifting environment/context)?.
  </p>
  <p>
      - ^; no; nothing in the total class of the omniscient
      can ever actually inhibit/constrain/conditionalize
      anything in the class of the the transcendent --
      that nothing in existence can inhibit/resist creation.
        - as per the intrinsic nature
        of the referenced modalities themselves;
        and also the definition/theory of creation, etc.
  </p>
  <p>
    - where the answers to any/all of the questions Q1/Q2/Q3
    is/are 'no';.
    - that/therefore it is far better to <b>not</b> use/permit
    (or even seek to develop, experiment with, etc)
    <b>any</b> form of generalized AI and/or APS.
  </p>
</body>
</html>