Zvi

Karma: 50,456

Zvi Jul 15, 2024, 3:30 PM
3 points
0
in reply to: mishka’s comment on: AI #72: Denying the Future
So this is essentially a MIRI-style argument from game theory and potential acausal trades and such with potential other or future entities? And that these considerations will be chosen and enforced via some sort of coordination mechanism, since they have obvious short-term competition costs?

Zvi Jul 6, 2024, 5:04 PM
42 points
36
on: 80,000 hours should remove OpenAI from the Job Board (and similar EA orgs should do similarly)
Not only do they continue to list such jobs, they do so with no warnings that I can see regarding OpenAI’s behavior, including both its actions involving safety and also towards its own employees.
Not warning about the specific safety failures and issues is bad enough, and will lead to uninformed decisions on the most important issue of someone’s life.
Referring a person to work at OpenAI, without warning them about the issues regarding how they treat employees, is so irresponsible towards the person looking for work as to be a missing stair issue.
I am flaberghasted that this policy has been endorsed on reflection.

Zvi Jun 19, 2024, 10:52 AM
4 points
0
in reply to: Linch’s comment on: On DeepMind’s Frontier Safety Framework
Oh, sorry, will fix.

Zvi Jun 17, 2024, 8:43 PM
8 points
10
in reply to: lemonhope’s comment on: The Leopold Model: Analysis and Reactions
Based on how he engaged with me privately I am confident that he it not just a dude tryna make a buck.
(I am not saying he is not also trying to make a buck.)

Zvi May 29, 2024, 12:12 PM
10 points
2
in reply to: Thomas Kwa’s comment on: OpenAI: Fallout
I think it works, yes. Indeed I have a canary on my Substack About page to this effect.

Zvi May 28, 2024, 7:42 PM
2 points
0
in reply to: Joe Collman’s comment on: OpenAI: Fallout
Yes this is quoting Neel.

Zvi May 25, 2024, 2:16 PM
2 points
0
in reply to: oumuamua’s comment on: AI #65: I Spy With My AI
Roughly this, yes. SV here means the startup ecosystem, Big Tech means large established (presumably public) companies.

Zvi May 21, 2024, 5:25 PM
6 points
2
in reply to: johnvon’s comment on: Ilya Sutskever and Jan Leike resign from OpenAI
Here is my coverage of it. Given this is a ‘day minus one’ interview of someone in a different position, and given everything else we already know about OpenAI, I thought this went about as well as it could have. I don’t want to see false confidence in that kind of spot, and the failure of OpenAI to have a plan for that scenario is not news.

Zvi Apr 23, 2024, 7:28 PM
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.

Zvi Apr 11, 2024, 8:26 PM
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.

Zvi Apr 11, 2024, 2:15 PM
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.

Zvi Mar 23, 2024, 3:45 PM
5 points
0
in reply to: Edouard Harris’s comment on: On the Gladstone Report
Excellent. On the thresholds, got it, sad that I didn’t realize this, and that others didn’t either from what I saw.
I appreciate the ‘long post is long’ problem but I do think you need the warnings to be in all the places someone might see the 10^X numbers in isolation, if you don’t want this to happen, and it probably happens anyway, on the grounds of ‘yes that was technically not a proposal but of course it will be treated like one.’ And there’s some truth in that, and that you want to use examples that are what you would actually pick right now if you had to pick what to actually do (or propose).
I do think the numbers I suggest are about as low as one could realistically get until we get much stronger evidence of impending big problems.

Zvi Mar 22, 2024, 12:23 PM
6 points
0
on: What information do you share with whom?
Secrecy is the exception. Mostly no one cares about your startup idea or will remember your hazardous brainstorm, no one is going to cause you trouble, and so on, and honesty is almost always the best policy.
That doesn’t mean always tell everyone everything, but you need to know what you are worried about if you are letting this block you.
On infohazards, I think people were far too worried for far too long. The actual dangerous idea turned out to be that AGI was a dangerous idea, not any specific thing. There are exceptions, but you need a very good reason, and an even better reason if it is an individual you are talking with.
Trust in terms of ‘they won’t steal from me’ or ‘they will do what they promise’ is another question with no easy answers.
If you are planning something radical enough to actually get people’s attention (e.g. breaking laws, using violence, fraud of various kinds, etc) then you would want to be a lot more careful who you tell, but also—don’t do that?

Zvi Mar 22, 2024, 12:23 PM
0 points
0
on: What information do you share with whom?
Secrecy is the exception. Mostly no one cares about your startup idea or will remember your hazardous brainstorm, no one is going to cause you trouble, and so on, and honesty is almost always the best policy.
That doesn’t mean always tell everyone everything, but you need to know what you are worried about if you are letting this block you.
On infohazards, I think people were far too worried for far too long. The actual dangerous idea turned out to be that AGI was a dangerous idea, not any specific thing. There are exceptions, but you need a very good reason, and an even better reason if it is an individual you are talking with.
Trust in terms of ‘they won’t steal from me’ or ‘they will do what they promise’ is another question with no easy answers.
If you are planning something radical enough to actually get people’s attention (e.g. breaking laws, using violence, fraud of various kinds, etc) then you would want to be a lot more careful who you tell, but also—don’t do that?

Zvi Jan 30, 2024, 11:37 PM
2 points
0
in reply to: Ben Pace’s comment on: Monthly Roundup #14: January 2024
Sounds like your scale is stingier than mine is a lot of it. And it makes sense that the recommendations come apart at the extreme high end, especially for older films. The ‘for the time’ here is telling.

Zvi Jan 30, 2024, 12:22 AM
2 points
0
in reply to: Ben Pace’s comment on: Monthly Roundup #14: January 2024
On my scale, if I went 1 for 7 on finding 4.0+ films in a year, then yeah I’d find that a disappointing year.
In other news, I tried out Scaruffi. I figured I’d watch the top pick. Number was Citizen Kane which I’d already watched (5.0 so that was a good sign), which was Repulsion. And… yeah, that was not a good selection method. Critics and I do NOT see eye to eye.
I also scanned their ratings of various other films, which generally seemed reasonable for films I’d seen, although with a very clear ‘look at me I am a movie critic’ bias, including one towards older films. I don’t know how to correct for that properly.

Zvi Jan 26, 2024, 3:25 PM
2 points
0
in reply to: Jiao Bu’s comment on: Monthly Roundup #14: January 2024
Real estate can definitely be a special case, because (1) you are also doing consumption, (2) it is non-recourse and you never get a margin call, which provides a lot of protection and (3) The USG is massively subsidizing you doing that...

Zvi Jan 26, 2024, 3:24 PM
1 point
−1
in reply to: Templarrr’s comment on: Monthly Roundup #14: January 2024
There are lead times to a lot of these actions, costs to do so are often fixed, and no reason to expect the rules changes not to happen. I buy that it is efficient to do so early.
‘Greed’ I consider a non-sequitur here, the manager will profit maximize.

Zvi 26 Jan 2024 15:19 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: Ben Pace’s comment on: Monthly Roundup #14: January 2024
I’m curious how many films you saw—having only one above 3.5 on that scale seems highly disappointing.

Zvi 23 Jan 2024 12:50 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: Logan Zoellner’s comment on: AI #48: Exponentials in Geometry
Argument from incredulity?