really, say more?
Matt Goldenberg
Karma: 5,530
Another definition along the same vein:
Trauma is overgeneralization of emotional learning.
A real life use for smart contracts 😆
However, this would not address the underlying pattern of alignment failing to generalize.
Is there proof that this is an overall pattern? It would make sense that models are willing to do things they’re not willing to talk about, but that doesn’t mean there’s a general pattern that e.g. they wouldn’t be willing to talk about things, and wouldn’t be willing to do them, but WOULD be willing to some secret third option.
I don’t remember them having the actual stats, not watching it again though. I wonder if they published those elsewhere
They replicated it within the video itself?
Enjoyed this video by Veritasium with data showing how Politics is the Mind Killer
I’ll send out to you round 2 when I’ve narrowed things done. Right now I’m looking for gut check system 1 decisions, and if you have trouble doing tahat I’d recommend waiting.
Want to help me out?
Vote on the book cover for my new book!
It’ll be up for a couple of days. The contest website only gives me a few days before I have to pick finalists.
https://form.jotform.com/243066790448060
IME you can usually see in someone’s face or body when they have a big release, just from the release of tension.
But I think it’s harder to distinguish this from other hypotheses I’ve heard like “negative emotions are stored in the tissues” or “muscular tension is a way of stabilizing intentions.”
Oh yes, if you’re going on people’s words, it’s obviously not much better, but the whole point of vibing is that it’s not about the words. Your aesthetics, vibes, the things you care about will be communicated non-verbally.
I predict you would enjoy the free-association game better if you cultivated the skill of vibing more.
Yes, this is an excellent point I didn’t get across in the past above.
Yes, if people were using Wikipedia in the way they are using the LLMs.
In practice that doesn’t happen though, people cite Wikipedia for facts but are using LLMs for judgement calls.
Of course a random person is biased. Some people will will have more authority than others, and we’ll trust them more, and argument screens off authority.
What I don’t want people to do is give chatGPT or Claude authority. Give it to the wisest people you know not Claude.
What they’re saying is I got a semi-objective answer fast.
Exactly. Please stop saying this. It’s not semi-objective. The trend of casually treating LLMs as an arbiter of truth leads to moral decay.
I doubt the orga got much of their own bias into the RLHF/RLAIF process
This is obviously untrue, orgs spend lots of effort making sure their AI doesn’t say things that would give them bad press for example.
I desperately want people to stop using “I asked Claude or ChatGPT” as a stand-in for “I got an objective third party to review”
LLMs are not objective. They are trained on the internet which has specific sets of cultural, religious, ideological biases, and then further trained via RL to be biased in a way that a specific for-profit entity wanted them to be.
I happened to log on at that time and thought someone had launched a nuke
So far I’m seeing data that’s strongly in favor of it being easy for me to facilitate rapid growth for many people in this space. But am I missing something here? If you have any ideas please let me know in the comments.
My take:
You can facilitate rapid growth in these areas.
I don’t think you’re particularly unique in this regard. There are several people who I know (myself included) who can create these sorts of rapid changes on a semi-consistent basis. You named a few as reviewers. There are far more coaches/therapists who are ineffective, but lots of highly effective practitioners who can create rapid change using experiential methods.
@PJ_Eby @Kaj_Sotala @Damon Sasi all come to mind as people on LW who can do this. Having worked with many coaches and therapists, I assure you that many others also have the skill.Right now I think you’re overestimating just how consistent what you do is, and the results focus you’re taking is likely creating other negative effects in the psyche that will have to be cleaned up later. It will also mean that if you don’t get to the issue in the first session, it will be harder and harder for your work to have an impact over time.
But in general the approach you’re taking can and will create rapid results in some people that haven’t seen results before.
I often talk about w/ clients burnout as your subconscious/parts ‘going on strike’ because you’ve ignored them for too long
I never made the analogy to Atlas Shrugged and the live money leaving the dead money because it wasn’t actually tending to the needs of the system, but now you’ve got me thinking