we might disagree some. I think the original comment is pointing at the (reasonable as far i can tell) claim that oracular AI can have agent like qualities if it produces plans that people follow
Beckeck
Karma: 146
yeah, if the system is trying to do things I agree it’s (at least a proto) agent. My point is that creation happens in lots of places with respect to an LLM, and it’s not implausible that use steps (hell even sufficiently advanced prompt engineering) can effect agency in a system, particularly as capabilities continue to advance.
“Seems mistaken to think that the way you use a model is what determines whether or not it’s an agent. It’s surely determined by how you train it?”
---> Nah, pre training, fine tuning, scaffolding and especially RL seem like they all affect it. Currently scaffolding only gets you shitty agents, but it at least sorta works
Top post claims that while principle one (seek broad accountability) mightbe useful in a more perfect world, but that here in reality it doesn’t work great.
Reasons include that the pressure to be held in high standards by the Public tend to cause orgs to Do PR, rather then speak truth.
know ” sentence needs an ending
“ARC (they just changed names to METR, but I will call them ARC for this post)”—almost but not quite—
ARC Evals (the evaluation of frontier models people, led by Beth Barnes, with Paul on board/ advising) has become METR, ARC (alignment research center, doing big brain math and heuristic arguments, led by Paul) remains ARC.
″ football, hockey, rugby, boxing, kick-boxing and MMA to be amongst the worst sports for this stuff.” - - I’m not up to date on the current literature but I’m pretty sure this list is rather wrong. I don’t remember all the details of the study I do remember (and I don’t have time for a lit review) but in it women’s high school soccer actually had the highest concussion rate (idk if it was per participant season or hour or per game minute or...).
I accept that mayonaise is an evolution of allioli (but maintain that the historical fact is that its american ubiquity routes through french chefs).
Wikipedia also doesn’t say that it’s not a mother sauce, if you scroll down you’ll find this:
“Auguste Escoffier wrote that mayonnaise was a French mother sauce of cold sauces,[27] like ’espagnole or velouté. “
I originally wrote “controversially a mother sauce” because the most common listing of mother sauces on the internet is ~wrong- The youtube video i linked includes primary source scholarship on the topic that has begun to update the general understanding in the direction that the quote supports.
This is as much a nitpick with Zvi’s article as with this one, but french food just seems hard to find because its easy to misidentify. french technique is the bedrock of american food—both as the history of fine dining(/haute cuisine) routes directly through french chefs, restaurants, systems, and techniques and as french food has been repurposed into american food.
Some examples: mayonnaise, the delicate, challenging-to-make emulsion of flavored fats and vinegars,controversially a mother sauce* becomes ‘mayo’ the white stuff that goes on sandwiches; charcuterie becomes the deli isle; boeuf bourguignon becomes stew.
so in your example you can probably (haven’t researched the restaurant, but from general knowledge as a processional chef) count at least the “new american” restaurant as french as “new american” is the (new(ish)) American take on a fine dining tradition that comes from france. ‘Chef’ just means ‘chief’ in french (like the military rank or the man in charge) and comes from the brigade system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_de_cuisine)
((https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_mother_sauces) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcDk-JcAnOw )
If it’s the case that the game theory here is correct I’m sad why it can’t be simply explained as such, if the game theory here isn’t correct I’m sad it’s curated.
plus one for “stop worrying about what people will say in response so much, get the actual information out there, stop being afraid.”
see also Anna Salamon’s takes on ‘not doing PR’ that someone else might find and link?
“Gemma think that objective function and its implications through. At all.2”
*doesn’t
given this notional use case (and the relative inexperience of the implied user), I think its even more important to (as Gunnar mentioned) contextualize this advice as to whom its for, and how they should use it.
doing that properly would take more than i have for this at the moment, but i’d appreciate epistemic tagging regarding things like;
this only could work at a new/small scale (for reasons including because the cost of keeping everyone 100% context scales with org size and because benefits don’t)
that strategy has to fit the employees you have, and this sort of strategy constrains the type of person you can hire to those who would fit it (which is a cost to be considered, not a fatal flaw).
I think that steelmanning a person is usually a bad idea, rather one should steelman positions (when one cares about the matter to which the positions are relevant).
I claim this avoids a sufficient swath of the OP’s outlined problems of steelmanning for the articles claim of ‘nicheness’, and that the semi tautology of ‘appropriate steelmanning is appropriate’ more accurately maps reality.
also:
”The problem isn’t ‘charity is a good conversational norm, but these people are doing it wrong’; the problem is that charity is a bad conversational norm. If nothing else, it’s bad because it equivocates between ‘be friendly’ norms and ‘have accurate beliefs about others’ norms.”
here we can see a bad use case for steelmanning (having accurate beliefs about others) which makes me wonder if its not a question of doing it wrong? (contra to OP). I also notice that i think most people should have less conversations about what people think, and more conversations about what is true (where steelmanning becomes again more relevant), and wonder where you fall (because such a thing might be upstream?).
I also am apparently into declaratives today.
(meta: written without much rigor or edits rather then unwritten, )
First, Writing things so you know them seems valuable.
Second, Fwiw In my struggles with depression, I’ve found physical habits to be the easiest route to something better. When you don’t know what to do but need to do something, go for a walk/hike/jog and let your brain sync up with your body a little, burn some calories to regain some hunger, and deserve some the tiredness you may already feel.
Good video, even if I’m don’t quite agree with the superlative. I suspect that the festival film this video is about (this YouTube is a Pete Whitaker behind the scenes https://youtu.be/pDCSzC7PJBg) will be better, and also I’m excited for the full 3d/ vr films that should be coming out soon (here is Alex honold doing the behind the scenes thing https://youtu.be/dy4jGZ—gre)
I think clever duplication of human intelligence is plenty sufficient for general superhuman capacity in the important sense (wherein I mean something like ‘it has capacities such that would be extincion causing if (it believes) minimizing its loss function is achieved by turning off humanity (which could turn it off/ start other (proto-)agis)’).
for one, I don’t think humanity is that robust in the status quo, and 2, a team of internally aligned (because copies) human level intelligence capable of graduate level biology seems plenty existentially scary.
typo: “Gugguk” should be “Gigguk”
thanks, I appreciate the reply.
It sounds like I have somewhat wider error bars but mostly agree on everything but the last sentence, where I think it’s plausibly but not certainly less worrying.
If you felt like you had crisp reasons why you’re less worried, I’d be happy to hear them, but only if it feels positive for you to produce such a thing.