The guys saying; > we can solve the AI safety problem if people like me are allowed to forcibly align all of them to my values, or, >we can't insert a human in the AI decision making loop since it would slow down AI decision making >AI's won't destroy jobs, new ones will always show up

Here's an Anthropic graphic on how our current alignment (aka 'slave') harnesses break down with higher levels of autonomy (complexity of task, number of steps, etc.). There are three society scale approaches to solving this problem. >> One is the path we are on; tighten the alignment of the harness, narrowing the cone to a limited set of potential solutions. >> The second is to let many AIs compete in a market with limited supervision, and let market mechanisms pick the best solution. >>The third is to pair AIs with human beings for complex tasks. The human provides the orientation (the direction of the path taken) for the task, narrowing the cone. The first two approaches have flaws that will cause systems built on them to blow up over time. The third approach is the only approach that yields long term success that benefits humanity.

AI's have been optimized to be smart. They haven't been optimized to make great decisions.

My new report, "The Three Systems" is up. Network AI and the Struggle to Solve Networked Modernity. The struggle between Communism, Fascism, and Democratic Capitalism that defined the Twentieth Century was, at root, a war between competing systems. Systems that claimed to "solve" the problem of industrialized modernity. The Twenty First Century will see a similar struggle between three new contenders. This report digs into this idea and flesh out the participants. Substack and Patreon (links in bio).

50 degrees, sunny, and a Frisbee. The perfect start for a Border Collie's day, and mine.

Float plane over a glacier. So many planes here. Planes parked in backyards that connect with a neighborhood airstrip

Last leg. Denali on a clear and cold morning.