# Why Negative Valence Can’t Outnumber Positive Valence

Monotonicity of relative entropy under partial trace says that

S(ρABC||σABC) ≥ S(ρAB||σAB). (*)

The relative entropy on the left is bigger than the relative entropy on the right.

But…

S(ρABC||σABC) = S(ρABC||ρA⊗ρBC) = I(A,BC) = SA + SBC – SABC

and similarly

S(ρAB||σAB) = S(ρAB||ρA⊗ρB) = I(A,B) = SA + SB – SAB

When σ is obtained from ρ by ignoring some correlations, the relative entropy reduces to a mutual information, which is a sum of entropies.

So the monotonicity inequality, (*), becomes a monotonicity of mutual information. Or equivalently, it becomes strong subadditivity.

SAB + SBC ≥ SB + SABC.

To speak of all judgements in mind-configuration space is to speak of the uncountably infinite. Therefore, human philosophical sentiments presuming small-world atheism such as: naive antinatalism, discrete-valued negative utilitarianism, and even any current form of consequentialism with regard to conscious experiences are all strictly non-sensical.

sin(x) hides in tan(x). It makes no sense to speak of which is more than the other. Judgements are approximate factors in a blob of amplitude distribution. –And that’s just the level III multiverse (completely ignoring what the seeming incompatibility of conscious experience with the physical fact of eternalism may imply.)

In layman’s terms, a monotonic infinite series is one which shows a single behavior such as always decreasing or always increasing. It cannot be the case that you belong to something which is bad or good (regardless of how these are defined within the parameters of Constructor Theory or whatever other arbitrary theory you claim to be currently holding). Experiences are not discrete entities, disembodied from a physical process, but part of an entropic flow. And an entropic flow cannot have monotonic attributes ∀ attributes in an uncountably infinite context.

In so far as anyone disagrees with this:

A. They have discovered new mathematical truths.

B. They do not understand the math/logic.

C. They do not care about the math/logic, but their behavior is instead akin to expressing their own hurt and/or signaling conscientiousness.

A combination of B and C accounted for my previous strong negative utilitarian sentiments. I had hidden motives that I was not aware of, and confused them for being a realist. Now that I have put more leg-work towards an accurate picture of reality, consequentialism makes no absolute sense. An agent can create arbitrary enclosures to play in, but these do not add up or subtract out items from ground ontology.

My answer to the question “Is Christianity compatible with feminism?” is also relevant here:

# If I Was Running the Simulation

def print_all_pleasures(multiverse):

while True:

positivevalencecomputation, endofpvc = get_next_target(multiverse)

if positivevalencecomputation:

print  positivevalencecomputation

multiverse = multiverse[endofpvc:]

else:

break

print_all_pleasures(‘‘)

# dr. pinker’s boring humanism vs. Artificial General Intelligence With Utility Function HACKED For Positive Qualia Valence-Optimization

First, dive into the mind of an exemplary big picture thinker who was given the internet, the desire for transcendence, the capacity for existential angst, above-average intelligence and the self-flagellating desire to be good. The fossil record of this species can be found on LessWrong. Populations have radiated to Slate Star Codex in cyberspace; corners of academia, Silicon Valley companies, and mom’s basements in meatspace. Such are the thoughts of a member of the relatively elusive species:

The two topics I’ve been thinking the most about lately:

• What makes some patterns of consciousness feel better than others? I.e. can we crisply reverse-engineer what makes certain areas of mind-space pleasant, and other areas unpleasant?
• If we make a smarter-than-human Artificial Intelligence, how do we make sure it has a positive impact? I.e., how do we make sure future AIs want to help humanity instead of callously using our atoms for their own inscrutable purposes? (for a good overview on why this is hard and important, see Wait But Why on the topic and Nick Bostrom’s book Superintelligence)

I hope to have something concrete to offer on the first question Sometime Soon™. And while I don’t have any one-size-fits-all answer to the second question, I do think the two issues aren’t completely unrelated. The following outlines some possible ways that progress on the first question could help us with the second question.

