See also: “birds are dinosaurs.”
Shankar Sivarajan
Karma: 1,263
[Question] Chess—“Elo” of random play?
despite the evidence that’s emerged since the papers were published.
Perhaps relevant, she famously doesn’t like the arXiv, so maybe on principle she’s disregarding all evidence not from “real publications.”
In context, I took that to be a threat to try to get the event organizers and attendees “cancelled” as racists unless they capitulated and disinvited him.
David Mayer de Rothschild.
It’s a class thing: the upper classes have treated the lower classes with similar contempt throughout history.
A Vampire drone, for example, costs 43 points.
I think you could do better with some kind of auction, which would let you identify the most effective weapons you should increase production of.
Rumsfeld’s “unknown unknowns” is also good epistemology.
Reminiscent of Nixon’s third derivative, when he announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing, many politicians are more sophisticated than they present themselves to be.
Fair enough. My mental image of the GPT models was stuck on that infernal “talking unicorns” prompt, which I think did make them seem reasonably characterized as mere “stochastic parrots” and “glorified autocompletes,” and the obvious bullshit about the “safety and security concerns” around releasing GPT-2 also led me to conclude the tech was unlikely to amount to much more. InstructGPT wasn’t good enough to get me to update it; that took the much-hyped ChatGPT release.
Was there a particular moment that impressed you, or did you just see the Transformers paper, project that correctly into the future, and the releases that followed since then have just been following that trend you extrapolated and so been unremarkable?
Something like
A nice Markov model that generates grammatically sound sentences, but I don’t think it’s going to “solve” Natural Language Processing.
GPT-3.5/ChatGPT was qualitatively different.
Formal processes are mostly beneficial
It feels like you wrote this line first, and nothing you wrote above it was going to change that conclusion. You recite a litany of horrors, grand and mundane, and then ignore them all.
and they’re not going anywhere.
This may be true, but that’s no reason to embrace cope the equivalent of “death is what gives life meaning.”
central Europe allows for considerably higher freedom of political expression for the average person where it counts: at the polls.
This looks like a cached thought from before Romania annulled the presidential election because the wrong guy won.
the level of selfishness required to seek immortality at the cost of risking all of humanity
If only you got immortality (or even you and a small handful of your loved ones), okay, yeah, that would be selfish. But if the expectation is that it soon becomes cheap and widely accessible, that’s just straight-up heroic.
Fundamental values difference: I favor individual liberty, whereas a lot of you “AI safety” people strongly prefer tyranny over it, and I have no argument for the former you haven’t heard before.
This is just one more in the long line of “Oh no, people can prompt it to generate racial slurs,” “Oh no, it can tell people highly enriched uranium can be used to make nuclear bombs”, “Oh no, students can use it to cheat on their homework,” “Oh no, it can summarize biology papers,” “Oh no, it can take jobs from artists,” … your “Oh no, it can create disinformation/pornography” is more shit thrown at that wall.
Yawn. One more “open source is dangerous and must be banned for the greater good” post.
No, sorry. I think it’s a now-deleted tumblr post, but I first saw it it on one of those reddit posts.
Am I missing something?
Yes: those indices are bullshit, and don’t measure what they purport to. I expect they’re faithfully reporting the results of whatever metric they constructed without falsifying any data, but that metric is entirely disconnected from what the median American would consider “freedom of speech.”
What you’re doing is essentially pointing at a map like this, and taking it seriously.
It’s called “defensive democracy,” and is standard practice in most of Europe.
The Aikido visualization exercise reminds me a bit of “follow-through” (such as in tennis): it’s weird how strongly the rest of your swing well after the ball has lost contact with your racquet affects its trajectory.
Thanks. Yeah, I guess chess has been (weakly) solved and that means you need a more powerful technique for probing differences. Follow up: around what rating do engines gain the ability to force a draw from the starting position? (I understand this will only be a heuristic for the real question of “which engines possess an optimal strategy form the standard starting position?”)