The mind uploading stuff seems to be a way to justify being ok with dying, imo, and digging ones head into the sand, pretending that if something talks a bit like you, it is you.
If a friend can very accurately do an impression of me and continues to do so for a week, while wearing makeup to look like me, I have not ‘uploaded’ myself into them. And I still wouldn’t want to die, just because there’s someone who is doing an extremely good impression of myself.
would you consider sharing these as Related Papers on AI-Plans?
We’ve run two 150+ Alignment Evaluations Hackathons, that were 1 week long. Multiple teams continuing their work and submitting to NeurIPS. Had multiple quants, Wall Street ML researcher, an AMD engineer, PhDs, etc taking part.
Hosting a Research Fellowship soon, on the Hard Part of AI Alignment. Actually directly trying to get values into the model in a way that will robustly scale to an AGI that does things that we want and not things we don’t want.
I’ve read 120+ Alignment Plans—the vast majority don’t even try to solve the hard part of alignment, let alone doing a decent job of it.
I’m confident I can get 200+ signups, with 50+ talented people working on solving the hard part of AI Alignment.
Would like help with funding for this.
Funding would go towards wages for myself and other organizers.
Organizers include Ana, currently working at ML4Good, whose thesis was in preference optimization—Ana is a great communicator and helped run the second hackthon. And multiple other talented people.
What info other than this is needed for a funding application? This and a call should really be enough info, imo.
‘split your brain’ was inaccurate phrasing to use here, sorry
Update—consulting went well. He said he was happy with it and got a lot of useful stuff. I was upfront with the fact that I just made up the $15 an hour and might change it, asked him what he’d be happy with, he said it’s up to me, but didn’t seem bothered at all at the price potentially changing.
I was upfront about the stuff I didn’t know and was kinda surprised at how much I was able to contribute, even knowing that I underestimate my technical knowledge because I barely know how to code.
For AI Safety funders/regranters—e.g. Open Phil, Manifund, etc:
It seems like a lot of the grants are swayed by ‘big names’ being on there. I suggest making anonymity compulsary if you want to more merit based funding, that explores wider possibilities and invests in more upcoming things.
Treat it like a Science rather than the Bragging Competition it currently is.
A Bias Pattern atm seems to be that the same people get funding, or recommended funding by the same people, leading to the number of innovators being very small, or growing much more slowly than if the process was anonymised.
Also, ask people seeking funding to make specific, unambiguous, easily falsiable predictions of positive outcomes from their work. And track and follow up on this!
Yeah, a friend told me this was low—I’m just scared of asking for money rn I guess.
I do see people who seem very incompetent getting paid as consultants, so I guess I can charge for more. I’ll see how much my time gets eaten by this and how much money I need. I want to buy some gpus, hopefully this can help.
So, apparently, I’m stupid. I could have been making money this whole time, but I was scared to ask for it
i’ve been giving a bunch of people and businesses advice on how to do their research and stuff. one of them messaged me, i was feeling tired and had so many other things to do. said my time is busy.
then thought fuck it, said if they’re ok with a $15 an hour consulting fee, we can have a call. baffled, they said yes.
then realized, oh wait, i have multiple years of experience now leading dev teams, ai research teams, organizing research hackathons and getting frontier research done.
wtf
I think he would lie, or be deceptive in a way that’s not technically lying, but has the same benefits to him, if not more.
i earnt more from working at a call center for about 3 months than i have in 2+ years of working in ai safety.
And i’ve worked much harder in this than I did at the call center
I downvoted because it seems obviously wrong and irrelevant to me.
I asked because I’m pretty sure that I’m being badly wasted (i.e. I could be making much more substantial contributions to AI safety),
I think this is the case for most in AI Safety rn
And by the way, your brainchild AI-Plans is a pretty cool resource. I can see it being useful for e.g. a frontier AI organization which thinks they have an alignment plan, but wants to check the literature to know what other ideas are out there.
Thanks! Doing a bunch of stuff atm, to make it easier to use and a larger userbase.
If I knew the specific bs, I’d be better at making successful applications and less intensely frustrated.
Could it be that meditation is doing some of the same job as sleep? I’d be curious what the amount of time spent meditating vs amount of sleep need reduced.
Could also reduce unrest/time waiting to sleep.
all of the above, then averaged :p
prob not gonna be relatable for most folk, but i’m so fucking burnt out on how stupid it is to get funding in ai safety. the average ‘ai safety funder’ does more to accelerate funding for capabilities than safety, in huge part because what they look for is Credentials and In-Group Status, rather than actual merit.
And the worst fucking thing is how much they lie to themselves and pretend that the 3 things they funded that weren’t completely in group, mean that they actually aren’t biased in that way.
At least some VCs are more honest that they want to be leeches and make money off of you.
the average ai safety funder does more to accelerate capabilities than they do safety, in part due to credentialism and looking for in group status.
this runs into the “assumes powerful ai will be low/non agentic” fallacy
or “assumes ai’s that can massively assist in long horizon alignment research will be low/non agentic”
“Short Timelines means the value of Long Horizon Research is prompting future AIs”
Would be a more accurate title for this, imo
That’s like saying a future version of a tree is doing an impression of a continuation of the previous tree.
I don’t understand how the difference isn’t clear here.