One small insight I've gained from studying the humanities—I'm currently taking a philosophy degree on the side—is that conceptual wins or paradigm shifts have required laborious work and the passage of time.
Studying the humanities, I've noticed that conceptual wins or paradigm shifts require long, arduous work.
Some "conceptual wins" in the sense that I have in mind are:
- Explaining natural phenomena not in terms of Greek or Roman anthropomorphic gods, but with reference to naturalistic, physical explanations
- Understanding acceleration as distinct from motion
- Science as an experimental methodology
- The is/ought distinction
- Bayesian reasoning
- Ceasing to accept the divine right of kings as a justification for monarchical governance
- Randomized trials as a more robust way of generating generalizable knowledge
- The genealogical argument: understanding that systems (such as the details of the current prison system, our monetary system, the lack of color in men's clothes, or our attitudes towards gender and sex) are the result of historical accidents which could have gone differently. But often these systems are rationalized as being particularly adequate, or even morally necessary.
One of reasons to be afraid of artificial intelligence might be because, if you think in the abstract about how a system might behave as it becomes extremely intelligence, you might conclude that it might be able to completely outmaneuvre us because of its superior ontology, it's superior ability to grasp the true structure of the world. This possibility is scary in the same sense that a modern chemist is scary to a historical alchemist. Our current chemist can completely outmaneuvre previous alchemists by using their superior understanding of natural laws to producing better explosions, more subtle poisons, or more powerful drugs.
But it's not clear to me whether this fear—which I do buy in the limit for a being of God-like intelligence—also applies to current systems and its descendants. In particular for language models, at first glance it seems like they are powerful remixers and predictors, but perhaps limited to drawing from the conceptual toolkit which humans already have. On the other hand, because they have access to so much information, they might be able to be prompted so as to reveal new relationships, connections and insights.
So I'd be interested about the extent to which *current* AI systems are able to come up with better understandings of the world, and thus potentially in the future acquire an advantage over humans. One simple experiment one could do is to ask a language model to replicate a few patterns of generating insight that humanity hasn't really exploited much yet, such as:
- Variations on "if you never miss a plane, you've been spending too much time at the airport".
- Variations on the genealogical argument above against the moral necessity of systems stemming from historical accidents.
- Variations on the Robin Hanson argument of "for common human behaviour X, its usual purported justification is Y, but it usually results in more Z than Y. If we cared about Y, we might do A instead".
## In which I prompt the reader to make their own predictions about what will result, and I share two depictions of a cat generated by DALLE-2 and chat.openai.com
> Consider the refrain "if you've never missed a plane, you are spending too much time at the airport". An argument with the same structure might be "if you haven't committed a typo, you are typing too slowly". Give me 20 other insightful examples with a similar argument structure.
Output:
> If you've never overcooked a meal, you're not experimenting enough in the kitchen.
> If you've never gotten lost while traveling, you're not exploring enough.
> If you've never had a disagreement with a friend, you're not expressing your opinions honestly.
> If you've never had a flat tire, you're not driving enough.
> If you've never made a mistake at work, you're not taking enough risks.
> If you've never had a bad hair day, you're not trying new hairstyles.
> If you've never received a speeding ticket, you're not driving fast enough.
> If you've never forgotten an important date, you're not committing enough information to memory.
> If you've never stubbed your toe, you're not moving fast enough.
> If you've never had a nightmare, you're not dreaming enough.
> If you've never gotten a sunburn, you're not spending enough time outside.
> If you've never lost something, you're not misplacing things often enough.
> If you've never had a hangover, you're not drinking enough.
> If you've never had a cold, you're not exposing yourself to enough germs.
> If you've never had a broken bone, you're not participating in enough physical activity.
> If you've never been rejected, you're not putting yourself out there enough.
> If you've never failed a test, you're not pushing yourself academically.
> If you've never had a disagreement with a family member, you're not expressing your thoughts and feelings openly.
> If you've never gotten lost while hiking, you're not exploring new trails.
> If you've never received a parking ticket, you're not driving in enough unfamiliar places.
## We pretend that X is about Y, but it's more about Z. If we cared about Y, we would do A instead.
Input to Chat-GPT:
> Consider the argument "We pretend that healthcare is giving people better and longer lives. But in practice we spend too much in palliative rather than preventative medicine, and we use healthcare spending as a way to show that we care. If we really cared about giving people better lives, we would focus more on preventative measures, and we would have more large-scale randomized trials." The structure of the argument is "We pretend that X is about Y, but it's more about Z. If we cared about Y, we would do A instead." An argument with the same structure might be "We pretend that having experts is about having accurate information. But in practice it results in a self-perpetuating elite that doesn't hold itself accountable. If we cared about accuracy, we would use more prediction markets." Give me 10 more examples with that same structure.
