I operate by Crocker’s rules.
I try to not make people regret telling me things. So in particular:
- I expect to be safe to ask if your post would give AI labs dangerous ideas.
- If you worry I’ll produce such posts, I’ll try to keep your worry from making them more likely even if I disagree. Not thinking there will be easier if you don’t spell it out in the initial contact.
As the prediction markets on Trump winning went from ~50% to ~100% over 6 hours, S&P 500 futures moved less than the rest of the time. Why?
The public will Goodhart any metric you hand over to it. If you provide evaluation as a service, you will know how many attempts an AI lab made at your test.
If you say heads every time, half of all futures contain you; likewise with tails.
What is going to be done with these numbers? If Sleeping Beauty is to gamble her money, she should accept the same betting odds as a thirder. If she has to decide which coinflip result kills her, she should be ambivalent like a halfer.
Your experiment is contaminated: If a piece of training document said that AI texts are overly verbose, and then announced that the following is a piece of AI-written text, it’d be a natural guess that the document would continue with overly verbose text, and so that’s what an autocomplete engine will generate.
Due to RLHF, AI is no longer cleanly modelled as an autocomplete engine, but the point stands. For science, you could try having AI assist in the writing of an article making the opposite claim :).
Ask something only they would know.
Among monotonic, boolean quantifiers that don’t ignore their input, exists is maximal because it returns true as often as possible; forall is minimal because it returns true as rarely as possible.
For concreteness, let’s say the basic income is the same in every city, same for a paraplegic or Elon Musk. Anyone who can vote gets it, it’s a dividend on your share of the country.
I am surprised at section 3; I don’t remember anyone who seriously argues that women should be dependent on men. By amusing coincidence, my last paragraph makes your reasoning out of scope; you can abolish women’s suffrage in a separate bill.
In section 5, you are led astray by assuming a fixed demand for labor. You notice that we have yet to become obsolete. Well, of course: For as long as human inputs remain cheaper than their outputs, employment statistics will fail to reflect our dwindling comparative advantage. But we are on track to turn every graphics card into a cheaper white collar worker. Humans have to be trained for jobs, software can be copied. Human hands might remain SOTA for a few years longer. Horses weren’t reduced to pets because we built too many cars, but because cars became possible to build.
factor out alpha
⌊x⌋ is floor(x), the greatest integer that’s at most x.
People with sufficiently good models of each other to use them in their social protocols.
I’d call those absences of drawbacks, not benefits—you would have had them without the job.
I was alone in a room of computers, and I had set out to take no positive action but grading homework. I ended up sitting and pacing and occasionally moving the mouse in the direction it would need to go next. What I remember of what my mind was on was the misery of the situation.
I tried that for a weekend once. I did nothing.
It has been pointed out to me that no, what this presumably means is the past decisions of the patients.
Q2 Is it ethically permissible to consider an individual’s past decisions when determining their
access to medical resources?
You assume the conclusion:
A lot of the AI alignment success seems to me stem from the question of whether the problem is easy or not, and is not very elastic to human effort.
AI races are bad because they select for contestants that put in less alignment effort.
Sure, he’s trying to cause alarm via alleged excerpts from his life. Surely society should have some way to move to a state of alarm iff that’s appropriate, do you see a better protocol than this one?
Recall that every vector space is the finitely supported functions from some set to ℝ, and every Hilbert space is the square-integrable functions from some measure space to ℝ.
I’m guessing that similarly, the physical theory that you’re putting in terms of maximizing entropy lies in a large class of “Bostock” theories such that we could put each of them in terms of maximizing entropy, by warping the space with respect to which we’re computing entropy. Do you have an idea of the operators and properties that define a Bostock theory?
that thing about affine transformations
If the purpose of a utility function is to provide evidence about the behavior of the group, we can preprocess the data structure into that form: Suppose Alice may update the distribution over group decisions by ε. Then the direction she pushes in is her utility function, and the constraints “add up to 100%” and “size ε” cancel out the “affine transformation” degrees of freedom. Now such directions can be added up.
https://www.google.com/search?q=spx futures
I was specifically looking at Nov 5th 0:00-6:00, which twitched enough to show aliveness, while manifold and polymarket moved in smooth synchrony.