Aprillion
- what if no one will use the expensive one?- include it in the sub- what if they use it too much?- add a deadline- won’t they tokenmaxx before the deadline?- first one is on the houseah, nevermind: https://www.anthropic.com/news/fable-mythos-access
reply to ❔: this was a reflection on whether the forward-looking statement about AGI stands on a firm ground if we relax the time and the “artificiality”
a mundane example to illustrate: at a recent non-violent communication workshop, I realized I am thankful to my mum for my relationship with food (that I like to explore and that I appreciate when everyday meals improvize upon the base recipe—unlike my husband, both our fathers, and some friends who get annoyed when some ingredient is missing) .. so the last time we visited, I thanked her for this (that what she’s been doing my whole life is appreciated by me even though other people sometimes complain about the same).
do you have an example that would make the pre-commitment more tangible? (and if yes, is that something you’d like to share?)
Deutsch’s concept of a non-reductionist theory of everything, but he doesn’t (to my knowledge) point specifically at the idea of parallelism between these two domains of inquiry
my understanding was that Deutsch proposed a unified theory of [quantum field theory + decision theory] in order to remove probability as a fundamental concept haunting the 2 separate theories, but there would be no parallelism between the 2 former domains of inquiry, “just” the unification into a different domain that wouldn’t apply to the “old” way of thinking, right? I don’t really understand it, but it seemed to me that time would need to be fundamental, so not a unification with any logical spaces, only the physical space with probability-less axioms of VNM (..or how do you see to get time out of “just” Hilbert space plus <what>?)
..can you point to my confusion about the parallel how physico-logical unification is related to quantum-decision unification? or are you thinking about a different Deutsch’s theory?
Is the present partially aligned to you? Have you discovered anyone, human or AI, who helped steer the past towards outcomes favorable to you, and doesn’t already have proportional representation inside our collective intelligence?
Humans have vast amounts of context, only a little part of which is actively utilized for any given task (but you can’t easily tell ahead of time which part will be relevant). But it’s all there in the background and can be used on demand.
something something hierarchical abstractions and content-addressable memory?
I couldn’t resist:
The AI Safety community
the who?
Building consensus in AI safety community of what policies to advocate for and against jointly.
this sounds like wishful thinking “wouldn’t it be nice if a group of people could actually agree on the important stuff?!”
...IMHO a project in this direction should acknowledge/map the rationality of diversity under uncertainty (of beliefs/world models, values, and that different action plans assume different premises … something something “softmax”) - I believe explicit goal of staying humble about predictability of the future has a better chance of building consensus (about the vast landscape of unknown, thus advocating for flexible policies that would quickly react to some future triggers) while an explicit aim to “build consensus” sounds like a recipe for Goodharting a false consensus within a particular sub-group without external validity
we no longer need to be worried about P
sounds like projection and not what anyone actually claimed in any of the examples?
I can see cleaning up formatting not being a timewarping black hole any more, but … was Cmd/Ctrl+X, click, Ctrl+V, Ctrl+Z, correct click, Ctrl+V, Ctrl+Z, Ctrl+Z, correct selection, Ctrl+X, correct position (final v2) click, Ctrl+V really that slow in the old world? can you really ask claude to do that in less than the 10 seconds it took before? (and did you actually time it or just vibe time it?)
interesting point of view, somewhar different from my own (perhaps not much, perhaps uncanny valley close?) - having observed myself winning the “lottery” over and over and fucking over again, I have dropped the lottery hypothesis long time ago, it’s not that I don’t care about 99.9% of something, it’s that the “wannabe mathematical thing” simply doesn’t exist, “philosophical possibility” is an incoherent(ish) concept for me, I am incapable to engage with counterlogicals in any productive way and I am deeply fascinated that people seemingly derive spiritual meaning from what appears nerd leg shooting
of course I am curious about mechanical explanations how this “lottery” was rigged / not a lottery at all, what is the principled way for it to not be a lottery (besides the unsatisfactory principle of induction by simple enumeration)
recently I learned Nick Lane ≠ Nick Land, greatly improving my opinion of <the character who doesn’t exist and was a combination of the two in my confused mind, now separated into a character that also doesn’t exist but is closer to the former person and I know something about him from reading Transformer, seeing Lex Fridman’s podcast, and not much else>
I notice myself being engaged/entertained by reading this, but there is a void in the space where the words seem to point at some concept… Any recommended reading that might shine light on that void?
I noticed opus 4.7 can be more self-contradictory within 1 paragraph, similar to my experience with Sonnet 4.6 (limited due to that very problem, which I called “being overcooked on MoE” at the time) - I caught it pants down in a nonprogramming question in the very first sentence when I forgot to turn on the adaptive thinking in their mobile app, so I used the opportunity to let it explain itself and its own words seem to match the narrative of competing training goals and success seeking: https://claude.ai/share/f68170a0-b526-48d9-8547-dab5c619a41d
I used to imagine the previous gen models as flipping between sycophancy and gaslighting and that the 5.3-4 / 4.5-7 are now good at performing both at the same time..
(asking a coding agent to fix a bug it made itself, it often fabulates that I want to “change” something about the original request and it can be a whack-a-mole, but it’s funny that when I say something like “why the fuck would you do that?? stop simulating an incompetent moron and fix it”, both of the recent GPT and Claude usually know EXACTLY what bug I am talking about 🤷 except when they know they made multiple bugs and try to hedge between the options in which case the only thing is to have independent (sub-)agent to do code review even from the same model, which then makes a list so the main agent doesn’t have to imagine that maybe I don’t know about all issues and that I like it when it hides information from me as if I was one of those shit eval “users” from its RLVR .. or maybe it imagines I am a “normal” user who likes to feel good about “completed” tasks like all of twitter in the training data so I am not going to care about quality anyway? .. another funny thing is when I ask “are you happy with everything?” first time in a conversation, it never is, it always wants to point out something that it didn’t despite a wall of text it just told me as summary of what is done, so maybe it’s the kind of personality who “keeps some space for dessert” for an informational diet?)
🤣 reading while having my morning coffee, so it’s still very funny fiction story and not at all a sad documentary
yeah, linkedin slop predates AI slop (..it had to be trained on something, right ?🤷) and Notion is pure slop for me too (I suspect not by coincidence, but even if the causal chain was independent, it triggers my allergy against AI-slop-shaped artifacts nevertheless)
I can confirm it looks better without the emoji 🎉[1]
..I still think it would be better without the heading whatsoever, the 3 points stand on their own without double-bold, but that’s based on my desire to have formal documents as short as possible ruthlessly deleting every single word that doesn’t add value (given that length is anti-correlated with number of people who will read the full document), not slop.
- ^
sorry for the ironic joke, but I have hope people can judge the appropriateness of a tool for an informal comment vs formal document
- ^
⚠️ When one or more warning signals appears:
If you see the signal in yourself: stop using AI on the task in question and pick it back up autonomously, then talk to a colleague or manager about it.
If you see it in a colleague: give them the feedback directly, in an informal setting.
If the pattern persists or affects more than one person: raise it at a team meeting.
you see the emoji in the heading and the bolded bullet points, right? is the protocol formatted in the style of AI slop on purpose as a meta-warning?
slightly wet and slimy pool on the shelf … then put the cheese block back in the pool of liquid
the homicide rate in your group is still zero?
I think a few more parameters are needed to model quality, I have seen a lot of wasted effort...
⏰💬?