I was around a few years ago when there were already debates about whether 80k should recommend OpenAI jobs. And that’s before any of the fishy stuff leaked out, and they were stacking up cool governance commitments like becoming a capped-profit and having a merge-and-assist-clause.
And, well, it sure seem like a mistake in hindsight how much advertising they got.
30 kW
typo
Not sure how to interpret the “agree” votes on this comment. If someone is able to share that they agree with the core claim because of object-level evidence, I am interested. (Rather than agreeing with the claim that this state of affairs is “quite sad”.)
Does anyone from Anthropic want to explicitly deny that they are under an agreement like this?
(I know the post talks about some and not necessarily all employees, but am still interested).
Note that, by the grapevine, sometimes serving inference requests might loose OpenAI money due to them subsidising it. Not sure how this relates to boycott incentives.
That metaphor suddenly slide from chess into poker.
If AI ends up intelligent enough and with enough manufacturing capability to threaten nuclear deterrence; I’d expect it to also deduce any conclusions I would.
So it seems mostly a question of what the world would do with those conclusions earlier, rather than not at all.
A key exception is if later AGI would be blocked on certain kinds of manufacturing to create it’s destabilizing tech, and if drawing attention to that earlier starts serially blocking work earlier.
I have thoughts on the impact of AI on nuclear deterrents; and claims made thereof in the post.
But I’m uncertain whether it’s wise to discuss such things publicly.
Curious if folks have takes on that. (The meta question)
y’know, come to think of it… Training and inference differ massively in how much compute they consume. So after you’ve trained a massive system, you have a lot of compute free to do inference (modulo needing to use it to generate revenue, run your apps, etc). Meaning that for large scale, critical applications, it might in fact be feasible to tolerate some big, multiple OOMs, hit to the compute cost of your inference; if that’s all that’s required to get the zero knowledge benefits, and if those are crucial
“arguments” is perhaps a bit generous of a term...
(also, lol at this being voted into negative! Giving karma as encouragement seems like a great thing. It’s the whole point of it. It’s even a venerable LW tradition, and was how people incentivised participation in the annual community surveys in the elden days)
(Also the arguments of this comment do not apply to Community Notes.)
the amount of people who could write sensible arguments is small
Disagree. The quality of arguments that need debunking is often way below the average LW:ers intellectual pay grade. And there’s actually quite a lot of us.
Cross posting sure seems cheap. Though I think replying and engaging with existing discourse is easier than building a following of one’s top level posts from scratch.
Yeah, my hypothesis is something like this might work.
(Though I can totally see how it wouldn’t though, and I wouldn’t have thought it a few years ago, so my intuition might just be mistaken)
I dont think the numbers really check out on your claim. Only a small proportion of people reading this are alignment researchers. And for remaining folks many are probably on Twitter anyway, or otherwise have some similarly slack part of their daily scheduling filled with sort of random non high opportunity cost stuff.
Historically there sadly hasn’t been scalable ways for the average LW lurker to contribute to safety progress; now there might be a little one.
never thought I’d die fighting side by side with an elf...
If anyone signed up to Community Notes because of this post, feel free to comment below and I’ll give you upvote karma :) (not agreement karma)
Yes, I’ve felt some silent majority patterns.
Collective action problem idea: we could run an experiment -- 30 ppl opt in to writing 10 comments and liking 10 comments they think raise the sanity waterline, conditional on a total of 29 other people opting in too. (A “kickstarter”.) Then we see if it seemed like it made a difference.
I’d join. If anyone is also down for that, feel free to use this comment as a schelling point and reply with your interest below.
(I’m not sure the right number of folks, but if we like the result we could just do another round.)
Poor Review Bot, why do you get so downvoted? :(