If you’re interested in rerunning this, consider doing it with two tokens that don’t have an obvious ordinal relationship. Ie, in the training set, GPT sees “A” then “B” a billion trillion times, and perhaps has a sense that in many contexts “A” is preferred to “B”.
Randomized, Controlled
Karma: 658
Under this view, perhaps a certain set of interpretability techniques might emerge under a paradigm that makes certain assumptions (eg, that ML kernals are “mostly” linear, that systems are “mostly” stateless, that exotic hacks of the underlying hardware aren’t in play, etc). If a series of anomalies were to accumulate that couldn’t be explained within this matrix, you might expect to see a new paradigm needed.
Kuhn’s view is that during normal science scientists neither test nor seek to confirm the guiding theories of their disciplinary matrix. Nor do they regard anomalous results as falsifying those theories. (It is only speculative puzzle-solutions that can be falsified in a Popperian fashion during normal science (1970b, 19).) Rather, anomalies are ignored or explained away if at all possible. It is only the accumulation of particularly troublesome anomalies that poses a serious problem for the existing disciplinary matrix. A particularly troublesome anomaly is one that undermines the practice of normal science. For example, an anomaly might reveal inadequacies in some commonly used piece of equipment, perhaps by casting doubt on the underlying theory. If much of normal science relies upon this piece of equipment, normal science will find it difficult to continue with confidence until this anomaly is addressed. A widespread failure in such confidence Kuhn calls a ‘crisis’
The Standford Phil Encylopedia gives:
According to Kuhn the development of a science is not uniform but has alternating ‘normal’ and ‘revolutionary’ (or ‘extraordinary’) phases. The revolutionary phases are not merely periods of accelerated progress, but differ qualitatively from normal science. Normal science does resemble the standard cumulative picture of scientific progress, on the surface at least. Kuhn describes normal science as ‘puzzle-solving’ (1962/1970a, 35–42). While this term suggests that normal science is not dramatic, its main purpose is to convey the idea that like someone doing a crossword puzzle or a chess problem or a jigsaw, the puzzle-solver expects to have a reasonable chance of solving the puzzle, that his doing so will depend mainly on his own ability, and that the puzzle itself and its methods of solution will have a high degree of familiarity. A puzzle-solver is not entering completely uncharted territory… Revolutionary science, however, is not cumulative in that, according to Kuhn, scientific revolutions involve a revision to existing scientific belief or practice (1962/1970a, 92). Not all the achievements of the preceding period of normal science are preserved in a revolution, and indeed a later period of science may find itself without an explanation for a phenomenon that in an earlier period was held to be successfully explained...
I wrote “estimate of up to 15% chance”, which is compatible with what you’re saying here. But I don’t mind updating it to be more precise.
This roughly corresponds to the risk stance I’ve been taking since finishing my primary course of vaxx.
I just tested + for the first time today. At the very least, this is comforting to read. Thanks!
<3
This comment was made before I updated the question to clarify what’s in scope and added the moderation guidelines.
I’m sorry to hear about your health issues with LC. They sounds truly terrible. This question isn’t addressed at the topic you’re asking about, however.
But what is the base rate? How do demographic factors affect the base rate? Vaccination status?
4 month follow up: a lot of heat was very helpful, but underpowered to fully deal with this problem, and also inconvenient to constantly have a hotwater bottle in the back of my sweater like a hunchback of Notre Dame. Gently ramped up, progressive upper back strengthening has been very helpful for getting to a much more sustainably comfortable point. There’s still some lingering issues in the spot between the shoulder blades and occasionally I do still treat with heat, but it’s much much better now.
A number of answers have already alluded to deprioritizing long-term savings, but you could go farther and borrow from the post-singularity future. Get a mortgage or other loan. This may work out well even in some worlds with friendly superintelligence, because maybe the AGI gives us a luxury automated communism and your debt obligation is somehow disolved.
Umm… this is not financial advice.
Byyyye!
Yeah, as a 1.5 week follow up, the heat treatement has continued to has continued to be effective, with the sense of tightness continuing to resolve. But it’s also required a fairly high dose: probably several hours a day sitting with the waterbottle shoved into my t-shirt. I have a more ergonomic chair arriving tomorrow, G-d and B-zzos willing.
Two days later: this is working quite well so far.
I’ve worked as a professional programmer for nine years now. I think in at some point a few years ago, it actually began to erode my sense of agency working with computers. At a certain point I became less interested in hobby programming. This was 100% a healthy thing, I started doing things like dancing a lot of contact improv and rock climbing. But when I largely stopped hobby programming, almost all my programming experience was coming from working on production systems. Writing production code is slow. I’ve routinely had the experience of one or two line changes taking hours or days to get merged. I’ve worked on modest features that take days or weeks to finish. More and more I began to associate any change to a computer system with inertia and working through complex, unpleasant trade offs.
This feeling has also been exacerbated by trialing internet blocking software. Selfcontrol is probably the best one I’ve tried, but it’s def not everything I’d like. I’ve occasionally thought about trying to extend it, it’s open source, but I’ve never done any Objective-C and have never been motivated enough to figure out how to get a dev environment for it running and then try and situate myself in a new code base. I’ve looked at freedom and rescuetime and a couple of others, but I’ve also been gun-shy about giving these apps deep access to my system. I do my banking on here.
Today I decided to do a quick investigation into the minimal amount required to make my machine shutdown at 10pm everynight, with 15 and 3 minute warnings. It was super easy! I think if you asked me, I probably would have predicted this was easy to do, but I was still somehow emotionally surprised to do a thing with a computer in about 30mins all in, including research.
How to set your system up to warn you, then shut down every evening:
set OS X to shutdown automatically every night @ 10pm
https://www.wikihow.com/Automatically-Shut-Down-Your-Computer-at-a-Specified-Time
takes ~45s !
Write applescripts to trigger notifications: https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/57412/how-can-i-trigger-a-notification-center-notification-from-an-applescript-or-shel
Invoke the applescript via a bash script using the
osascriptcommandSetup crontab to execute the warnings:
crontab -e (this will drop you into vim)
Done! Save your work when the machine politely reminds you, and get a nice night of sleep.
Caveat programmer: this may not be very bulletproof. I tested each part of this individually, but I’ll find out over the next few nights how well it works in practice. I’m excluding some steps that might be a bit confusing if you’re not comfortable creating bash scripts or in vim (you don’t need that much vim, I barely remember how to quit vim each time I open that damn program). Figuring this stuff out might take you a bit longer, but overall it’s still probably pretty fast.
Interesting. Maybe you’re right.
I think my model here is something more like, “ML agents that can do good text generation get rolled out to the masses by google and apple, and then some amount of glue infrastructure is developed or even just you can say, “hey google, help me with my dating profile” and it’ll do a thing that’s 70th or 80th percentile for writing quality, diluting out those of us who were doing 85th to 99th percentile writing.
I imagine it will get commercialized.
But shortly after than it’ll be available to everyone and we’ll have lost another useful signal
See, your first mistake here was not to consult with John Wentworth and Paul Christiano about thermodynamics.
I bet you didn’t even ring up JeffTK!
So much for the rationalist virtue of scholarship..
Yes!