Zvi

AI #63: In­tro­duc­ing Alpha Fold 3

I Got 95 Th­e­ses But a Glitch Ain’t One

Dat­ing Roundup #3: Third Time’s the Charm

AI #61: Meta Trouble

AI #62: Too Soon to Tell

Q&A on Pro­posed SB 1047

Changes in Col­lege Admissions

• Zvi 23 Apr 2024 19:28 UTC

  3 points

  0

  in reply to: Chris_Leong’s comment on: On Llama-3 and Dwarkesh Pa­tel’s Pod­cast with Zuckerberg

  It is better than nothing I suppose but if they are keeping the safeties and restrictions on then it will not teach you whether it is fine to open it up.

On Llama-3 and Dwarkesh Pa­tel’s Pod­cast with Zuckerberg

AI #60: Oh the Humanity

Child­hood and Ed­u­ca­tion Roundup #5

Monthly Roundup #17: April 2024

• Zvi 11 Apr 2024 20:26 UTC

  8 points

  4

  in reply to: Soapspud’s comment on: RTFB: On the New Pro­posed CAIP AI Bill

  My guess is that different people do it differently, and I am super weird.

  For me a lot of the trick is consciously asking if I am providing good incentives, and remembering to consider what the alternative world looks like.

AI #59: Model Updates

• Zvi 11 Apr 2024 14:15 UTC

  7 points

  13

  in reply to: trevor’s comment on: RTFB: On the New Pro­posed CAIP AI Bill

  I don’t see this response as harsh at all? I see it as engaging in detail with the substance, note the bill is highly thoughtful overall, with a bunch of explicit encouragement, defend a bunch of their specific choices, and I say I am very happy they offered this bill. It seems good and constructive to note where I think they are asking for too much? While noting that the right amount of ‘any given person reacting thinks you went too far in some places’ is definitely not zero.

RTFB: On the New Pro­posed CAIP AI Bill

Med­i­cal Roundup #2

On the 2nd CWT with Jonathan Haidt

AI #58: Star­gate AGI

Fer­til­ity Roundup #3