Re: Tik-tok viral videos. I think that the cliff is simply because recent videos had too little time to be watched 10m times. The second graph in the article is not about the same for 0.1m views, but about average views per week (among videos with >0.1m views), which stays stable.
AVoropaev
Karma: 69
I don’t understand the point of questions 1 and 3.
If we forget about details of how model works, the question 1 essentially checks whether the entity in question have a good enough rng. Which doesn’t seem to be particularly relevant? Human with a vocabulary and random.org can do that. AutoGTP with access to vocabulary and random.org also have a rather good shot. Superintelligence that for some reason decides to not use rng and answer deterministically will fail. I suppose it would be very interesting to learn that say GPT-6 can do it without external rng, but what would it tell us about it’s other capabilities?
The question 3 checks for something weird. If I wanted to pass it, I’d probably have to precommit on answering certain weird questions in a particular way (and also ensure to always have access to some rng). Which is a weird thing to do? I expect humans to fail at that, but I also expect almost every possible intelligence to fail at that.
In contrast question 2 checks for something “which part of input do you find most surprising” which seems like a really useful skill to have and we should probably watch out for it.
Yeah, you are right. It seems that it was actually one of the harder ones I tried. This particular problem was solved by 4 of 28 members of a relatively strong group. I distinctly remember also trying some easy problems from a relatively weak group, but I don’t have notes and Bing don’t save chat.
I guess I should just try again, especially in light of gwillen’s comment. (By the way, if somebody with access to actual GPT-4 is willing to help me with testing it on some math problems, I’d really appreacite it .)
That would explain a lot. I’ve heard this rumor, but when I tried to trace the source, i haven’t found anything better than guesses. So I dismissed it, but maybe I shouldn’t have. Do you have a better source?
I agree that there are some impressive improvements from GPT-3 to GPT-4. But they seem to me a lot less impressive than jump from GPT-2 producing barely coherent texts to GPT-3 (somewhat) figuring out how to play chess.
I disagree with you take on LLM’s math abilities. Wolfram Alpha helps with tasks like SAT—and GPT-4 is doing well enough on them. But for some reason it (at least in the incarnation of Bing) has trouble with simple logic puzzles like the one I mentioned in other comment.
Can you tell more about success with theoretical physics concepts? I don’t think I’ve seen anybody try that.
I didn’t say “it’s worse than 12 yo at any math task”. I meant nonstandard problems. Perhaps that’s wrong English terminology? Sort of easy olympiad problem?
The actual test that I performed was “take several easy problems from a math circle for 12 y/o and try various ‘lets think tep-by-step’ to make Bing write solutions”.
Example of such a problem:
Between 20 poles, several ropes are stretched (each rope connects two different poles; there is no more than one rope between any two poles). It is known that at least 15 ropes are attached to each pole. The poles are divided into groups so that each rope connects poles from different groups. Prove that there are at least four groups.
Two questions about capabilities of GPT-4.
The jump in capabilities from GPT-3 to GPT-4 seems like much much less impressive than jump from GPT-2 to GPT-3. Part of that is likely because later version of GPT-3 were noticeably smarter than the first ones, but that reason doesn’t seem sufficient to me. So what’s up? Should I expect that GPT-4 → GPT-5 will be barely noticeable?
In particular I am rather surprised at apparent lack in ability to solve nonstandard math problems. I didn’t expect it to beat IMO, but I did expect that problems for 12 y/o would be accessible, and they weren’t. (I personally tried only Bing, so perhaps usual GPT-4 is better. But I’ve seen only one successful attempt with GPT-4, and it was mostly trigonometry.). So what’s up? I am tempted to say that math is just harder than economy, biology, etc. But that’s likely not it.
What improvements do you suggest?
Can it in some way describe itself? Something like “picture of DALL-E 2”.
#2: My impression is that something like 2%-10% of Ukrainian population believed that a month ago (would you consider that worrying enough?). My evidence for that is very shacky and it is indeed quite possible that I am overestimating it by an order of magnitude (still kind of worrying, though I might be overestimating even more).
First, my aunt is among them. Second, over last few years I’ve seen multiple (something like 5-10, concentrated around present date?) discussions on social media where friends of friends (all Russians) said that they believe in nazi-controlled Ukraine since their relatives in Ukraine in some or another way confirmed it (perhaps such relatives are predominantly from occupied territories?).Third, a lot of Russian families have close relatives in Ukraine (I can’t find any statistics, but by eyeballing families of my friends, I’d say something like 1⁄3 in Moscow). If a lot of such relatives believed in Russian propaganda, that would explain so many Russians believe it as well (there are rumors that some are choosing to believe tv over their relatives, but I haven’t personally witnessed any of that). And this “a lot of such relatives” don’t need to be implausibly big, since “Ukrainians believing in Russian propaganda” are likely overrepresented among close relatives of Russians.
On #3 I would very much expect the opposite. People at LW are very good vs. such tactics in general, and are high-information, and have access to Western sources, and this stuff is optimized to appeal to people in the former USSR.
I agree with all your points, but I don’t think that it is opposite of what I meant to say. When I was talking about being at disadvantage, I didn’t mean that western lesswrongers that will visit this site will be more affected by it then average Russians. I meant that western lesswronger will have not only obvious advantages (that you listed), but also some disadvantages, perhaps less obvious to westerners (is “disadvantage” a wrong word to use here?). That’s why I was talking about “underestimating danger” (another part of that was an attempt to make people even more cautious).
