Comment by JohnMakin

As a former mechanical engineer, I visualize this phenomenon like a "tolerance stackup". Effectively meaning that for each part you add to the chain, you accumulate error. If you're not damn careful, your assembly of parts (or conclusions) will fail to measure up to expectations.

  > I don’t think it’s just (or even particularly) bad axioms

IME most people aren't very good at building axioms. I hear a lot of people say "from first principles" and it is a pretty good indication that they will not be. First principles require a lot of effort to create. They require iteration. They require a lot of nuance, care, and precision. And of course they do! They are the foundation of everything else that is about to come. This is why I find it so odd when people say "let's work from first principles" and then just state something matter of factly and follow from there. If you want to really do this you start simple, attack your own assumptions, reform, build, attack, and repeat.

This is how you reduce the leakiness, but I think it is categorically the same problem as the bad axioms. It is hard to challenge yourself and we often don't like being wrong. It is also really unfortunate that small mistakes can be a critical flaw. There's definitely an imbalance.

  >> The smartest people I have ever known have been profoundly unsure of their beliefs and what they know.

This is why the OP is seeing this behavior. Because the smartest people you'll meet are constantly challenging their own ideas. They know they are wrong to at least some degree. You'll sometimes find them talking with a bit of authority at first but a key part is watching how they deal with challenging of assumptions. Ask them what would cause them to change their minds. Ask them about nuances and details. They won't always dig into those can of worms but they will be aware of it and maybe nervousness or excited about going down that road (or do they just outright dismiss it?). They understand that accuracy is proportional to computation, and you have exponentially increasing computation as you converge on accuracy. These are strong indications since it'll suggest if they care more about the right answer or being right. You also don't have to be very smart to detect this.

> I don’t think it’s just (or even particularly) bad axioms, I think it’s that people tend to build up “logical” conclusions where they think each step is a watertight necessity that follows inevitably from its antecedents, but actually each step is a little bit leaky, leading to runaway growth in false confidence.

This is what you get when you naively re-invent philosophy from the ground up while ignoring literally 2500 years of actual debugging of such arguments by the smartest people who ever lived.

You can't diverge from and improve on what everyone else did AND be almost entirely ignorant of it, let alone have no training whatsoever in it. This extreme arrogance I would say is the root of the problem.

> Not that non-rationalists are any better at reasoning, but non-rationalists do at least benefit from some intellectual humility.

Non-rationalists are forced to use their physical senses more often because they can't follow the chain of logic as far. This is to their advantage. Empiricism > rationalism.

> I think it’s that people tend to build up “logical” conclusions where they think each step is a watertight necessity that follows inevitably from its antecedents, but actually each step is a little bit leaky, leading to runaway growth in false confidence.

Yeah, this is a pattern I've seen a lot of recently—especially in discussions about LLMs and the supposed inevitability of AGI (and the Singularity). This is a good description of it.

Yet I think most people err in the other direction. They 'know' the basics of health, of discipline, of charity, but have a hard time following through. 'Take a simple idea, and take it seriously': a favorite aphorism of Charlie Munger. Most of the good things in my life have come from trying to follow through the real implications of a theoretical belief.

Perhaps part of being rational, as opposed to rationalist, is having a sense of when to override the conclusions of seemingly logical arguments.

I feel this way about some of the more extreme effective altruists. There is no room for uncertainty or recognition of the way that errors compound.

- "We should focus our charitable endeavors on the problems that are most impactful, like eradicating preventable diseases in poor countries." Cool, I'm on board.

- "I should do the job that makes the absolute most amount of money possible, like starting a crypto exchange, so that I can use my vast wealth in the most effective way." Maybe? If you like crypto, go for it, I guess, but I don't think that's the only way to live, and I'm not frankly willing to trust the infallibility and incorruptibility of these so-called geniuses.

- "There are many billions more people who will be born in the future than those people who are alive today. Therefore, we should focus on long-term problems over short-term ones because the long-term ones will affect far more people." Long-term problems are obviously important, but the further we get into the future, the less certain we can be about our projections. We're not even good at seeing five years into the future. We should have very little faith in some billionaire tech bro insisting that their projections about the 22nd century are correct (especially when those projections just so happen to show that the best thing you can do in the present is buy the products that said tech bro is selling).

