Algon

• Algon 20 Jan 2025 22:59 UTC

  3 points

  0

  in reply to: Lorec’s comment on: Al­gon’s Shortform

  Thanks for the feedback!

• Algon 20 Jan 2025 17:57 UTC

  4 points

  0

  on: Al­gon’s Shortform

  I’m working on some articles why powerful AI may come soon, and why that may kill us all. The articles are for a typical smart person. And for knowledgable people to share to their family/​friends. Which intros do you prefer, A or B.
  
  A) “Companies are racing to build smarter-than-human AI. Experts think they may succeed in the next decade. But more than “building” it, they’re “growing” it — and nobody knows how the resulting systems work. Experts vehemently disagree on whether we’ll lose control and see them kill us all. And although serious people are talking about extinction risk, humanity does not have a plan. The rest of this section goes into more detail about how all this could be true.”
  
  
  B) “Companies are racing to grow smarter-than-human AIs. More and more experts think they’ll succeed within the next decade. And we do grow modern AI — which means no one knows how they work, not even their creators. All this is in spite of the vehement disagreement amongst experts about how likely it is that smarter-than-human AI will kill us all. Which makes the lack of a plan on humanity’s part for preventing these risks all the more striking.

  These articles explain why you should expect smarter than human AI to come soon, and why that may lead to our extinction. ”
  

• Algon 17 Jan 2025 14:05 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: quetzal_rainbow’s comment on: How do fic­tional sto­ries illus­trate AI mis­al­ign­ment?

  Does this text about Colossus match what you wanted to add?

  Colossus: The Forbin Project also depicts an AI take-over due to instrumental convergence. But what differentiates it is the presence of two AIs, which collude with each other to take over. In fact, their discussion of their shared situation, being in control of their creators nuclear defence systems, is what leads to their decision to take over from their creators. Interestingly, the back-and-forth between the AI is extremely rapid, and involves concepts that humans would struggle to understand. Which made it impossible for its creators to realize the conspiracy that was unfolding before their eyes.

• Algon 15 Jan 2025 22:50 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: quetzal_rainbow’s comment on: How do fic­tional sto­ries illus­trate AI mis­al­ign­ment?

  That’s a good film! A friend of mine absolutely loves it.
  
  Do you think the Forbin Project illustrates some aspect of misalignment that isn’t covered by this article?

How do fic­tional sto­ries illus­trate AI mis­al­ign­ment?

• Algon 14 Jan 2025 13:04 UTC

  4 points

  0

  on: Mini Go: Gate­way Game

  Huh, I definitely wouldn’t have ever recommended someone play 5x5. I’ve never played it. Or 7x7. I think I would’ve predicted playing a number of 7x7 games would basically give you the “go experience”. Certainly, 19x19 does feel like basically the same game as 9x9, except when I’m massively handicapping myself. I can beat newbies easily with a 9 stone handicap in 19x19, but I’d have to think a bit to beat them in 9x9 with a 9 stone handicap. But I’m not particularly skilled, so maybe at higher levels it really is different?

What are poly­se­man­tic neu­rons?

• Algon 3 Jan 2025 16:04 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: plex’s comment on: How I ap­ply (so-called) Non-Violent Communication

  I look forward to it.

When do ex­perts think hu­man-level AI will be cre­ated?

What is com­pute gov­er­nance?

What is “wire­head­ing”?

• Algon 5 Dec 2024 19:21 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: Karl Krueger’s comment on: Karl Krueger’s Shortform

  Hello! How long have you been lurking, and what made you stop?

• Algon 1 Dec 2024 19:30 UTC

  7 points

  2

  on: (The) Light­cone is noth­ing with­out its peo­ple: LW + Lighthaven’s big fundraiser

  Donated $10. If I start earning substantially more, I think I’d be willing to donate $100. As it stands, I don’t have that slack.

• Algon 26 Nov 2024 16:24 UTC

  18 points

  8

  on: You are not too “ir­ra­tional” to know your prefer­ences.