An important caveat: much depends on whether pain and pleasure (collectively, ‘valence‘) are simple or complexproperties of conscious systems. If they’re on the complex end of the spectrum, many points on this list may not be terribly relevant for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, if they have a relatively small “kolmogorov complexity” (e.g., if a ‘hashing function’ to derive valence could fit on a t-shirt), crisp knowledge of valence may be possible sooner rather than later, and could have some immediate relevance to current Friendly Artificial Intelligence (FAI) research directions.

Additional caveats: it’s important to note that none of these ideas are grand, sweeping panaceas, or are intended to address deep metaphysical questions, or aim to reinvent the wheel- instead, they’re intended to help resolve empirical ambiguities and modestly enlarge the current FAI toolbox.

——————————————————

1. Valence research could simplify the Value Problem and the Value Loading Problem.* If pleasure/happiness is an important core part of what humanity values, or should value, having the exact information-theoretic definition of it on-hand could directly and drastically simplify the problems of what to maximize, and how to load this value into an AGI**.

*The “Value Problem” is what sort of values we should instill into an AGI- what the AGI should try to maximize. The “Value Loading Problem” is how to instill these values into the AGI.

**An AGI is an Artificial General Intelligence. AI researchers use this term to distinguish something generally intelligent and good at solving arbitrary problems (like a human) from something that’s narrowly intelligent (like a program that only plays Chess).

This ‘Value Problem’ is important to get right, because there are a lot of potential failure modes which involve superintelligent AGIs doing exactly what we say, but not what we want (e.g., think of what happened to King Midas). As Max Tegmark puts it in Friendly Artificial Intelligence: the Physics Challenge,

What is the ultimate ethical imperative, i.e., how should we strive to rearrange the particles of our Universe and shape its future? If we fail to answer [this] question rigorously, this future is unlikely to contain humans.

2. Valence research could form the basis for a well-defined ‘sanity check’ on AGI behavior. Even if pleasure isn’t a core terminal value for humans, it could still be used as a useful indirect heuristic for detecting value destruction. I.e., if we’re considering having an AGI carry out some intervention, we could ask it what the expected effect is on whatever pattern precisely corresponds to pleasure/happiness. If there’s be a lot less of that pattern, the intervention is probably a bad idea.

3. Valence research could help us be humane to AGIs and WBEs*. There’s going to be a lot of experimentation involving intelligent systems, and although many of these systems won’t be “sentient” in the way humans are, some system types will approach or even surpass human capacity for suffering. Unfortunately, many of these early systems won’t work well— i.e., they’ll be insane. It would be great if we had a good way to detect profound suffering in such cases and halt the system.

*A WBE is a Whole-Brain Emulation, which is a hypothetical process which involves scanning a brain at a very high resolution, then emulating it in software on a very fast computer. If we do it right, the brain-running-as-software should behave identically with the original brain-running-as-neurons.

4. Valence research could help us prevent Mind Crimes. Nick Bostrom suggests in Superintelligence that AGIs might simulate virtual humans to reverse-engineer human preferences, but that these virtual humans might be sufficiently high-fidelity that they themselves could meaningfully suffer. We can tell AGIs not to do this- but knowing the exact information-theoretic pattern of suffering would make it easier to specify what not to do.

5. Valence research could enable radical forms of cognitive enhancement. Nick Bostrom has argued that there are hard limits on traditional pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement, since if the presence of some simple chemical would help us think better, our brains would probably already be producing it. On the other hand, there seem to be fewer a priori limits on motivational or emotional enhancement. And sure enough, the most effective “cognitive enhancers” such as adderall, modafinil, and so on seem to work by making cognitive tasks seem less unpleasant or more interesting. If we had a crisp theory of valence, this might enable particularly powerful versions of these sorts of drugs.

6. Valence research could help align an AGI’s nominal utility function with visceral happiness. There seems to be a lot of confusion with regard to happiness and utility functions. In short: they are different things! Utility functions are goal abstractions, generally realized either explicitly through high-level state variables or implicitly through dynamic principles. Happiness, on the other hand, seems like an emergent, systemic property of conscious states, and like other qualia but unlike utility functions, it’s probably highly dependent upon low-level architectural and implementational details and dynamics. In practice, most people most of the time can be said to have rough utility functions which are often consistent with increasing happiness, but this is an awfully leaky abstraction.

