Unfortunately without speaker labels the YouTube transcript is less useful unless you’re listening while reading.
wunan
Karma: 388
[Question] What is the research speed multiplier of the most advanced current LLMs?
[Question] Avoiding “enlightenment” experiences while meditating for anxiety?
Is there a transcript anywhere?
[Question] COVID contagiousness after negative tests?
[Question] What AI newsletters or substacks about AI do you recommend?
Another similar result was that AlphaFold was trained on its own high-confidence predictions for protein sequences with unknown structures:
The AlphaFold architecture is able to train to high accuracy using only supervised learning on PDB data, but we are able to enhance accuracy (Fig. 4a) using an approach similar to noisy student self-distillation35. In this procedure, we use a trained network to predict the structure of around 350,000 diverse sequences from Uniclust3036 and make a new dataset of predicted structures filtered to a high-confidence subset. We then train the same architecture again from scratch using a mixture of PDB data and this new dataset of predicted structures as the training data, in which the various training data augmentations such as cropping and MSA subsampling make it challenging for the network to recapitulate the previously predicted structures. This self-distillation procedure makes effective use of the unlabelled sequence data and considerably improves the accuracy of the resulting network.
I’m also dealing with chronic illness and can relate to everything you listed. I’ve been thinking that a discord server specifically for people with chronic illness in the rationality community might be helpful to make it easier for us to share notes and help each other. There are different discord servers for various conditions unaffiliated with the rationality community, but they tend to not have great epistemic standards and generally have a different approach than what I’m looking for. Do you have any interest in a discord server?
By forward do you mean sooner (shorter timelines) or later (longer, slower timelines)?
I tried giving this to GPT-3 and at first it would only give the tautological “pawns become more powerful” example, then I expanded the prompt to explain why that is not a valid answer, and it gave a much better response.
I believe this response is the same as your fourth bullet point example of a good answer.
Here’s the prompt in copy/pastable format for anyone who wants to try playing with it:
Consider a new variant of chess, in which each pawn can move up to six squares forward on its first move, instead of being limited to one or two squares. All other rules remain intact. Explain how game balance and strategy is changed with this new variant of chess.
Your response should share something not immediately obvious about this variant and provide a plausible justification for why it might be true. Some responses that would not succeed would be
The pawns become more powerful. (Too simple, close to a tautology.)
New strategies will need to be developed. (Too vague.)
Bishops become more valuable. (Needs a justification for why we should expect this.)Response:
Agreed that it would be insanely impressive. It would probably convince me that a fast takeoff is very likely coming within the next 5 years. Yet I can’t really say I’m more than 90% confident that GPT-4 won’t be able to do it. Maybe 95%.
I’m not sure about that. See page 8 of the LamDA paper where they gave it access to a “toolset” including things like a calculator. I wouldn’t be surprised if they gave GPT-4 access to similar tools including a way to access the current date.
There are probably less impressive things than this that it won’t be able to do, but here’s one prediction in which I am about 90% confident:
If you invent or find a board game of similar complexity to chess that GPT-4 has never seen before and explain the rules using only text (and, if GPT-4 is multimodal, also images), GPT-4 will not be able to perform as well at the game as an average human who has never seen the game before and is learning it for the first time in the same way. I say “perform as well as” rather than “beat” because, depending on the specific rules of the game, I expect GPT-4 will likely not output legal moves.
This prediction applies to whatever OpenAI reveals with the name GPT-4 or that is clearly the GPT-3 successor regardless of size, assuming it’s revealed in the next two years and is not trained on specifically that task (e.g. by generating tens of thousands of unique synthetic board game examples with synthetic dialogues where they’re explained and played over text).
I ran into another similar example in the last section of this post.
The hat is another example of prompt engineering for humans.
As another example, I remember somebody (maybe EY or Gwern?) suggest that prompting people with “how would somebody smarter than you solve this problem?” can actually be effective at soliciting better solutions than just asking them to solve it directly.
I don’t remember where I saw this so if anybody has a link feel free to share.
This sounds similar to John Sarno—are you familiar with it and do you know whether the approaches are substantially different?
This is deeply perverse, but three “risk factors” over which you may have direct, immediate control are smoking (possibly of marijuana as well as tobacco) your level of vaccination, and your amount of physical activity. It is not medical advice to take up smoking, avoid vaccination/booster shots, or sit around all day, in order to qualify for Paxlovid should you get sick. But I do worry that some people might go to such lengths due to this policy.
I can’t imagine why anybody would take up smoking or stop exercising in order to get Paxlovid instead of just falsely telling their doctor that they smoke/don’t exercise. Your doctor is not going to check. You can also easily claim to be gay or bisexual.
I’m not sure about the timing of when the edits in your post were made, but if you want feedback about your planned contact with Demis Hassabis I think you should make a new post about it—most people who would comment on it may have missed it because they only saw the original unedited post about Tao, which had already received feedback.
I also think that, for the same reason that you chose to let someone else contact Tao instead of you, it may be better to let someone else contact Hassabis (or find someone else to contact him).
Did you and GPT4 only output the moves, or did you also output the board state after each turn?