> Not that non-rationalists are any better at reasoning, but non-rationalists do at least benefit from some intellectual humility.

I have observed no such correlation of intellectual humility.

Would you consider the formal verification community to be "rationalists"?

> I don’t think it’s just (or even particularly) bad axioms, I think it’s that people tend to build up “logical” conclusions where they think each step is a watertight necessity that follows inevitably from its antecedents, but actually each step is a little bit leaky, leading to runaway growth in false confidence.

I really like your way of putting it. It’s a fundamental fallacy to assume certainty when trying to predict the future. Because, as you say, uncertainty compounds over time, all prediction models are chaotic. It’s usually associated with some form of Dunning-Kruger, where people know just enough to have ideas but not enough to understand where they might fail (thus vastly underestimating uncertainty at each step), or just lacking imagination.

Precisely! I'd even say they get intoxicated with their own braininess. The expression that comes to mind is to get "way out over your skis".

I'd go even further and say most of the world's evils are caused by people with theories that are contrary to evidence. I'd place Marx among these but there's no shortage of examples.

> non-rationalists do at least benefit from some intellectual humility

The Islamists who took out the World Trade Center don’t strike me as particularly intellectually humble.

If you reject reason, you are only left with force.

> I feel like the internet has led to an explosion of these such groups because it abstracts the "ideas" away from the "people". I suspect if most people were in a room or spent an extended amount of time around any of these self-professed, hyper-online rationalists, they would immediately disregard any theories they were able to cook up, no matter how clever or persuasively-argued they might be in their written down form.

Likely the opposite. The internet has led to people being able to see the man behind the curtain, and realize how flawed the individuals pushing these ideas are. Whereas many intellectuals from 50 years back were just as bad if not worse, but able to maintain a false aura of intelligence by cutting themselves off from the masses.

In the term "conman" the confidence in question is that of the mark, not the perpetrator.

> how do people become certain of something?

They see the same pattern repeatedly until it becomes the only reasonable explanation? I’m certain about the theory of gravity because every time I drop an object it falls to the ground with a constant acceleration.

Most likely Gide ("Croyez ceux qui cherchent la vérité, doutez de ceux qui la trouvent", "Believe those who seek Truth, doubt those who find it") and not Voltaire ;)

Voltaire was generally more subtle: "un bon mot ne prouve rien", a witty saying proves nothing, as he'd say.

All I know is that I know nothing.

Well you could be a critical rationalist and do away with the notion of "certainty" or any sort of justification or privileged source of knowledge (including "rationality").

Your own state of mind is one of the easiest things to be fairly certain about.

no

Suspicious implies uncertain. It’s not immediate rejection.

Isaac Newton would like to have a word.

I agree. There's also the point of hardware dependance.

From all we've seen, the practical ability of AI/LLMs seems to be strongly dependent on how much hardware you throw at it. Seems pretty reasonable to me - I'm skeptical that there's that much out there in gains from more clever code, algorithms, etc on the same amount of physical hardware. Maybe you can get 10% or 50% better or so, but I don't think you're going to get runaway exponential improvement on a static collection of hardware.

Maybe they could design better hardware themselves? Maybe, but then the process of improvement is still gated behind how fast we can physically build next-generation hardware, perfect the tools and techniques needed to make it, deploy with power and cooling and datalinks and all of that other tedious physical stuff.

> it assumes that soon LLMs will gain the capability of assisting humans

No, it does not. It assumes there will be progress in AI. It does not assume that progress will be in LLMs

It doesn't require AI to be better than humans for AI to take over because unlike a human an AI can be cloned. You have have 2 AIs, then 4, then 8.... then millions. All able to do the same things as humans (the assumption of AGI). Build cars, build computers, build rockets, built space probes, build airplanes, build houses, build power plants, build factories. Build robot factories to create more robots and more power plants and more factories.

PS: Not saying I believe in the doom. But the thought experiment doesn't seem indefensible.

> - What if there are several paths to different kinds of intelligence with their own local maxima, in which the AI can easily get stuck after optimizing itself into the wrong type of intelligence?

I think what's more plausible is that there is general intelligence, and humans have that, and it's general in the same sense that Turing machines are general, meaning that there is no "higher form" of intelligence that has strictly greater capability. Computation speed, memory capacity, etc. can obviously increase, but those are available to biological general intelligences just like they would be available to electronic general intelligences.

