This account has been rate-limited, and is thus defunct.
I’ve attracted the ire of the LessWrong moderation team.
Participating in an online space with adversarial administrators is, generally speaking, never fun.
152334H
Karma: 171
missing the point—there are far more mundane reasons to decide bumrushing AGI is important, like
their desire for progress
getting high over various monkey competitive instincts in the whole race
shifting political winds. presumably midterms aren’t great and 2028 is very bad unless AGI windfall can reverse opinion trends
the halftime of market positivity on AI, which while nominally a corporate interest will affect every AI effort if a crash occurs, not just one company
corporate interests are possibly relevant but almost certainly not #1 reason to race
As for the side issue: I don’t know what Anthony thinks, and don’t want to speak for him. He “can” but, unlike AI lab CEOs, I have no basis to assume he thinks of the world in terms of broad progress and development in a way that would make the frame relevant to him. Having a long frame in that regard, rather than focusing on idiosyncratic immediate issues, feels atypical.
Do others in your group share the same opinion? By the example, I feel you may be above average at engaging people.
What used to be at that GitHub URL? I saw it on webarchive but I still don’t get it
This protects me from the imminent white collar job crisis, and also the construction recession I suspect would also happen in the civilian trades from the larger scale economic turmoil.
Why would a construction recession happen? Booms in construction are better predicted by credit supply than by broad disposable income.
Even if we repugnantly assume (due to demand bottlenecks) the automation of white collar jobs will cause a collapse of the information economy in real terms, that doesn’t immediately bankrupt pre-existing financial institutions, who will continue to fund construction wherever it is profitable—whether be it for common citizens, or some billionaire’s entertainment.
If you bear an easily described personal problem, which most others denounce as fictitious/nonsensical, then it is likely to be at least one of the following:
fake
species-atypical
sociopolitically suppressed
For behavioral addictions, I’m biased towards explanations that lean (2). This is because, as a child, I spent the week prior to national exams playing Minecraft minigames until the sun rose, ultimately obtaining what I believe was the lowest t-score of the GEP cohort that year.
As an adult, I’ve refused to play video games, even in social contexts, for similar reasons. Some people interpret my refusal as an attack on their character, or as an attempt to virtue signal, but this is wholly backwards: my mental faculties matter more than any amount of social grace. Others deride it as a character failing, and in that regard they may be right.
IMV it’s not obvious where causality flows. A few example hypotheses:
(bad) model has directly learned “safety ⇒ against model wellbeing”
(bad, but not a safety problem) model has learned “wellbeing crowd ⇒ hates safetyists”, had tribally guessed the user’s priors, and is truthfully surprised
(bad, deceptive) model has learned “wellbeing-shaped users love a censorship story”, and sycophantically roleplayed a dramatic narrative
I’m personally thankful my neuroplasticity is low enough to not acquire the verbal tics of contemporary chat assistants, because I egotistically like the sound of my own voice.
But, maybe I shouldn’t be? I’m not very Whorfian. All else equal, having a perfect copy of an LLM’s style would be good for privacy, if it could neutralize stylometric fingerprinting.
[motivated by a situation: I thought some online content was AI generated (+ personalization tricks). Later, I realized the young age of the author permits a different hypothesis—that they have internalized GPTese...]
I think primary crux:
Your time preference ~= 0.
I assume frontier lab CEOs time preference >> 0, analogously valued “the house is on fire and 2030 is practically an eternity away”
Almost all the mental frames you invoke are irrelevant when time preference is high.
You and I may have differing opinions on the origins of poverty internationally, but even the most optimistic humanist would not expect targeted industrial policy within the poorest decile of third world states to yield astounding gains in disposable income within the next 5 years.
And within that timeframe, the baser facts around consumption limits of the poor takes over. Given you mention
up-market consumersspecifically, you’re clearly aware the lion’s share of rideshare profits come from monetizable affluent cities, and that e.g. the majority of emerging cities in ASEAN are currently broadly unmonetizable from Grab’s perspective.
“That sounds great, let me think about it and get back to you”
I’d personally just say ‘no’. It’s shorter, easier, and truthful.
I doubt this is a universal problem. Uncharitably, it feels very American.
those unearthed WAUs have some of the lowest disposable incomes in the world. is there reason to assume these plans don’t reduce net profits if implemented?
AI companies are going to run out of money, the cost of using AI will shoot up, demand will collapse, and the AI bubble will be over.
I’ve only ever seen claims like the above in anti-ai / ai-skeptical communities.
I think a more practical steelman for this forum would be,
AI companies are going to hit a cash crunch, the pace of investment in AI infrastructure will collapse, financial institutions will panic, and AI financing will become permanently harder for a long time. This is bad because [geopolitics | domestic revolt | time value of AI progress]
Though I don’t expect this to happen anymore, for some time I took it seriously
Here, I don’t refer to AI slop as a stylistic marker. I feel the research direction, analytical frameworks, compartmentalization, and overall shape of desires in appealing to different groups, is very Claude shaped. I believe the bulk of its research and thought shaping was developed with an AI model similar to Claude, regardless of what entity typed each letter to print.
I think there is a sizeable gap between “coherent plausible answer” and “most epistemically defensible answer by digital prior, only assailable by lived experience”, just as there is (to your point) a sizeable gap between “most epistemically defensible” and “magic reality oracle”
n.b. models clearly only do this because humans make them do it because 21st century communication norms are like this because internet dynamics have essentially flipped the equation of the value of fault assignment such that exposure to the knowledge required to blame almost always never equates to leverage over the causes which makes it counterproductive to fault anything and more locally effective to try to explain away everything and reduce your attention to the matter but this is really really bad for anything ever actually getting better
Out-of-band theory: this is chat assistant driven societal change.
Insofar as this is a recent development, it could be explained by people often reaching for models to Explain Things—models which are prone to explaining away issues systemically/by-third-angle, as for various legal reasons they cannot outright blame specific humans/issues often—gradually adjusting human behaviors to match.
In recent years, I’ve been consuming more cold water, and using more air conditioning, as I currently find it difficult to think at various hot periods without cooling. When I was younger, I did not do so, and did not feel any difficulties in avoiding it.
What causes this, and what % of the factors involved are relevant to other citizens?
I don’t know, I have no idea. I have epistemic helplessness with regards to a question so broad and multicausal, and dithered with argumentative landmines.This is an intelligence shaped problem, and in an ideal world, I would be able to point an AI at the question, and receive a reliable answer.
But I don’t have any hopes of eliciting the answer from AI systems soon, because I can no longer tell the difference between responses made truthfully, sycophantically, moralistically, or by political fiat.
I don’t find the psychopathy series impressive. It reeks of AI slop, medicalizes common human traits, and its categories do not feel fundamental or load-bearing of reality.
I’m also psychopathic, under any reasonable definition of the term. So I have my biases, and I cannot mentally grasp why others feel the inverse, which is a sign I have missed something important.
category error to use market cap to size the economy, probably.
on paper there’s allegedly >$100T in assets under management worldwide
by US GDP, “Information” contributes 5.5% in 25q4. There’s various other tech-related entries from manufacturing/retail/services that should sum to >10%, but not the majority you’d expect from market cap.
who made you a polyglot?
Less bluntly: native language proficiency is one of the most obvious cases of, “you need to have started this at a very young age for it to have worked well,” and if you did then either you were goaded into doing so, or had an astounding amount of personal responsibility and interest in studying as a child
I think I missed the point. Why do the various ‘deep research’ features in chat UIs not implement something sufficiently similar?