My point is that constructing an AGI whose utility function is to make paperclips, and constructing a sentient AGI who is viscerally happy when it makes paperclips, are very different tasks. Moreover, I think there could be value in being able to align these two factors— to make an AGI which is viscerally happy to the exact extent that it’s maximizing its nominal utility function.

(Why would we want to do this in the first place? There is the obvious semi-facetious-but-not-completely-trivial answer— that if an AGI turns me into paperclips, I at least want it to be happy while doing so—but I think there’s real potential for safety research here also.)

7. Valence research could help us construct makeshift utility functions for WBEs and Neuromorphic* AGIs.How do we make WBEs or Neuromorphic AGIs do what we want? One approach would be to piggyback off of what they already partially and imperfectly optimize for already, and build a makeshift utility function out of pleasure. Trying to shoehorn a utility function onto any evolved, emergent system is going to involve terrible imperfections, uncertainties, and dangers, but if research trends make neuromorphic AGI likely to occur before other options, it may be a case of “something is probably better than nothing.”

One particular application: constructing a “cryptographic reward token” control scheme for WBEs/neuromorphic AGIs. Carl Shulman has suggested we could incentivize an AGI to do what we want by giving it a steady trickle of cryptographic reward tokens that fulfill its utility function- it knows if it misbehaves (e.g., if it kills all humans), it’ll stop getting these tokens. But if we want to construct reward tokens for types of AGIs that don’t intrinsically have crisp utility functions (such as WBEs or neuromorphic AGIs), we’ll have to understand, on a deep mathematical level, what they do optimize for, which will at least partially involve pleasure.

*A “neuromorphic” AGI is an AGI approach that uses the human brain as a general template for how to build an intelligent system, but isn’t a true copy of any actual brain (i.e., a Whole-Brain Emulation). Nick Bostrom thinks this is the most dangerous of all AGI approaches, since you get the unpredictability of a fantastically convoluted, very-hard-to-understand-or-predict system, without the shared culture, values, and understanding you’d get from a software emulation of an actual brain.

8. Valence research could help us better understand, and perhaps prevent, AGI wireheading. How can AGI researchers prevent their AGIs from wireheading (direct manipulation of their utility functions)? I don’t have a clear answer, and it seems like a complex problem which will require complex, architecture-dependent solutions, but understanding the universe’s algorithm for pleasure might help clarify what kind of problem it is, and how evolution has addressed it in humans.

9. Valence research could help reduce general metaphysical confusion. We’re going to be facing some very weird questions about philosophy of mind and metaphysics when building AGIs, and everybody seems to have their own pet assumptions on how things work. The better we can clear up the fog which surrounds some of these topics, the lower our coordinational friction will be when we have to directly address them.

Successfully reverse-engineering a subset of qualia (valence- perhaps the easiest type to reverse-engineer?) would be a great step in this direction.

10. Valence research could change the social and political landscape AGI research occurs in. This could take many forms: at best, a breakthrough could lead to a happier society where many previously nihilistic individuals suddenly have “skin in the game” with respect to existential risk. At worst, it could be a profound information hazard, and irresponsible disclosure or misuse of such research could lead to mass wireheading, mass emotional manipulation, and totalitarianism. Either way, it would be an important topic to keep abreast of.

These are not all independent issues, and not all are of equal importance. But, taken together, they do seem to imply that reverse-engineering valence will be decently relevant to FAI research, particularly with regard to the Value Problem, reducing metaphysical confusion, and perhaps making the hardest safety cases (e.g., neuromorphic AGIs) a little bit more tractable.

A key implication is that valence/qualia research can (for the most part) be considered safety research without being capabilities research– solving consciousness would make it easier to make an AGI that treats humanity (and all conscious entities) better, without making it easier to create the AGI in the first place (and this is a good thing).

-Edward Michael Johnson, Berkeley

Okay. That mouthful fucked the horny goddess of Runaway Signaling so hard, that it gave her genito-pelvic pain/penetration disorder (GPPD).

Luckily, given this display of hyper-moral engagement, we don’t have to worry that the author is actually a sex offender.

In Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker, he starts with an anecdote in which a student asks “Why should I live?” upon hearing Pinker’s spiel that mental activity occurs in the tissues of the brain. Pinker responded by noting and complimenting the student’s commitment to reason. And then gifted her with an improvised Humanism 101 introductory paragraph. Inspired by his own response, Pinker decided to package these Enlightenment values into a book vector by virtue of his profit-seeking motives desire for the flourishing of sentient beings.

However, I believe that we need a world were public intellectual Ph.D’s sound a lot more like Edward Johnson, and less like Pinker. If we are going to replace the religious soul, might as well go all in. Eschatology needs to be epic. It needs to involve the inherent desire for ecstatic final self-destruction of man, namely, the desire for Heaven/Brahman/Nibbana. Now this desire can be translated in rationalist, transhumanist foresight as the creation of the perfect mind-configuration, and the proceeding tiling of the universe with this maximally positive-valence hedonium.

For the self-described “atom machine with a limited scope of intelligence, sprung from selfish genes, inhabiting spacetime,” asking Pinker for guidance through email, it won’t be enough to be reminded that he can flick the tap on the sink and “water runs!” Pinker is smart, and he should know this. There are a great many number of narratives we can construe, and yet none satisfies all. Carl Sagan will love being interwoven into the mechanics of the blind universe, as “its way of experiencing itself.”  People with high hedonic set-points and amiability will already be socially-integrated liberals who are happy that water runs and believe themselves to be part of a good human-centric world to which they contribute. Typical Normie will not give a shit as long as there are dank memes and political outrage.

Naively, Pinker tries to reach the angsty-type with appeals to social-centric concerns. This fails because it is like trying to feed carrots to a wolf. The angsty-type will find a way to cling to a self-defeating narrative. My mom leans more towards the anxious type, so she always worried about the agony of purgatory, and never mentioned the promise of Heaven, although this brighter-side is just as accessible within the framework of her Catholic religion. The embroidery in the tokens of language is not as important as the inherent neural predispositions.

Religions adapted to neurodiversity. Buddhism, centrally concerned with the cessation of suffering by extinguishing the flame of existence, also provided a system for laymen who might not be allured by this goal/non-goal of Nibbana. If a significant part of the population is not cognitively disposed to be perfectionist or is depressed/suffering, it’s going to be a hard sell. But if you provide a layman’s path with a karma system by which you can accumulate points and be reborn into a more pleasurable realm, now you can get average humans to cooperate in the project by providing alms for monks, being good citizens, etc.

Pinker’s Humanism is brittle. It provides no room for the Aspies and the types who crave meta-narratives. If we are going to choose a new religion for the Western world, I wager we pick Edward Johnson’s. Rationalist/transhumanist/effective altruist and the rest of that ideological neighborhood do better than mere liberal humanism. In this burgeoning movement, there are cryonics for those who crave resurrection but are smart enough to know better than trusting dead Palestinian carpenters; there are galaxy-is-at-stake hero quests that involve math and computer science, there are donations to charities that help the poor in Africa, there are academics at universities and anti-establishment objectors. You can be as down-to-earth as you want or as cosmically significant, based on the particular drive thresholds in your mesolimbic system.

Oh, but wait, how could I have missed this? The only problem will be that people who take Humanism seriously, and bother to even watch a Youtube video of a public intellectual saying science-y, reason-y things, is already a ghetto in the bell-curve. The slice who might stumble and gravitate around Transhumanism is even slighter. No one is listening! No one is listening Pinker! We are alone.

How did I even have the energy to read the first page of your book? The net is vast and infinite.

# SEELE

Experiences are configurations of matter. In principle, we can engineer the best experience by specifying the electron flow architecture that is that experience.

For mysterious reasons, we live in a universe where the internal workings of a network of atoms are conscious unto themselves. The fact that experiences are bound to that which is manipulable, geometric, lawful – that which we call “material,” is a wonderful boon offered to us by this, otherwise demiurgic, embryonic bubble in the multiverse.

SEELE will be the most important project undertaken by the Earthly descendants of LUCA (last universal common ancestor). My mission in life is not to procreate, as the metaphorical will of my Proterozoic forefather might wish. My mission is to inspire SEELE – a conglomerate of volitional vectors instantiated in human flesh that come together and push matter towards the summit.