An interesting point you make there — one would assume that if recursive self-improvement were a thing, Nature would have already lead humans into that "hall of mirrors".

> What if "increasing intelligence", which is a very vague goal, has diminishing returns, making recursive self-improvement incredibly slow?

This is sort of what I subscribe to as the main limiting factor, though I'd describe it differently. It's sort of like Amdahl's Law (and I imagine there's some sort of Named law that captures it, I just don't know the name): the magic AI wand may be very good at improving some part of AGI capability, but the more you improve that part, the more the other parts come to dominate. Metaphorically, even if the juice is worth the squeeze initially, pretty soon you'll only be left with a dried-out fruit clutched in your voraciously energy-consuming fist.

I'm actually skeptical that there's much juice in the first place; I'm sure today's AIs could generate lots of harebrained schemes for improvement very quickly, but exploring those possibilities is mind-numbingly expensive. Not to mention that the evaluation functions are unreliable, unknown, and non-monotonic.

Then again, even the current AIs have convinced a large number of humans to put a lot of effort into improving them, and I do believe that there are a lot of improvements that humans are capable of making to AI. So the human-AI system does appear to have some juice left. Where we'll be when that fruit is squeezed down to a damp husk, I have no idea.

The built in assumptions are always interesting to me, especially as it relates to intelligence. I find many of them (though not all), are organized around a series of fundamental beliefs that are very rarely challenged within these communities. I should initially mention that I don't think everyone in these communities believes these things, of course, but I think there's often a default set of assumptions going into conversations in these spaces that holds these axioms. These beliefs more or less seem to be as follows:

1) They believe that there exists a singular factor to intelligence in humans which largely explains capability in every domain (a super g factor, effectively).

2) They believe that this factor is innate, highly biologically regulated, and a static factor about a person(Someone who is high IQ in their minds must have been a high achieving child, must be very capable as an adult, these are the baseline assumptions). There is potentially belief that this can be shifted in certain directions, but broadly there is an assumption that you either have it or you don't, there is no feeling of it as something that could be taught or developed without pharmaceutical intervention or some other method.

3) There is also broadly a belief that this factor is at least fairly accurately measured by modern psychometric IQ tests and educational achievement, and that this factor is a continuous measurement with no bounds on it (You can always be smarter in some way, there is no max smartness in this worldview).

These are things that certainly could be true, and perhaps I haven't read enough into the supporting evidence for them but broadly I don't see enough evidence to have them as core axioms the way many people in the community do.

More to your point though, when you think of the world from those sorts of axioms above, you can see why an obsession would develop with the concept of a certain type of intelligence being recursively improving. A person who has become convinced of their moral placement within a societal hierarchy based on their innate intellectual capability has to grapple with the fact that there could be artificial systems which score higher on the IQ tests than them, and if those IQ tests are valid measurements of this super intelligence factor in their view, then it means that the artificial system has a higher "ranking" than them.

Additionally, in the mind of someone who has internalized these axioms, there is no vagueness about increasing intelligence! For them, intelligence is the animating factor behind all capability, it has a central place in their mind as who they are and the explanatory factor behind all outcomes. There is no real distinction between capability in one domain or another mentally in this model, there is just how powerful a given brain is. Having the singular factor of intelligence in this mental model means being able to solve more difficult problems, and lack of intelligence is the only barrier between those problems being solved vs unsolved. For example, there's a common belief among certain groups among the online tech world that all governmental issues would be solved if we just had enough "high-IQ people" in charge of things irrespective of their lack of domain expertise. I don't think this has been particularly well borne out by recent experiments, however. This also touches on what you mentioned in terms of an AI system potentially maximizing the "wrong types of intelligence", where there isn't a space in this worldview for a wrong type of intelligence.

It's kinda weird how the level of discourse seems to be what you get when a few college students sit around smoking weed. Yet somehow this is taken as very serious and profound in the valley and VC throw money at it.

I've pondered recursive self-improvement. I'm fairly sure it will be a thing - we're at a point already where people could try telling Claude or some such to have a go, even if not quite at a point it would work. But I imagine take off would be very gradual. It would be constrained by available computing resources and probably only comparably good to current human researchers and so still take ages to get anywhere.

