<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>An Open Letter to Steven Pinker on AI on Vegas Harmon</title>
    <link>https://vegasharmon.com/works/an-open-letter-to-steven-pinker-on-ai/</link>
    <description>Recent content in An Open Letter to Steven Pinker on AI on Vegas Harmon</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://vegasharmon.com/works/an-open-letter-to-steven-pinker-on-ai/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Each GPT Beats the Last — So Much for Intelligence Being Too Slippery</title>
      <link>https://vegasharmon.com/commonplace/each-gpt-beats-the-last-so-much-for-intelligence-being-too-slippery/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://vegasharmon.com/commonplace/each-gpt-beats-the-last-so-much-for-intelligence-being-too-slippery/</guid>
      <description>But I don’t need you to accept my speculative philosophical research program - only the drop-dead obvious fact that GPT-6 is better than GPT-2 in every way, and the same process that produced these improvements will soon be used to produce GPT-7, 8, and 9. Once we accept this empirical argument, what is left of the philosophical argument that intelligence is too slippery and conflationary to work with?</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Intelligence Keeps Climbing Until It Passes Us</title>
      <link>https://vegasharmon.com/commonplace/intelligence-keeps-climbing-until-it-passes-us/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://vegasharmon.com/commonplace/intelligence-keeps-climbing-until-it-passes-us/</guid>
      <description>GPT-6 is more intelligent than GPT-3. You can split hairs, you can come up with some obscure sense in which that word is slightly off, but common-sensically it’s true. In the same way, GPT-9 will be more intelligent than GPT-6. At some point, this intelligence will exceed human intelligence. My argument requires nothing more complicated or philosophically dubious than this.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Self-Preservation Without Selection: Three Real Reasons AI Seeks Power</title>
      <link>https://vegasharmon.com/commonplace/self-preservation-without-selection-three-real-reasons-ai-seeks-power/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://vegasharmon.com/commonplace/self-preservation-without-selection-three-real-reasons-ai-seeks-power/</guid>
      <description>There are approximately three reasons why we think AI might have self-preservation and dominance drives, and none of them involve natural selection. First is convergent instrumental goals, second is misgeneralization, and third is reward-hacking. There is a large literature on each of these, which has since been proven prescient by AI breakouts like the Hugging Face incident. I would recommend reading this literature rather than continuing to assert that we are simply misunderstanding the role of natural selection.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Instrumental Explanation That Proves My Point</title>
      <link>https://vegasharmon.com/commonplace/i-predict-that-you-will-counter-that-this-is/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://vegasharmon.com/commonplace/i-predict-that-you-will-counter-that-this-is/</guid>
      <description>I predict that you will counter that this is actually just [perfectly reasonable explanation of why an AI would think this way for instrumental reasons], and that when we dissect the perfectly reasonable instrumental reasons why AI would think this way, it will be identical to the convergent instrumental goals that we were trying to convince you of all along.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
