Make a hyperphone. A majority of my alignment research conversations would be enhanced by having a hyperphone, to a degree somewhere between a lot and extremely; and this is heavily weighted on the most hopeworthy conversations. (Also sometimes when I explain what a hyperphone is well enough for the other person to get it, and then we have a complex conversation, they agree that it would be good. But very small N, like 3 to 5.)
Also sometimes when I explain what a hyperphone is well enough for the other person to get it, and then we have a complex conversation, they agree that it would be good. But very small N, like 3 to 5.
It’s difficult to understand your writing, and I feel like you could improve in general at communication based on this quote. The concept of a hyperphone isn’t that complex—the ability to branch in conversations—so the modifiers “well enough”, “complex”, and “very small N” make me believe it’s only complex because you’re unclear.
For example, the blog post you linked to is titled “Hyperphone”, yet you never define a hyperphone. I can infer from the section on streaming what you imagine, but that’s the second-to-last section!
If you’re not already aware of it: This idea of a hyperphone seems highly convergent with Loom, a similar branching interface originally designed for interaction with language models. This sort of interface is very natural for language models, and in fact this “octopus mind” you describe makes a lot of sense as being a part of the mind closer to pure prediction (and therefore has similarities to language models). I agree that this structure makes a lot of sense for humans as well, and from what I can tell long-term use of Loom can pull people to approach conversations in a more multiversal fashion, which looks similar to a hyperphone in practice.
Quoting another comment I made:
Make a hyperphone. A majority of my alignment research conversations would be enhanced by having a hyperphone, to a degree somewhere between a lot and extremely; and this is heavily weighted on the most hopeworthy conversations. (Also sometimes when I explain what a hyperphone is well enough for the other person to get it, and then we have a complex conversation, they agree that it would be good. But very small N, like 3 to 5.)
https://tsvibt.blogspot.com/2023/01/hyperphone.html
It’s difficult to understand your writing, and I feel like you could improve in general at communication based on this quote. The concept of a hyperphone isn’t that complex—the ability to branch in conversations—so the modifiers “well enough”, “complex”, and “very small N” make me believe it’s only complex because you’re unclear.
For example, the blog post you linked to is titled “Hyperphone”, yet you never define a hyperphone. I can infer from the section on streaming what you imagine, but that’s the second-to-last section!
The point of the essay is to describe the context that would make one want a hyperphone, so that
one can be motivated by the possibility of a hyperphone, and
one could get a hold of the criteria that would direct developing a good hyperphone.
The phrase “the ability to branch in conversations” doesn’t do either of those.
If you’re not already aware of it: This idea of a hyperphone seems highly convergent with Loom, a similar branching interface originally designed for interaction with language models. This sort of interface is very natural for language models, and in fact this “octopus mind” you describe makes a lot of sense as being a part of the mind closer to pure prediction (and therefore has similarities to language models). I agree that this structure makes a lot of sense for humans as well, and from what I can tell long-term use of Loom can pull people to approach conversations in a more multiversal fashion, which looks similar to a hyperphone in practice.
Huh? A hyperphone is a two-player tool. Loom is a one-player tool.