Yeah, to compare Yudkowsky to Hubbard I've read accounts of people who read Dianetics or Science of Survival and thought "this is genius!" and I'm scratching my head and it's like they never read Freud or Horney or Beck or Berne or Burns or Rogers or Kohut, really any clinical psychology at all, even anything in the better 70% of pop psychology. Like Hubbard, Yudkowsky is unreadable, rambling [1] and inarticulate -- how anybody falls for it boggles my mind [2], but hey, people fell for Carlos Castenada who never used a word of the Yaqui language or mentioned any plant that grows in the desert in Mexico but has Don Juan give lectures about Kant's Critique of Pure Reason [3] that Castenada would have heard in school and you would have heard in school too if you went to school or would have read if you read a lot.

I can see how it appeals to people like Aella who wash into San Francisco without exposure to education [4] or philosophy or computer science or any topics germane to the content of Sequences -- not like it means you are stupid but, like Dianetics, Sequences wouldn't be appealing if you were at all well read. How is people at frickin' Oxford or Stanford fall for it is beyond me, however.

[1] some might even say a hypnotic communication pattern inspired by Milton Erickson

[2] you think people would dismiss Sequences because it's a frickin' Harry Potter fanfic, but I think it's like the 419 scam email which is riddled by typos which is meant to drive the critical thinker away and, ironically in the case of Sequences, keep the person who wants to cosplay as a critical thinker.

[3] minus any direct mention of Kant

[4] thus many of the marginalized, neurodivergent, transgender who left Bumfuck, AK because they couldn't live at home and went to San Francisco to escape persecution as opposed to seek opportunity

I'm surprised not see see much pushback on your point here, so I'll provide my own.

We have an existence proof for intelligence that can improve AI: humans can do this right now.

Do you think AI can't reach human-level intelligence? We have an existence proof of human-level intelligence: humans. If you think AI will reach human-level intelligence then recursive self-improvement naturally follows. How could it not?

Do you not think human-level intelligence is some kind of natural maximum? Why? That would be strange, no? Even if you think it's some natural maximum for LLMs specifically, why? And why do you think we wouldn't modify architectures as needed to continue to make progress? That's already happening, our LLMs are a long way from the pure text prediction engines of four or five years ago.

There is already a degree of recursive improvement going on right now, but with humans still in the loop. AI researchers currently use AI in their jobs, and despite the recent study suggesting AI coding tools don't improve productivity in the circumstances they tested, I suspect AI researchers' productivity is indeed increased through use of these tools.

So we're already on the exponential recursive-improvement curve, it's just that it's not exclusively "self" improvement until humans are no longer a necessary part of the loop.

On your specific points:

> 1. What if increasing intelligence has diminishing returns, making recursive improvement slow?

Sure. But this is a point of active debate between "fast take-off" and "slow take-off" scenarios, it's certainly not settled among rationalists which is more plausible, and it's a straw man to suggest they all believe in a fast take-off scenario. But both fast and slow take-off due to recursive self-improvement are still recursive self-imrpovement, so if you only want to criticise the fast take-off view, you should speak more precisely.

I find both slow and fast take-off plausible, as the world has seen both periods of fast economic growth through technology, and slower economic growth. It really depends on the details, which brings us to:

> 2. LLMs already seem to have hit a wall of diminishing returns

This is IMHO false in any meaningful sense. Yes, we have to use more computing power to get improvements without doing any other work. But have you seen METR's metric [1] on AI progress in terms of the (human) duration of task they can complete? This is an exponential curve that has not yet bent, and if anything has accelerated slightly.

Do not confuse GPT-5 (or any other incrementally improved model) failing to live up to unreasonable hype for an actual slowing of progress. AI capabilities are continuing to increase - being on an exponential curve often feels unimpressive at any given moment, because the relative rate of progress isn't increasing. This is a fact about our psychology, if we look at actual metrics (that don't have a natural cap like evals that max out at 100%, these are not good for measuring progress in the long-run) we see steady exponential progress.

> 3. What if there are several paths to different kinds of intelligence with their own local maxima, in which the AI can easily get stuck after optimizing itself into the wrong type of intelligence?

