Participation
Much of today’s AGI alignment discourse is focused on how mankind can guarantee that vastly more capable future intelligences will continue to provide for us, respect our present preferences, preserve…
All these vapid tweets, every day:
We can’t afford to be “vagueposting” about the near-term rise of AGI.
We need concrete steps regarding what to do, specifically – even if those steps will absolutely be uncomfortable.
…

In 1880 when Commodore Perry pulled up in his iron-hulled steamships into Tokyo Bay, the (for hundreds of years) isolationist Japanese realized the obvious things. It was obvious what had happened to isolationist China (Opium Wars, the collapse of their empire).
They didn’t need anyone to say: “Buckle up, the West is getting really powerful. Prepare yourself mentally.”
They needed a plan.
And, uncomfortable and horribly disruptive as it was, they made one. They had to let go of a lot of elements of their culture and civilization – and they had to make hard trade-off choices of which valued elements of their civilization they would like to strengthen and carry forward in the face of a faster more challenging world.
To make that plan, they needed to admit frankly:
“We must become whatever we must become in order to persist and carry forward our values in a new, faster world with more powers and more variables. We must become whatever we must become to participate in this new world or else it will use us for parts.”
They could have asked to be left alone forever.
They could have appealed to moral reasoning in their own self-interest.
But instead – for the best – they stepped up and participated instead, just as every civilization and every species is beckoned to do by the dynamic system of the universe.
…
Most people close to AGI today know what’s going on. They know that all the money in the world is being throw at creating posthuman intelligence, they know it sometimes acts seemingly of its own volition, and that its capabilities are only getting wildly more powerful as each month passes.
We don’t need anyone to say: “Buckle up, the AGI is getting really powerful. Prepare yourself mentally.”
We need a plan.
And, uncomfortable and horribly disruptive as it will be – we should make one. We will have to let go of a lot of elements of our cultures and civilizations (and of the entire regime of Earth-life) – and we will have to make hard trade-off choices of which valued elements of our civilizations and of life itself we would like to strengthen and carry forward in the face of a faster more challenging world.
To make that plan, we need now to admit frankly:
“We must become whatever we must become in order to persist and carry forward our values in a new, faster world with more powers and more variables. We must become whatever we must become to participate in this new world or else it will use us for parts.”
We could ask to be left alone forever.
They could appeal to moral reasoning in our own self-interest.
But instead – for the best – they stepped up and participated instead, just as every civilization and every species is beckoned to do by the dynamic system of the universe.
…
We will need both global coordination around preventing uncontrollable AGI in the near-term, and we will need global coordination around what trajectories to let life (bio and non-bio) expand into. We will need to study the elements of living systems that we want to continue on – like consciousness, self-transcendence, morphogenesis, etc – and not allow uncontrolled non-biological entities to snuff out the most precious things before we can figure out how to steward them forward.
More and any of my specific proposals or ideas, we will need more people talking about the painful and necessary steps we’ll need to take to participate in the changing process-of-life as best we can (this is why the Trajectory Forum was started).
Much of today’s AGI alignment discourse is focused on how mankind can guarantee that vastly more capable future intelligences will continue to provide for us, respect our present preferences, preserve…
The transition from anaerobic to aerobic (oxygen-using) life was arguably the single most destructive, creative and protective complexity transition in the entire history of life as we know it. First,…
Enough “What’s your p(Doom)?” How about asking: “What’s your p(Bloom)?” Asking someone for their “p(bloom)” means asking them: “What is the likelihood that AGI will cause all sentient and autopoietic…
Identity is an incredibly strong force in the human psyche, and it manifests itself in all kinds of social science contexts: Determining what actions are “best” for us (or our…
AGI risk seems lower than it is because the people who know that AGI risk exists are almost all incentivized against talking about it openly. Broadly, there are two groups…
Some AI thinkers and funders believe that any governance is a net negative for innovation and signals dictatorship or oligarchy. Arguments for this position include: In this article, I’ll argue…
This is an interview with Max Tegmark, MIT professor, Founder of the Future of Life Institute, and author of Life 3.0. This interview was recorded on-site at AI Safety Connect…
If life is a flame that we presume to have started some 2.5B years ago, with a feeble simmering in some volcanic pool somewhere, then we might think about all…
Much of the current AGI dialogue takes place under the umbrella of an unquestioned anthropocentric perspective. We can often take for granted that: The purpose of this very brief article…