Ah. Yeah, it’s been forever and a day since I used it as well. Bummer to hear they’ve succumbed to the swiping model!
awg
Karma: 343
Isn’t OkCupid still around? I was confused by your saying that it no longer exists. Did it change ownership or style or something?
Broken Benchmark: MMLU
This was a lot clearer, thank you.
You speak with such a confident authoritative tone, but it is so hard to parse what your actual conclusions are.
You are refuting Paul’s core conclusion that there’s a “30% chance of TAI by 2033,” but your long refutation is met with: “wait, are you trying to say that you think 30% is too high or too low?” Pretty clear sign you’re not communicating yourself properly.
Even your answer to his direct follow-up question: “Do you think 30% is too low or too high for July 2033?” was hard to parse. You did not say something simple and easily understandable like, “I think 30% is too high for these reasons: …” you say “Once criticality is achieved the odds drop to 0 [+ more words].” The odds of what drop to zero? The odds of TAI? But you seem to be saying that once criticality is reached, TAI is inevitable? Even the rest of your long answer leaves in doubt where you’re really coming down on the premise.
By the way, I don’t think I would even be making this comment myself if A) I didn’t have such a hard time trying to understand what your conclusions were myself and B) you didn’t have such a confident, authoritative tone that seemed to present your ideas as if they were patently obvious.
Well summarized.
I would be interested to know if that’s true and they are updating on that information or if they’re going “But Grusch didn’t reveal any of that classified information TO ME, John Q. Public. So it’s not even worth thinking about at all!”
Would love to hear from the people who voted to disagree with you as to why they voted that way/what they specifically disagree with here.
Edit: 2 days later and no one wants to speak up? Seriously? Seems like some evidence for Lord Dreadwar’s points #1 and #2 above.
I think the silence from major news outlets could be explained for the same reason that there has been silence from the vast majority of the LessWrong community: stigmatization and the fear of looking like crackpots.
This is very, very poor reasoning. If your position is that an unexplained phenomena + conspiracy are too wild, why would you use a different, far-less-supported unexplained phenomena + conspiracy to dismiss it?
How does all of the recent official activity fit into your worldview here? Do you have your own speculations/explanations for why, e.g., Chuck Schumer would propose such specifically-worded legislation on this topic? Does that stuff just not factor into your worldview at all (or perhaps is weighted next to nothing against your own tweeted-about intuitions)?
My sense is that discussion of this incredibly stigmatized topic will not proliferate on LW until there is some “real evidence” (whatever that ends up being) released to discuss. Which is kind of a shame, since I totally agree with you that there is seemingly far too much official activity swirling around this topic for there to be no “there” there, regardless of what “there” is.
There’s been one high-profile betting thread on this: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/t5W87hQF5gKyTofQB/ufo-betting-put-up-or-shut-up
When you see the color red, what is that like? When you run your hand over something rough and bumpy, what is that like? When you taste salt, what is that like?
I’m wondering where Biological Naturalism[1] falls within these two camps? It seems like sort of a “third way” in between them, and incidentally, is the explanation that I personally have found most compelling.
Here’s GPT-4′s summary:
Biological Naturalism is a theory of mind proposed by philosopher John Searle. It is a middle ground between two dominant but opposing views of the mind: materialism and dualism. Materialism suggests that the mind is completely reducible to physical processes in the brain, while dualism posits that the mind and body are distinct and separate.
Searle’s Biological Naturalism, on the other hand, asserts that while mental processes are caused by physical processes in the brain, they are not reducible to them. This means that while consciousness and other mental phenomena are rooted in the physical workings of the brain, they also have their own first-person ontology that is not captured by third-person descriptions of the brain’s workings.
Searle uses the analogy of water and H2O to explain this concept. Just as water is composed of H2O molecules but has properties (like wetness) that are not properties of individual H2O molecules, consciousness is caused by physical processes in the brain but has properties (like subjectivity) that are not properties of individual neurons or neural networks.
In other words, Biological Naturalism acknowledges the physical basis of consciousness while also recognizing that consciousness has a subjective character that is not explained by purely physical descriptions. This theory allows for the study of the mind as part of the natural biological sciences, while also acknowledging the unique properties of mental phenomena.
Setting aside how problematic of an individual Searle is, this theory has always struck me as the most cogent and has stood up to the test of time in my own ontology.
Taking it a step further into my own theorizing: I suspect consciousness is a natural feature of all systems and exists on a spectrum from very-low-consciousness systems (individual atoms, stars, clouds of gas, rocks) to very-high-consciousness systems (animals). My pet theory is that we will one day find out that everything is conscious and it’s just a matter of “how much.” Hmm, maybe this indicates I’m a Camp #2 person? I’m finding it hard to classify myself. Maybe someone else will find it easier.
- ^
Despite its name, I don’t think there’s anything in the theory that says consciousness has to arise from biological components per se, just that consciousness is a natural byproduct of at least some information processing systems, most notably the biological ones that exists in our skulls.
- ^
Related: sometimes when I’m driving to do something stressful/unpleasant, I’ll think to myself, “Man, if I got in a car crash right now I wouldn’t have to do X.”
Yup, now I’m thinking that you and @Jason Gross are correct!
Good find!
The Litany of Fear thing is really strange. Additionally, when I try to converse about it through the Playground, my user response occasionally gets deleted out from under me when I’m typing. What the hell is going on there? Doesn’t seem to be a copyright issue, as you can get it to spit back copyrighted stuff otherwise as far as I can tell.
Your position seems to be one that says this is not something to be worried about/looking at. Can you explain why?
For instance, if it is a desire to train predictive systems to provide accurate information, how is 10% or even 1-2% label noise “fine” under those conditions (if, for example, we could somehow get that number down to 0%)?