This seems valid. But it seems to me that unless we see METR's curve bend soon, we should not count on this. LLMs have specific flaws, but I think if we are honest with ourselves and not over-weighting the specific silly mistakes they still make, they are on a path toward human-level intelligence in the coming years. I realise that claim will sound ridiculous to some, but I think this is in large part due to people instinctively internalising that everything LLMs can do is not that impressive (it's incredible how quickly expectations adapt), and therefore over-indexing on their remaining weaknesses, despite those weaknesses improving over time as well. If you showed GPT-5 to someone from 2015, they would be telling you this thing is near human intelligence or even more intelligent than the average human. I think we all agree that's not true, but I think that superficially people would think it was if their expectations weren't constantly adapting to the state of the art.

> 4. Once AI realizes it can edit itself to be more intelligent, it can also edit its own goals. Why wouldn't it wirehead itself?

It might - but do we think it would? I have no idea. Would you wirehead yourself if you could? I think many humans do something like this (drug use, short-form video addiction), and expect AI to have similar issues (and this is one reason it's dangerous) but most of us don't feel this is an adequate replacement for "actually" satisfying our goals, and don't feel inclined to modify our own goals to make it so, if we were able.

> Knowing Yudowsky I'm sure there's a long blog post somewhere where all of these are addressed with several million rambling words of theory

Uncalled for I think. There are valid arguments against you, and you're pre-emptively dismissing responses to you by vaguely criticising their longness. This comment is longer than yours, and I reject any implication that that weakens anything about it.

Your criticisms are three "what ifs" and a (IMHO) falsehood - I don't think you're doing much better than "millions of words of theory without evidence". To the extent that it's true Yudkowsky and co theorised without evidence, I think they deserve cred, as this theorising predated the current AI ramp-up at a time when most would have thought AI anything like what we have now was a distant pipe dream. To the extent that this theorising continues in the present, it's not without evidence - I point you again to METR's unbending exponential curve.

Anyway, so I contend your points comprise three "what ifs" and (IMHO) a falsehood. Unless you think "AI can't recursively self-improve itself" already has strong priors in its favour such that strong arguments are needed to shift that view (and I don't think that's the case at all), this is weak. You will need to argue why we should need to have strong evidence to overturn a default "AI can't recursively self-improve" view, when it seems that a) we are already seeing recursive improvement (just not purely "self"-improvement), and that it's very normal for technological advancement to have recursive gains - see e.g. Moore's law or technological contributions to GDP growth generally.

Far from a damning example of rationalists thinking sloppily, this particular point seems like one that shows sloppy thinking on the part of the critics.

It's at least debateable, which is all it has to be for calling it "the biggest nonsense axion" to be a poor point.

[1] https://metr.org/blog/2025-03-19-measuring-ai-ability-to-com...

  > The biggest nonsense axiom I see in the AI-cult rationalist world is recursive self-improvement. 

This is also the weirdest thing and I don't think they even know the assumption they are making. It makes the assumption that there is infinite knowledge to be had. It also ignores the reality that in reality we have exceptionally strong indications that accuracy (truth, knowledge, whatever you want to call it) has exponential growth in complexity. These may be wrong assumptions, but we at least have evidence for them, and much more for the latter. So if objective truth exists, then that intelligence gap is very very different. One way they could be right there is for this to be an S-curve and for us humans to be at the very bottom there. That seems unlikely, though very possible. But they always treat this as linear or exponential as if our understanding to the AI will be like an ant trying to understand us.

The other weird assumption I hear is about how it'll just kill us all. The vast majority of smart people I know are very peaceful. They aren't even seeking power of wealth. They're too busy thinking about things and trying to figure everything out. They're much happier in front of a chalk board than sitting on a yacht. And humans ourselves are incredibly passionate towards other creatures. Maybe we learned this because coalitions are a incredibly powerful thing, but truth is that if I could talk to an ant I'd choose that over laying traps. Really that would be so much easier too! I'd even rather dig a small hole to get them started somewhere else than drive down to the store and do all that. A few shovels in the ground is less work and I'd ask them to not come back and tell others.

Granted, none of this is absolutely certain. It'd be naive to assume that we know! But it seems like these cults are operating on the premise that they do know and that these outcomes are certain. It seems to just be preying on fear and uncertainty. Hell, even Altman does this, ignoring risk and concern of existing systems by shifting focus to "an even greater risk" that he himself is working towards (You can't simultaneously maximize speed and safety). Which, weirdly enough might fulfill their own prophesies. The AI doesn't have to become sentient but if it is trained on lots of writings about how AI turns evil and destroys everyone then isn't that going to make a dumb AI that can't tell fact from fiction more likely to just do those things?

