Not that I recall.
AprilSR
Karma: 1,265
This is a really compelling point.
Well, I live in America. I don’t think it’s illegal, but they do sort of expect you to get it with a prescription. But like, if people were selling it for USD, I would be fine with that? My understanding is that they typically do not.
Ehhh. I think my actual objection is more that clear high-quality discussion of possibly-harmful people is not in fact bad for vulnerable people, and in fact is plausibly good for them.
I use cryptocurrency to purchase estrogen.
I’m not sure if I think “substantially in that direction” is in fact an unreasonable position? Like, I really don’t expect any additional Ziz-related violence except insofar as you count anti-AI violence by people who happen to have read Sinceriously at some point or something, but—I don’t think the situation is understood sufficiently clearly that it makes sense to expect everyone to be totally certain of that, and regardless it’s still appreciably distinct from “there was one guy without any accomplices who is in jail” or whatever.
(...I guess I’m not sure exactly what Ziz/Zajko would get up to if released from prison.)
China?
I agree they’re basically mundane—but I think that can be difficult to see when inside one, and the name certainly doesn’t help.
I lived with Olivia for a few months in 2024, and it was definitely somewhat mentally destabilizing. My personal feelings about her are of course somewhat complicated, but certainly I think it should be common knowledge that like, taking her perspective on things super seriously for months is a pretty bad idea, and also that she will just be kind of an asshole in many situations.
I do think people (including herself) playing Olivia up as some sort of super dangerous cult leadery person did not help me. Other people’s mileage may vary, but I think discussing these things in as grounded a way as possible would at least have been important for helping my mental health. So I tend to emphasize like, the abrasiveness and stuff over, like, the reality distortion field stuff. “This person is really dangerous because they’re good with reality distortion fields” is the sort of attitude that will get even the things which were legitimately like totally inane jokes or whatever to lodge themselves in your head and drive you crazy.
(Not to say that you should deny persuasiveness / whatever as phenomena, but like, I dunno, prefer mundane frames for thinking about them and try to stay calm and grounded about it.)
Also on this topic:
Is it a false positive? We are trying to eval their eval-awareness, here...
To be clear, on the general topic I totally agree that “can this thing be defended from bad actors” is often rather underemphasized!
I’m not entirely sure I’m convinced of the idea that the broad rationalist-EA-AI safety community isn’t a confusing patchwork of metaphorical city states? I suppose the money and power is probably concentrated more than the vague culture is?
Trigger: I encounter a new insight
Action: I make a TAP
I liked the Good Heart tokens because they paid me money and it’s funny to see CFAR when I scroll down in my PayPal.
My cursed proposal is to have a second language model extract the code from the original response.
If I had to guess I think it’s relevant to like, anthropic reasoning, or something.
Okay, this makes sense! It’s not obvious to me exactly how ambitious 2 is, but I get why you might be skeptical.
I’m having a little trouble understanding the whole argument. It’s not obvious to me why exactly this line of reasoning doesn’t prove too much by ruling out human speech? Plenty of human phonemes are like 10ms long?
I think the prediction market question is too early to call.