Yes, sure, the danger is not that big, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’ll noticeably negatively affect at least 0.1% of lesswrongers who visit such site (obviously conditioned on a lot of them visiting such site), and I absolutely won’t risk something like that just for curiosity.
Strangely, this site seems like it’s an attempt to be a sane Russian-slanted source
I am following my own advice and haven’t read their articles since like 2013 when they lost their independence (and haven’t been a regular reader before that). But my not very educated guess would be that if your observation is correct, then it is one of news sources that initially were independent, then became government-controlled, and are still posing as mostly-inependent, e.g. lie only when it is important. Kind of optimized for highly educated opposition-leaning people in the former USSR.
Yes, I think that it is the most likely scenario. Still, it bothered me enough that I mentioned it—I consider such omission 2-3 times more likely in a world where there are other important (intentional) omissions that I haven’t noticed than in a world where he is honest.
I still think that reading Galeev is worth it and that he is trustworthy enough source. But if for example he’ll make a thread on modern Russian opposition that doesn’t mention Navalny, it’ll be a huge red flag for me.
To clarify: this site contains very effective propaganda that makes it a cognitohazard. You are likely underestimating its danger. It is not “just a bunch of fake statements”. It is “a bunch of statements optimized for inflicting particular effects on its readers”. Such “particular effects” are not limited to believing in what news says. In fact, news regularly contradict what they said a few months ago even in peace time, so believing what they are literally saying is probably not the point.
Before reading propaganda consider that such materials:1) Convinced a lot (a majority?) of Russians that Russian army is heroically fighting western nazis.
1.1) Not all such Russians are dumb—some of them are rather smart, there are some scientists, etc.
2) Convinced some (a sizable minority?) of Ukrainians that they are living under nazi rule.
3) It is possible that you are at a disadvantage compared to all those people since you likely haven’t encountered such propaganda before.
For example, there are a lot of contrmemes to government propaganda in Russian culture. Some of them are exploited by modern propaganda (All other media are also lying!), but I suspect that their effect is net positive, especially in more educated people.
As a Russian I confirm that everything that Galeev says seems legit. I haven’t been following our politics that much, but Gallev’s model of Putin’s fits my observations.
The only thing that looked a little suspicious to me was the thread on Russian parliamentarism—there was an opportunity to say something about Navalny’s team there (e.g. as a central example of party that can’t be registered or something about them organizing protests), and I expected that he would mention it, but he didn’t. In fact, I don’t think he ever mentioned Navalny in any of his threads. Why?
I think that if Lesswrong wants to be less wrong, then questions “why do you believe in that?” should not be downvoted.
As for the question itself, I know next to nothing about the situation on this NPP, but just from priors I’d give 70% that if someone shelled it, it was Russian army.
1) It is easier to shoot at NPP if you don’t know what you re shooting at. Russian army is much more likely to mistake this target for something else.
2) p(Russian government lies that it wasn’t them | it was them) > p(Ukrainian government lies it wasn’t them | it was them) (I believe in that since I believe that the left number is very very close to 1.)
3) I am under impression that Russian army uses a lot more artillery. It is somewhat less important for such important target (Ukrainian army is probably incentivized to concentrate their limited resources here), but probably still important.
I’d also like to hear an opinion of somebody who have more information about this.
Update: Prosecutor’s General Office says that protest will be treated as “participation in radical group” which is up to 6 years. Probably won’t be used too massively, at least initially.
Yeah, doesn’t seem to be true. There is this law, and general attitude of treating posts on vk/facebook as a mass media—but it is ‘just’ 3 years or a huge fine, and it is rarely enforced (yet). (There might be some other relevant laws that I don’t know about, but I would be very surprised (and concerned) if they involved 10 year prison terms.) It might be wise to make some minimal precautions though—like making all posts that are not meant to be read by tovaritch major “friends only”.
Thank you for treating it as a “today’s lucky 10,000” event. I am aware about quines (though not much more than just ‘aware’) and what I am worried about is whether people that created FairBot were careful enough.
“Definition” was probably a wrong word to use. Since we are talking in the context of provability, I meant “a short string of text that replaces a longer string of text for ease of human reader, but is parsed as a longer string of text when you actually work with it”. Impredicative definitions are indeed quite common, but they go hand in hand with proofs of their consistency, like proof that a functional equation have a solution, or example of a group to prove that group axioms are consistent, or more generally a model of some axiom system.
Sadly I am not familiar with Haskell, so your link is of limited use to me. But it seems to contain a lot of code and no proofs, so it is probably not what I am looking for anyway.
What I am looking for probably looks like a proof of “”. I am in many ways uncertain about whether this is the right formula (is GL a right system to use here (does it even support quantifiers over functional symbols? if not then there should be an extension that does support it); is “does f exist” the right question to be asking here; does “” correctly describe what we want rom FairBot). But some proof of that kind should exists, overwise why should we think that such FairBot exists/is consistent?
It’s been ages since I studied provability logic, but those bots look suspicious to me. Have anybody actually formalized them? Like the definition of FairBot involves itself, so it is not actually a definition. Is it a statement that we consider true? Is it just a statement that we consider provable? Why won’t adding something like this to GL result in contradiction?
What’s the source of that 505 employees letter? I mean the contents aren’t too crazy, but isn’t it strange that the only thing we have is a screenshot of the first page?