Chris_Leong

• Chris_Leong 14 Nov 2024 13:48 UTC

  LW: 10 AF: 4

  −2

  AF

  in reply to: DanielFilan’s comment on: DanielFilan’s Short­form Feed

  I agree that we probably want most theory to be towards the applied end these days due to short timelines. Empirical work needs theory in order to direct it, theory needs empirics in order to remain grounded.

• Chris_Leong 14 Nov 2024 13:38 UTC

  LW: 6 AF: 4

  2

  AF

  in reply to: DanielFilan’s comment on: DanielFilan’s Short­form Feed

  Thanks for writing this. I think it is a useful model. However, there is one thing I want to push back against:

  Looking at behaviour is conceptually straightforward, and valuable, and being done

  I agree with Apollo Research that evals isn’t really a science yet. It mostly seems to be conducted according to vibes. Model internals could help with this, but things like building experience or auditing models using different schemes and comparing them could help make this more scientific.

  Similarly, a lot of work with Model Organisms of Alignment requires a lot of careful thought to get right.

• Chris_Leong 13 Nov 2024 11:29 UTC

  2 points

  0

  on: AI Craftsmanship

  Remember back in 2013 when the talk of the town was how vector representations of words learned by neural networks represent rich semantic information? So you could do cool things like take the [male] vector, subtract the [female] vector, add the [king] vector, and get out something close to the [queen] vector? That was cool! Where’s the stuff like that these days?

  
  Activation vectors are a thing. So it’s totally happening.

• Chris_Leong 13 Nov 2024 6:11 UTC

  LW: 4 AF: 2

  0

  AF

  in reply to: Buck’s comment on: Thomas Kwa’s Shortform

  “How can we get more evidence on whether scheming is plausible?”—What if we ran experiments where we included some pressure towards scheming (either RL or fine-tuning) and we attempted to determine the minimum such pressure required to cause scheming? We could further attempt to see how this interacts with scaling.

• Chris_Leong 12 Nov 2024 11:42 UTC

  4 points

  0

  in reply to: AnthonyC’s comment on: Linkpost: “Imag­in­ing and build­ing wise ma­chines: The cen­tral­ity of AI metacog­ni­tion” by John­son, Karimi, Ben­gio, et al.

  I guess I was thinking about this in terms of getting maximal value out of wise AI advisers. The notion that comparisons might be unfair didn’t even enter my mind, even though that isn’t too many reasoning steps away from where I was.

• Chris_Leong 12 Nov 2024 4:56 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: AnthonyC’s comment on: Linkpost: “Imag­in­ing and build­ing wise ma­chines: The cen­tral­ity of AI metacog­ni­tion” by John­son, Karimi, Ben­gio, et al.

  That’s a fascinating perspective.

Linkpost: “Imag­in­ing and build­ing wise ma­chines: The cen­tral­ity of AI metacog­ni­tion” by John­son, Karimi, Ben­gio, et al.

Some Pre­limi­nary Notes on the Promise of a Wis­dom Explosion

• Chris_Leong 31 Oct 2024 5:38 UTC

  0 points

  −4

  on: What TMS is like

  Fascinating. Sounds related to the Yoga concept of kryias.

• Chris_Leong 31 Oct 2024 0:41 UTC

  0 points

  0

  in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Why I quit effec­tive al­tru­ism, and why Ti­mothy Tel­leen-Law­ton is stay­ing (for now)

  I would suggest adopting a different method of interpretation, one more grounded in what was actually said. Anyway, I think it’s probably best that we leave this thread here.

• Chris_Leong 29 Oct 2024 22:51 UTC

  0 points

  0

  in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Why I quit effec­tive al­tru­ism, and why Ti­mothy Tel­leen-Law­ton is stay­ing (for now)

  Sadly, cause-neutral was an even more confusing term, so this is better than the comparative. I also think that the two notions of principles-first are less disconnected than you think, but through somewhat indirect effects.

• Chris_Leong 29 Oct 2024 16:45 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: lincolnquirk’s comment on: Why I quit effec­tive al­tru­ism, and why Ti­mothy Tel­leen-Law­ton is stay­ing (for now)

  We’re mostly working on stuff to stay afloat rather than high level navigation.

  Why do you think that this is the case?

• Chris_Leong 29 Oct 2024 16:38 UTC

  −1 points

  −4

  in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Why I quit effec­tive al­tru­ism, and why Ti­mothy Tel­leen-Law­ton is stay­ing (for now)

  I recommend rereading his post. I believe his use of the term makes sense.

• Chris_Leong 29 Oct 2024 16:30 UTC

  2 points

  0

  on: The Align­ment Trap: AI Safety as Path to Power

  I don’t think I agree with this post, but I thought it provided a fascinating alternative perspective.

• Chris_Leong 28 Oct 2024 19:41 UTC

  4 points

  0

  on: Win­ners of the Es­say com­pe­ti­tion on the Au­toma­tion of Wis­dom and Philosophy

  Just wanted to mention that if anyone liked my submissions (3rd prize, An Overview of “Obvious” Approaches to Training Wise AI Advisors, Some Preliminary Notes on the Promise of a Wisdom Explosion),
  I’ll be running a project related to this work as part of AI Safety Camp. Join me if you want to help innovate a new paradigm in AI safety.

• Chris_Leong 27 Oct 2024 15:36 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: avturchin’s comment on: av­turchin’s Shortform

  What’s ABBYY?

• Chris_Leong 26 Oct 2024 16:42 UTC

  5 points

  2

  on: Brief anal­y­sis of OP Tech­ni­cal AI Safety Funding

  That’s useful analysis. Focusing so heavily on evals seems like a mistake given how AI Safety Institutes are focused on evals.

• Chris_Leong 25 Oct 2024 11:01 UTC

  3 points

  −1

  on: Linkpost: Me­moran­dum on Ad­vanc­ing the United States’ Lead­er­ship in Ar­tifi­cial Intelligence

  I guess Leopold was right^[1]. AI arms race it is.

  1. ^

     I suppose it is possible that it was a self-fulfilling prophecy, but I’m skeptical given how fast it’s happened.

• Chris_Leong 24 Oct 2024 23:54 UTC

  4 points

  2

  on: Big tech tran­si­tions are slow (with im­pli­ca­tions for AI)

  The problem is that accepting this argument involves ignoring how AI keeps on blitzing past supposed barrier after barrier. At some point, a rational observer needs to be willing to accept that their max likelihood model is wrong and consider other possible ways the world could be instead.

• Chris_Leong 24 Oct 2024 16:07 UTC

  3 points

  −1

  in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Why I quit effec­tive al­tru­ism, and why Ti­mothy Tel­leen-Law­ton is stay­ing (for now)

  I thought that this post on strategy and this talk were well done. Obviously, I’ll have to see how this translates into practise.