Hello! I work at Lightcone and like LessWrong :-). I have made some confidentiality agreements I can’t leak much metadata about (like who they are with). I have made no non-disparagement agreements.
kave
Karma: 1,921
We have many org announcements on LessWrong! If your company is relevant to the interests of LessWrong, I would welcome an announcement post.
Org announcements are personal blog posts unless they are embedded inside of a good frontpage post.
that industry was largely made possible in the first place by governments subsidizing the cost of chasing down runaway slaves
Whoa! Source?
OK, perhaps you are saying what I would phrase as “are you saying it’s not greatly to Sam’s discredit if he forced employees to sign …?”.
I have some feeling that this back-and-forth is bad or a waste of something, but I just don’t see how
[Austin is saying that] it would be to Sam’s credit to learn that he forced employees to sign NDAs by straightforwardly lying to them about their legal obligations, using extremely adversarial time pressure tactics and making very intense but vague threats?
is at all a plausible interpretation, or anything like a necessary implication, of what Austin wrote.
What does “the evidence is about” mean? I don’t think there’s one piece of evidence, and I think evidence is normally relevant to multiple latent variables.
I agree that the fact there was filtering and how it was conducted is bad evidence. On the other hand, “now that the NDAs have been dropped, curious to see what comes to light (if nothing does, that would be more positive credit towards Sam [...])” seems to be talking about how the lack of something to insult Sam about is positive evidence about Sam. I don’t think it’s very strong evidence, fwiw, but noting that it is positive evidence seems pretty clearly distinct from saying “it would be to Sam’s credit to learn that he forced employees to sign NDAs by [bad stuff]”
Austin is saying absence of evidence is evidence of absence (in the absence of a preempting filter)
FWIW, I had noticed the same but had thought it was overly split (“Golden Gate Bridge, particularly its fog, colour and endpoints”) rather than dirty.
Curated! This is a nice short post! I think the altered state of memorylessness is pretty interesting evidence for how minds might work. I would not have guessed that the multiplication tasks wouldn’t be impaired (though I’m a little confused how to think about exactly what it means to have no trouble doing a multiplication while needing to be reminded of the numbers).
This post also reminds me of (HPMOR spoilers)
Harry’s occlumency lessons, where the instructor had the same thoughts each time. At the time I was sceptical that the other environmental noise of one’s life wouldn’t change the answer. This seems like some evidence in favour of the HPMOR-style repetition.
Some people find the messages annoying. I personally don’t love the large amount of vertical space they take up. Looks like someone went through and downvoted a bunch of recent comments by the bot
Sorry for slightly off-topic, but curious if NAO has been thinking about/prepping for for HPA1/H5N1?
Fair enough! But perhaps disparaging enough things could affect the value of equity, though probably by less than refusing to sign a non-disparagement agreement and not getting your vested PPUs.
Does that make you reconsider whether having the equity might give you action-altering (and, particularly, speech-altering) incentives?
OpenAI employees currently seem like they can’t/won’t say public critical statements about OpenAI because of equity considerations. This seems like a situation where it is important not to have your public communication affected by thinking about stock prices.
Does this change your thinking any?
Curated. Since this post has been published, there’s been a couple of times I’ve heard the whisper of “More Dakka … do it again”. I’ve booked additional appointments with potential lawyers and tailors, called around for more quotes, and bought spares of trousers I like.
I haven’t explored most of the bullets in this post, but I think posts that (a) move concepts closer to next actions, (b) flesh out concepts in a bunch of different ways and explore them from different angles and (c) give examples are undersupplied. This post does all of those!
I think Romeo is thinking of checking a bunch of mediators of risk (like aldehyde levels) as well as of function (like whether the organism stays colonised)
Whoa! The meetup to beat
Ohhhhh!
But @henry was involved in the explainer, so it’s nice for him to get the comment notifications and the karma.
This is a straightforward consequence of the good regulator theorem
IIUC, the good regulator theorem doesn’t say anything about how the model of the system should be represented in the activations of the residual stream. I think the potentially surprising part is that the model is recoverable with a linear probe.
(I would agree-react but I can’t actually make it)
I have also added one.