He probably is describing Mensa, and assuming that it also applies to the rationality community without having any specific knowledge of the latter.

(From my perspective, Hacker News is somewhere in the middle between Mensa and Less Wrong. Full of smart people, but most of them don't particularly care about evidence, if providing their own opinion confidently is an alternative.)

Interesting. I can't say I've done much following though — not that I am aware of anyway. Maybe I just had no leaders growing up.

I don't believe anyone has taken it seriously in the last half-decade, if you find counter-evidence for that belief let me know.

It means you haven't read Hume, or, in general, taken philosophy seriously. An academic philosopher might still come to the same conclusions as you (there is an academic philosopher for every possible position), but they'd never claim the certainty you do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui-ArJRqEvU

Meant to drop a link for the above, my bad

"genetically engineers high fructose corn syrup into everything"

This phrase is nonsense, because HFCS is a chemical process applied to normal corn after the harvest. The corn may be a GMO but it certainly doesn't have to be.

It's also very fun and satisfying. But it should be limited to an intellectual exercise at best, and more likely a silly game. Because there's no true first principle, you always have to make some assumption along the way.

What makes you so certain there isn't? A group that has a deep understanding fnord of uncertainty would probably like to work behind the scenes to achieve their goals.

My favourite bumper sticker, "Militant Agnostic. I don't know, and neither do you."

More people should read Sextus Empiricus as he's basically the O.G. Phyrronist skeptic and goes pretty hard on this very train of thought.

A Wonderful Phrase by Gandhi

  I do dimly perceive
  that while everything around me is ever-changing,
  ever-dying there is,
  underlying all that change,
  a living power
  that is changeless,
  that holds all together,
  that creates,
  dissolves,
  and recreates

You mean like this? https://www.readthesequences.com/Zero-And-One-Are-Not-Probab...

The Snatter Goblins?

https://archive.org/details/goblinsoflabyrin0000frou/page/10...

https://realworldrisk.com/

Socrates was fairly close to that.

"I have no strong feelings one way or the other." thunderous applause

There would be, except we're all very much on the fence about whether it is the right cult for us.

There already is, they're called "Politicians."

Like Robert Anton Wilson if he were way less chill, perhaps.

“Oh, that must be exhausting.”

> If you think people can't arrive to a tangible and useful approximation of truth, then you are simply delusional

Logic is only a map, not the territory. It is a new toy, still bright and shining from the box in terms of human history. Before logic there were other ways of thinking, and new ones will come after. Yet, Voltaire's bastards are always certain they're right, despite being right far less often than they believe.

Can people arrive at tangible and useful conclusions? Certainly, but they can only ever find capital "T" Truth in a very limited sense. Logic, like many other models of the universe, is only useful until you change your frame of reference or the scale at which you think. Then those laws suddenly become only approximations, or even irrelevant.

> It's crazy to read this, because by writing what you wrote you basically show that you don't understand what an axiom is. You need to review the definition of the word.

Oh, do enlighten then.

> The smartest people are unsure about their higher level beliefs, but I can assure you that they almost certainly don't re-evaluate "axioms" as you put it on a daily or weekly basis. Not that it matters, as we almost certainly can't verify who these people are based on an internet comment.

I'm not sure you are responding to the right comment, or are severely misinterpreting what I said. Clearly a nerve was struck though, and I do apologize for any undue distress. I promise you'll recover from it.

> Saw once a discussion that people should not have kids as it's by far the highest increase in your carbon footprint in your lifetime (>10x than going vegan, etc) be driven all the way to advocating genocide as a way of carbon footprint minimization

The opening scene of Utopia (UK) s2e6 goes over this:

> "Why did you have him then? Nothing uses carbon like a first-world human, yet you created one: why would you do that?"

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcx-nf3kH_M

Setting aside the reductio ad absurdum of genocide, this is an unfortunately common viewpoint. People really need to take into account the chances their child might wind up working on science or technology which reduces global CO2 emissions or even captures CO2. This reasoning can be applied to all sorts of naive "more people bad" arguments. I can't imagine where the world would be if Norman Borlaug's parents had decided to never have kids out of concern for global food insecurity.