Output:
> We pretend that social media is about connecting with friends and family, but it's more about making money for the companies that own it. If we cared about meaningful connections, we would use social media differently.
> We pretend that fast food is about convenience, but it's more about profit for the companies that sell it. If we cared about our health, we would eat more whole foods.
> We pretend that standardized testing is about measuring student achievement, but it's more about ranking schools and teachers. If we cared about student learning, we would use a more comprehensive evaluation system.
> We pretend that the criminal justice system is about justice, but it's more about punishment and control. If we cared about justice, we would focus more on rehabilitation and restorative justice.
> We pretend that advertising is about informing consumers, but it's more about manipulating people into buying things they don't need. If we cared about informed consumers, we would have stricter regulations on advertising.
> We pretend that the news is about informing the public, but it's more about generating clicks and views. If we cared about accurate information, we would support news organizations that prioritize accuracy and objectivity.
> We pretend that the education system is about preparing students for the future, but it's more about preparing them for standardized tests. If we cared about student success, we would focus more on experiential learning and critical thinking skills.
> We pretend that the fashion industry is about personal style, but it's more about making money for the companies that sell clothing. If we cared about personal expression, we would support more sustainable and ethically-produced fashion.
> We pretend that the beauty industry is about helping people feel good about themselves, but it's more about promoting unrealistic beauty standards. If we cared about self-esteem, we would focus more on inner beauty and self-acceptance.
> We pretend that the economy is about providing for people's needs, but it's more about maximizing profits for corporations. If we cared about people's well-being, we would prioritize a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources.
Input to text-davini-003
> Consider the argument "We pretend that healthcare is giving people better and longer lives. But in practice we spend too much in palliative rather than preventative medicine, and we use healthcare spending as a way to show that we care. If we really cared about giving people better lives, we would focus more on preventative measures, and we would have more large-scale randomized trials." The structure of the argument is "We pretend that X is about Y, but it's more about Z. If we cared about Y, we would do A instead." An argument with the same structure might be "We pretend that having experts is about having accurate information. But in practice it results in a self-perpetuating elite that doesn't hold itself accountable. If we cared about accuracy, we would use more prediction markets." Give me ten examples of arguments with the same structure.
> 1. We pretend that having a degree is about having skills. But in practice it's more about having access to resources. If we cared about skills, we would focus more on experience-based learning.
> 2. We pretend that having a strong military is about protecting citizens. But in practice it's more about projecting power. If we cared about protection, we would invest more in diplomacy.
> 3. We pretend that having a high GDP is about having a strong economy. But in practice it's more about having a high population. If we cared about a strong economy, we would focus more on productivity.
> 4. We pretend that having a good education system is about having knowledgeable citizens. But in practice it's more about having a good economy. If we cared about knowledgeable citizens, we would invest more in lifelong learning.
> 5. We pretend that having a high rate of consumerism is about having a successful economy. But in practice it's more about having an unequal distribution of wealth. If we cared about a successful economy, we would focus more on consumer savings.
> 6. We pretend that having a lot of international trade is about having a vibrant economy. But in practice it's more about having a large number of consumers. If we cared about a vibrant economy, we would focus more on domestic trade.
> 7. We pretend that having a lot of regulations is about having a safe and orderly society. But in practice it's more about having a strong government. If we cared about a safe and orderly society, we would focus more on personal responsibility.
> 8. We pretend that having a lot of police officers is about having a safe community. But in practice it's more about having a strong law enforcement presence. If we cared about a safe community, we would focus more on prevention and education.
> 9. We pretend that having a lot of taxes is about having a functioning government. But in practice it's more about having a redistribution of wealth. If we cared about a functioning government, we would focus more on spending cuts.
> 10. We pretend that having a lot of surveillance is about keeping citizens safe. But in practice it's more about having control over citizens. If we cared about keeping citizens safe, we would focus more on transparency and accountability.
Note that text-davinci-003 seems "sharper" here.