There is a summit of self-contained value. All experiences have a hedonic tone to them. The valence(hedonic tone) is as real, as physical, a property of a mind, as the spin direction is of a quark. The self-modeling networks that simulate the complex concept of “foot” in a non-masochist as the electrical signals from below informed them that nerves had been snipped and a toe gobbled up by the lawn-mower – did they doubt? Did Muhammad doubt the hedonic spectrum when he imbued the very ink of his Arabic calligraphy with unbelievers dragged through boiling water? –and on the other side– is the good. Good is not fundamentally relative. Good is good. History and Anthropology reveal that different cultures can promote different preferences. To the naive eye, this implies relativism. But to the learned eye, this implies that a brain has learned different tactics to mine the same gold. Bolivians fond of the Takanakuy mine the gold by punching their neighbor’s faces, a boy at a Chicago restaurant mines it by playing a game on his iPad, a mathematician at Oxford mines it by creatively discovering symmetrical relationships, an alien floating in the clouds of the Carina Nebula may mine this same positive valence in what seem like disturbing and unintelligible motions. There are different keys, but all open the same door.

Certain configurations of matter feel better than others.

Therefore, there is no real problem of relative values. There is, at bottom, the same value.

The ultimate design will feel as nothing human. From the outside, it may be a planet-sized cube.

“How boring,” thinks the human.

“How wrong is the human,” knows the inside consciousness of the cube.

To design this paradise life, clues lie in the basal ganglia’s limbic circuitry. What does it share with the happiness production in a baboon? What does it share with the happiness production in an alien, non-Carbon life form? If we should ever find the underlying explanatory theory that accounts for this, tiling spacetime with this pattern is the next and final step in the game of life.

# My All-or-Nothing Mind

I recently caught myself browsing college courses in alphabetical order, imagining what it would be like to take all of them. It would kind of suck to start with African American Studies, but I could get used to it, and then move on to Anthropology and then Astronomy… and then I realized that investing time in this fantasy was negatively affecting my motivation to commit to my actual major. I was reframing it in a broader context, not one in which it was my special calling, but one in which the absurdity of human fate had committed me to it. Out of all the possible options out there… all the courses, all the textbooks that could have been used, all the colleges, and yet here I am.

The cause of my circumstances is not some well-thought out plan. It is not that some genius mastermind God of education reasonably calculated that the subjects and local topics we study are the very best use of our time. No, the data meeting your eyeballs and bouncing around in the topographical map of your visual cortex is dictated by Moloch who’s true master is the Laws of Physics.

In the past, I have sought answers to this turbulent nonsense by attempting to reduce it all to all-embracing simplicity.

What is simple?

Schedules are simple. I eat the same thing every day, with each item always at the same allotted time. I workout at the same time every day, always with the same workout cycle.

But this does not solve the entirety of life. What’s more simple?

Meditating non-stop is simple. When I was seventeen, I attempted a weird form of Buddhism that could only be invented in the age of iPhones. Call the practitioner a transhuman-yogi – someone who listens to the same set of guided meditations through their earbuds from morning to night until their mind is fluid, compassionate, tuned, and yet disturbed.

Okay, that radically changed me. Not all for the good, not all for the worst. But, what’s next?

Suicide is simple. Non-existence is beyond bliss and non-bliss. Truly Nirvana, when you realize that it cannot be grasped. We tend to project a sense of absence, a vacuity of a grey room onto the concept of nothingness. But nothingness doesn’t exist, it is beyond non-existence.

I was sufficiently comfortable with this, that at some point, I did something really stupid and killed off a bunch of my clones in other Everett Branches. On one side was the deep water, on the other was the sand. I passed myself out with alcohol on the ledge. The probability of death was 50/50. Somehow, I ended up on the sand. But I know that by doing this, I significantly increased the amount of branches where others like me are dead. Evidence for quantum immortality? Not enough to convince me… yet.

Being Filthy Rich ™ makes things simple. When I was sixteen, before I got into meditation and consequentialism and science, I was into getting rich. I worked and invested on a little eBay flipping business. I haggled over prices with the Chinese through the school’s library computers. I raised thousands of dollars, including money from family members, all to make it grow in the financial markets. I practiced with paper money, using different kinds of technical analysis tools such as the Moving Average Convergence Divergence(MACD for short), the ADX, and Bollinger Bands. I tried it on different regions of the market, and thought I was deriving valuable insights.

