Old man 1: Life is one trouble after another. I’d be better off dead, better yet, I wish I was never born
Old man 2: True, true, but who has such luck ?.. maybe one in a thousand.
My blog: https://cerebralab.com
I’m also building an open source generic ML library: https://github.com/mindsdb/mindsdb & https://github.com/mindsdb/lightwood …. which I guess might be of interest to some people here
All this nonsense is actually ourselves
The difference in proxies for brain activity when speaking or doing nothing is marginal.
Non-conceptual acts from parachuting and sex to running and climbing likely result in more activation than speaking, they also tend to be more memorable and most people find them more desirable than talking to others, let alone to themselves.
Ultimately, this is subjective, of course, and if you tell me that your conceptual maps and word ladened narratives are important for who you are, I will of course grant that to you.
My personal impression is that they aren’t, they are quite important for what I do to be useful in society but that is like saying that, as a taxi driver, my car is a core part of who I am, which is also fair, but you know what they say, it’s sometimes good to just get out of the car.
For reference, this post was motivated by failure modes I see among capital R rationalists, scientists, philosophers, and other “many word many symbol” people—I don’t think the issues I point to would affect “normal” people as much. Normal people have reasonably good mechanisms to decouple from conceptual thinking, they might have a conceptual issue or two, but usually nothing that affects their quality of life that much.
Of course, you can interpret it the other way around too
Well, I perfectly agree with you then. This is why I’ve never written anything I’d intend to publish in an academic setting nor anything I’d consider to be pure philosophy.
See what I previously wrote, in my opinion you should make an effort to read rather than pattern match to existing concepts.
Why is a moratorium bad in that case?
For reference, I disagree with the moratorium slightly, but for different reasons.
Which is the rambly part?
See reply above, I don’t think I’m bringing Moloch up here at all, rather individuals being evil in ways that leads to both self and systemic harm, which is an easier problem to fix, if still unsolvable.
Moloch is not, in my opinion, the correct analogy to use for systemic problems.
Moloch absolves humans of guilt for systemic problems by hand waving them away as self interest.
But systemic problems usually stem from things that are both bad when done in aggregate and bad for us as individuals. Hence why my analogy used a button that would give one nothing of value, just something we from our blind position would think to be of value.
I agree with the rest of your comment but it’s trivial to replicate the work by anthropic or openai in a focused direction. It’s already been done.
Their main edge is the RLHF datasets they have but those are good for safety (arguably, ad you point out) and for capabilities in-so-far as they are interacting with humans that haven’t trained to use such systems.
So we do and likely will live in the hardest of worlds, where it’s all open source.
Did you ever write anything on this topic?
I’ve been considering going phone minimalist, though phone-less wouldn’t be an option for me, and I’m actually interested in the outsider view of someone around my age here.
Yes, they can, and quite sophisticatedly too—think examples like vampire bats engaging in long-term reciprocity in food exchanges, while paying attention to who welshes on requests and how much food they have to spare to barf up.
I mean between species, it seems reasonable to assume both we and the bat can’t understand each other’s values, even if we can understand those of our own species.
I think you’re missing the whole point by handwaving the idea that “animals can understand reward and instruction”—no they can’t, and that’s why we enslave and genetically engineer, not trade.
Lassy would indeed be getting the big bucks were we able to communicate with her directly (and were she a wolf with desires beyond William-syndrome-induced pro-social obedience)
Ultimately this gets back into a “hard” alignment problem, in so far as a system designed to “trade” with humans, i.e. break the communication barrier to understanding our goals and desires or at least be able to sign contracts upholding those… well, it’s 0.0...01 from being aligned
Would the stakes be high enough to get participants in the market? m&m always seemed fairly unreliable to me, hype is required to generate answers and answers can be extensively biased due to the lack of a real incentive.
Still, if you’d be down for creating the markets yourself or know someone that would, I’m pretty sure the author would be ok sharing more specific predictions around TOGETHER.
Given that this was my claim and not the author’s I’d rather not discuss it since I’d detract from the point.
But tl;dr, strength aside, if you count all trials ivm efficacy is arguably higher than plaxovid, once you start eliminating and de-biasing the story changes, the direction and magnitude of change is the whole story that generated e.g. Scott’s ivm post and this reply.
Awesome, I myself will be 25-30 minutes late, but will catch you guys there :)
Will you have a sign on the table or some such ? Also, it might be worth emailing everyone else since LW is horrible at notifications about these events
Given that rain is forecasted, are we moving the meeting to and indoors space or to another day with a better chance of sun?
Just a gradient, math is not logically consistent either, nor are there any formal languages which are (again, one might claim, even provably so) -- besides maybe a very limited set of languages that have so many constraints as to be irrelevant (e.g. the logic required for a finite PD game might be self-consistent) -- regardless, any system of any real use isn’t so I don’t see much point in differentiating (as mentioned even in the post)