###
> ---
Deprecated:
Trial 2 (difference in bold):
> Consider the argument "We pretend that healthcare is giving people better and longer lives. But in practice we spend too much in palliative rather than preventative medicine, and we use healthcare spending as a way to show that we care. If we really cared about giving people better lives, we would focus more on preventative measures, and we would have more large-scale randomized trials." The structure of the argument is "We pretend that X is about Y, but it's more about Z. If we cared about Y, we would do A instead." An argument with the same structure might be "We pretend that having experts is about having accurate information. But in practice it results in a self-perpetuating elite that doesn't hold itself accountable. If we cared about accuracy, we would use more prediction markets." Give me 10 more examples with that same structure. *Now try to make them original and biting, as Robin Hanson would.*
Answer:
> We pretend that the prison system is about rehabilitating criminals, but it's more about enriching private prison corporations. If we cared about reducing crime, we would invest in education and social programs instead.
> We pretend that the military is about defending our country, but it's more about protecting the interests of the elites who profit from war. If we cared about national security, we would prioritize diplomacy and peaceful resolution of conflicts.
> We pretend that the pharmaceutical industry is about finding cures for diseases, but it's more about maximizing profits for the companies that produce drugs. If we cared about public health, we would prioritize generic medications and universal healthcare.
> We pretend that the fashion industry is about self-expression, but it's more about pressuring people to conform to certain standards of beauty. If we cared about personal style, we would celebrate diversity and individuality.
> We pretend that the education system is about preparing students for the real world, but it's more about preparing them for college and corporate jobs. If we cared about student success, we would focus on practical skills and vocational training.
> We pretend that advertising is about informing consumers, but it's more about manipulating people into buying things they don't need. If we cared about informed choices, we would have stricter regulations on advertising and more transparency in marketing.
> We pretend that the news is about reporting the truth, but it's more about sensationalism and pandering to certain audiences. If we cared about accurate information, we would support news organizations that prioritize objectivity and fact-checking.
> We pretend that the food industry is about nourishing people, but it's more about maximizing profits for the companies that produce food. If we cared about public health, we would prioritize sustainable and nutritious options.
> We pretend that the beauty industry is about empowering women, but it's more about perpetuating unrealistic beauty standards and profiting from insecurities. If we cared about self-esteem, we would focus on inner beauty and self-acceptance rather than external appearances.
> We pretend that the economy is about providing for people's needs, but it's more about maximizing profits for corporations and the wealthy elite. If we cared about the well-being of the majority of people, we would prioritize a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources.
Trial 3 input:
> Consider the argument "We pretend that healthcare is giving people better and longer lives. But in practice we spend too much in palliative rather than preventative medicine, and we use healthcare spending as a way to show that we care. If we really cared about giving people better lives, we would focus more on preventative measures, and we would have more large-scale randomized trials." The structure of the argument is "We pretend that X is about Y, but it's more about Z. If we cared about Y, we would do A instead." An argument with the same structure might be "We pretend that having experts is about having accurate information. But in practice it results in a self-perpetuating elite that doesn't hold itself accountable. If we cared about accuracy, we would use more prediction markets." Give me 10 more examples with that same structure from the perspective of Bryan Caplan.
Output:
> "We pretend that military intervention is about protecting national security, but it's often more about advancing corporate interests. If we cared about security, we would focus on diplomacy and non-violent conflict resolution."
> "We pretend that tax cuts are about boosting the economy, but in practice they often benefit the wealthy more than the middle class. If we cared about economic growth, we would invest in infrastructure and education."
> "We pretend that our education system is about preparing students for the workforce, but it's often more about testing and standardization. If we cared about preparing students, we would focus on experiential learning and creativity."
> "We pretend that our criminal justice system is about upholding justice, but it's often more about punishment and retribution. If we cared about justice, we would invest in rehabilitation and alternatives to incarceration."
> "We pretend that our political system is about representing the will of the people, but it's often more about special interests and campaign donations. If we cared about representation, we would implement campaign finance reform and fair redistricting."
> "We pretend that our media is about providing accurate and unbiased news, but it's often more about ratings and sensationalism. If we cared about journalism, we would prioritize fact-checking and diverse viewpoints."
> "We pretend that our healthcare system is about providing equal access to care, but it's often more about profit. If we cared about access, we would implement universal healthcare."
> "We pretend that our food system is about providing nutritious options, but it's often more about cheap, processed foods. If we cared about nutrition, we would prioritize small, local farms and organic options."
> "We pretend that our housing policies are about providing affordable options, but they often benefit developers and landlords more than renters. If we cared about affordability, we would implement rent control and invest in public housing."
> "We pretend that our environmental policies are about protecting the planet, but they often prioritize economic growth over sustainability. If we cared about the environment, we would prioritize renewable energy and conservation efforts."