To the contrary, I was little more than gambling. Although, I managed to accumulate over twenty thousand dollars, I quickly lost most of it. In hindsight, I would have probably been comparatively better off by now if I had stuck to fundamental analysis, which is the first thing I had taught myself. But with my prefrontal cortex still developing, and my voracious hunger to break away from the bondage of school, the quick-money allure of day trading was too tempting to avoid.

All of this may seem to be an attempt to put to shame those who seek simplicity. It may sound like I have discovered a pattern from which it is possible to induce that seeking simple answers is bad.  However, this is not the case.

It is not a common trait to seek The-One-and-Only-Answer, to this degree. People like us can deliver laser-like insight to a humanity that wallows in banal trivialities. I have recently discovered that in Internet culture, a word has been invented to describe these non-alien types, “normies” – for example, those who are perfectly comfortable on the front page of Youtube, watching political talk-shows and comedy.

Most of my family and the people I knew in school were, are, and will remain normies of some kind or another. I have accepted this now, long after having self-inflicted a damaging percept of disgust that led me to isolation in the past. Back in my more immature days, I didn’t want people to rub off on me because it always annoyed me how non-epic they were: “How do you not see that humans and all their cherished emotions as they presently exist are just one corner of all the possible regions in experiential-space? How do you not see that your culture, your religion, and your language is arbitrary and stupid? How do you not see that anime is better than SpongeBob?”

People like me must accept that the answer to human life is not simple because most humans don’t have a utility function they want to maximize even on paper. It is impossible to build a compass without a magnetic field to show us north.

If we attempt to analyze what moves humans, then hovering above the cryptic mist of quantum field theory, more intelligible causal factors can be gleamed. Canonically, these include a variety of memes and the underlying protein scaffold on which they run. There are local culture-viruses, such as whatever particular game with stones was played by village girls in the year 45 AD of what is now Biernatow, Poland. And then there are gargantuan-sized economic vectors which push millions of minds to explore some kind of mind-configuration space as opposed to another. None of the events at this level can be optimized for independently because they are intertwined and partially instantiated in other processes such as the behavior of mitochondria. What is there to optimize for when its all a mess that only appears full of intention? Even evolution is an abstraction caused by more simple molecular behavior (this is a common source of teleological confusion for non-biologists.)

The solution is to take a radically alien, detached, third-person view which seeks to optimize for positive valence. Sure, claiming that finding the peak of this valence plot is the goal, is also just a bunch of blind little causal factors inducing my brain to transmit particular electrical signals to the fingers on the keyboard. But the one thing that all experiences share is that they can be plotted on a graph of time vs. valence. They can not be plotted on a graph of time vs. justice, because our concept of justice varies. Or time vs. Allah-pleasing-righteousness, because even an attempt at the literal interpretation of religious text is impossible due to the ambiguity of language and contradictions.

However, the difference between positive valence and negative valence is crystal crisp and clear. The feeling of being lovingly hugged by your parents and the feeling of having a stake driven through your mouth really corresponds to the existence of different regions in qualia-space. It is not made up after the fact with meaningless, relativistic language. Experiences and their hedonic tones are direct properties of the universe. Once we have a fundamental physical explanation for qualia, and can hypothesize new structures and their properties in the same way that we can suggest new chemical compounds, we will be on our way to re-engineering our minds towards the best configuration that wins the game. And not just our own minds, but all available matter should be set up to run the peak experience on loop for as long as possible, harvesting Hawking radiation from black holes for trillions of years until the universe finally splits at its seams.

AnD thiS is WHy LOviNg SimplICiTy iS AWesomE;. It GIVeS A NeW PeRSPEcctIVE

And, and, when I’m rich, I will start a company that strives to incorporate these ideals and begin to  wander with purpose. It will revolutionize the economy with cryptocurrency based on mining positive experiences in day-to-day life while brain activity is tracked. It will focus on designing cultural institutions and artifacts first, then pharmaceuticals, and then neuroengineering, finally culminating in packing matter into tidy cubes of perfect bliss that spread throughout the cosmos.  It will be called SEELE, and I have already built a website for it.

… Okay, I am fucking crazy. “Consensus reality, come save me!”