yes
arxhy
Karma: 41
Are comments allowed?
Pledging now to join if at least 8 do.
It seems like you are interpreting a discussion that doesn’t effortlessly concede to your point of view as a discussion inherently biased against your point of view.
“Wrong” as in “less likely to match reality.” Not very much is certain, but that doesn’t mean we are forbidden from talking about certainty.
[Question] Comparative Advantage Intuition
We wax poetic about both because we like doing it. I don’t think that is affected by whether it’s a fluke of evolution
I am unfamiliar with the science here—what is the difference between a “reversed-effect stimulant” and a depressant?
Perfect is the enemy of good; good enough is also the enemy of good.
Or maybe good enough is the enemy of better. Regardless, the point’s been made
I have very little knowledge of AI or the mechanics behind GPT, so this is more of a question than criticism:
If a scaled up GPT-N is trained on human-generated data, how would it ever become more intelligent than the people whose data it is trained on?
Interesting, thanks for the reply. I agree that it could develop superhuman ability in some domains, even if that ability doesn’t manifest in the model’s output, so that seems promising (although not very scaleable). I haven’t read on mesa optimizers yet.
Seconded.
Listeners are probably not assuming that the person they are listening to is being honest.
I find it strange that our response to “politics is the mindkiller” has been less “how can we think more rationally about politics?” and more “let’s avoid politics”. If feasible, the former would pay off long-term.
Of course, a lot of more general ideas pertaining to rationality can be applied to politics too. But if politics is still the mindkiller, this may not be enough—more techniques may be needed to deal with the affective override that politics can cause.
That’s the idea behind the post, yeah. I am referring more to the general culture of the site, since it is relevant here.
I haven’t seen Debate on Instrumental Convergence between LeCun, Russell, Bengio, Zador, and More. Why did it get universally negative votes?
I would suggest about three, four, or five main rationalist hubs as opposed to one. This could be a compromise between total dispersion/decentralization and lack of respect for the differing preferences of rationalists.