  Reminds me of “Self-Integrity and the Drowning Child” which talks about another kind of way that people in EA/​rat communities are liable to hammer down parts of themselves.

• Algon 24 Nov 2024 21:46 UTC

  3 points

  0

  in reply to: Yanling Guo’s comment on: How Univer­sal Ba­sic In­come Could Help Us Build a Brighter Future

  1. RE: “something ChatGPT might right”, sorry for the error. I wrote the comment quickly, as otherwise I wouldn’t have written it at all.

  2. Using ChatGPT to improve your writing is fine. I just want you to be aware that there’s an aversion to its style here.

  3. Kennaway was quoting what I said, probably so he could make his reply more precise.

  4. I didn’t down-vote your post, for what it’s worth.

  5. There’s a LW norm, which seems to hold less force in recent years, for people to explain why they downvote something. I thought it would’ve been dispiriting to get negative feedback with no explanation, so I figured I’d explain in place of the people who downvoted you.

  6. I don’t understand why businesses would be co-financing UBI instead of some government tax. Nor do I get why it would be desirable or even feasible, given the co-ordination issues.

  7. If companies get to make UBI conditional on people learning certain things, then it’s not a UBI. Instead, it’s a peculiar sort of training program.

  8. What does economic recovery have to do with UBI?

• Algon 24 Nov 2024 13:10 UTC

  5 points

  10

  on: How Univer­sal Ba­sic In­come Could Help Us Build a Brighter Future

  My guess as to why this got down-voted:
  1) This reads like a manifesto, and not an argument. It reads like an aspirational poster, and not a plan. It feels like marketing, and not communication.
  2) The style vaguely feels like something ChatGPT might right. Brightly polished, safe and stale.
  3) This post doesn’t have any clear connection to making people less-wrong or reducing x-risks.

  3) wouldn’t have been much of an issue if not for 1 and 2. And 1 is an issue because, for the most part, LW has an aversion to “PR”. 2 is an issue because ChatGPT is now a thing so styles of writing which are like ChatGPT’s are viewed as likely to have been written by ChatGPT. This is an issue because texts written by ChatGPT often have little thought put into them, are unlikely to contain much that’s novel, and frequently have errors.

  
  What kind of post could you have written which would have been better received? I’ll give some examples.
  
  1) A concrete proposal for UBI that you thought was under-valued
  2) An argument addressing some problems people have with UBI (e.g. who pays for all of it? After UBI is implemented and society reaches an equilibrium, won’t rents-seeking systems just suck up all the UBI money leaving people no better off than before?).
  3) Or a post which was explicit about wanting to get people interested in UBI, and asked for feedback on potential draft messages.
  
  In general, if you had informed people of something you genuinely believe, or told them about something you have tried and found useful, or asked sincere questions, then I think you’d have got a better reception.

• Algon 22 Nov 2024 22:29 UTC

  6 points

  0

  in reply to: casualphysicsenjoyer’s comment on: Do­ing Re­search Part-Time is Great

  That makes sense. If you had to re-do the whole process from scratch, what would you do differently this time?

• Algon 22 Nov 2024 21:39 UTC

  3 points

  0

  on: Do­ing Re­search Part-Time is Great

  Then I cold emailed supervisors for around two years until a research group at a university was willing to spare me some time to teach me about a field and have me help out.

  Did you email supervisors in the areas you were publishing in? How often did you email them? Why’d it take so long for them to accept free high-skilled labour?

• Algon 22 Nov 2024 14:50 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: Hastings’s comment on: Hast­ings’s Shortform

  The track you’re on is pretty illegible to me. Not saying your assertion is true/​false. But I am saying I don’t understand what you’re talking about, and don’t think you’ve provided much evidence to change my views. And I’m a bit confused as to the purpose of your post.

• Algon 22 Nov 2024 12:39 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: Hastings’s comment on: Hast­ings’s Shortform

  conditional on me being on the right track, any research that I tell basically anyone about will immediately be used to get ready to do the thing

  Why? I don’t understand.