Why would the value to me personally of existence of happy people be linear in the number of them? Does creating happy person #10000001 [almost] identical to the previous 10000000 as joyous as when the 1st of them was created? I think value is necessary limited. There are always diminishing returns from more of the same...
Anon User
> if you have a program computing a predicate P(x, y) that is only true when y = f(x), and then the program just tries all possible y—is that more like a function, or more like a lookup?
In order to test whether y=f(x), the program must have calculated f(x) and stored it somewhere. How did it calculate f(x)? Did it use a table or calculate it directly?
What I meant is that the program knows how to check the answer, but not how to compute/find one, other than by trying every answer and then checking it. (Think: you have a math equation, no idea how to solve for x, so you are just trying all possible x in a row).
Aligned with current (majority) human values, meaning any social or scientific human progress would be stifled by the AI and humanity would be doomed to stagnate.
Only true when current values are taked naively, because future progress is a part of current human values (otherwise we would not be all agreeing with you that preventing it would be a bad outcome). It is hard to coherently generalize and extrapolate the human values, so that future progress is included in that, but not necessarily impossible.
Your timelines do not add up. Individual selection works on smaller time scales than group selection, and once we get to a stage of individual selection acting in any non-trivial way on AGI agents capable of directly affecting the outcomes, we already lost—I think at this point it’s pretty much a given that humanity is doomed on a lot shorter time scale that that required for any kinds of group selection pressures to potentially save us...
This seems to be making a somewhat arbitrary distinction—specifically a program that computes f(x) in some sort of a direct way, and a program that computes it in some less direct way (you call it a “lookup table”, but you seem to actually allow combining that with arbitrary decompression/decoding algorithms). But realistically, this is a spectrum—e.g. if you have a program computing a predicate P(x, y) that is only true when y = f(x), and then the program just tries all possible y—is that more like a function, or more like a lookup? What about if you have first compute some simple function of the input (e.g. x mod N), then do a lookup?
Yes, and I was attempting to illustrate why this is a bad assumption. Yes, LLMs subject to unrealistic limitations are potentially easier to align, but that does not help, unfortunately.
You ask a superintendent LLM to design a drug to cure a particular disease. It outputs just a few tokens with the drug formula. How do you use a previous gen LLM to check whether the drug will have some nasty humanity-killing side-effects years down the road?
Edited to add: the point is that even with a few tokens, you might still have a huge inferential distance that nothing with less intelligence (including humanity) could bridge.
Agreed on your second part. A part of Trump “superpower” is to introduce a lot of confusion around the bounds, and then convince at least his supporters that he is not really stepping over that where it should have been obvious that he does. So the category “should have been plainly illegal and would have been considered plainly illegal before, but now nobody knows anymore” is likely to be a lot better defined that “still plainly illegal”. Moreover, Trump is much more likely to attempt the former than the latter—not because he actually cares about not doing the latter, but because anything he actually does has a tendency to be reclassified from latter to former. Including after the fact—e.g. many of his past actions were moved from the latter category to former one by the Supreme Court presidential immunity decision...
Yes, potentially less that ASI, and security is definitely an issue, But people breaching the security would hoard their access—there will be periodic high-profile spills (e.g. celebrities engaged in sexual activities, or politicians engaged in something inappropriate would be obvious targets), but I’d expect most of the time people would have at least an illusion of privacy.
I found Eliezer Yudkowsky’s “blinking stars” story (That Alien Message — https://search.app/uYn3eZxMEi5FWZEw5) persuasive. That story also has a second layer of having the extra smart Earth with better functioning institutions, but at the level of intuition you are going for it is probably unnecessary and would detract from the message. I think imagining a NASA-like organisation dedicated to controlling a remote robot at say 1 cycle of control loop per month (where it is perhaps corresponding to 1/30 of a second for the aliens), showing how totally screwed up the aliens are in this scenario, then flipping it around, should be at least somewhat emotionally persuasive.
For the specific example of arguing in a podcast, would not you expect people to already be aware of a substantial subset of arguments from the other side, and so would not it be entirely expected that there would be 0 update on information that is not new, and so not as much update overall, if only a fraction of information is actually new?
Hm, not sure about it being broadcast vs consumed by a powerful AI that somebody else has at least a partial control over.
Getting to the national math Olympiad requires access to regional Olympiad first, then being able to travel. Smart kids from “middle of nowhere” places—exactly to the kinds of kids you want to reach—are more likely to participate in the cities tournament. I wonder whether kids who were eligible for the summer camp, but did not make it there are more of your target audience than those who participated in the camp.
P.S. my knowledge of this is primarily based on how things were ~35 years ago, so I could be completely off.
What about trying to use the existing infrastructure in Russia, e.g.
Donating to school libraries of math magnet schools (starting with “usual suspects” of 57, 2, 43 in Moscow, 239 in St Petersburg, etc, and then going down the list)?
Contacting a competition organizers (e.g. for тургор - турнир городов which tends to have a higher diversity of participants compared to the Olympiad system) and coordinating to use the books as prises for finalists?
Besides not having to reinvent the wheel, kids might be more open to the ideas if the book comes from a local, more readily trusted party.
Think MMORPGs—what are the chances of simulation being like that vs a simulation with just a few special beings, and the rest NPCs?. Even if you say it’s 50⁄50, then given that MMORPG-style simulations have billions of observes and “observers are special” ones only have a few, then an overwhelming majority of simulates observers are actually not that special in their simulations.
Ah, OK, then would suggest adding it to both title and body to make it clear, and to not waste time of people what are not the audience for this.
Sorry, feedback on what? Where is your resume/etc—what information to you expect the feedback to be based on?
But here is actional feedback—when asking people to help you for free out of goodness of their hearts (including this post!), you need to get out of your way to make it as easy and straightforward for them as possibl. When asking for feedback provide all the relevant information collected in an easy to navigate package,with TLDR summaries, etc. When asking for a recommendation, introduction, etc provide brief talking points, with more detailed iinformation provided for context (and make it clear you do not expect them to need to review it, and it is provided “just in case you would find it helpful”.
Interesting—your 40/20/40 is a great toy example to think about, thanks! And it does show that a simple instant runoff schema for RCV should not necessarily help that much...
It would seem that my predictions of how Trump would approach this were pretty spot on… @MattJ I am curious what’s your current take on it?