Okay cool! I’ll add the new archive. Not sure if I can promise to regularly update it though.
EDIT: done! I also added 3D embeddings and made the embeddings map faster to handle the 256k messages.
beyarkay
Karma: 243
Oh interesting! I didn’t realise there was another archive. Is this “canonical” in some sense? My understanding was that the original extropians list kinda fizzled out, does this modern version keep the same vibe/discussions/ideas?
Can you say more/share screenshots? I think if you ctrl-click it should open in a new tab, or are you wanting it to always open in a new tab?
Glad you like it! I’ve found it very interesting having a look and exploring correct/incorrect predictions
An interactive version of the extropians mailing list
Thanks, fixed
1) does not account for the extra mental/time cost vs time saved.
The majority of extra mental cost is once-off in explaining that you’d like to schedule things differently. Once there’s shared knowledge of scheduling things in this way, I haven’t experienced any extra costs.
2) does not consider the commonly utilized alternative that a meeting has an organizer responsible for the meeting goals and agenda, for estimating the duration needed to address the agenda, and for terminating the meeting early if/when the goals are achieved faster than anticipated
I disagree that meetings commonly have an organizer who’ll adequately terminate meetings early. This might be the case for meetings with 5+ people, but for 1-1s the “organizer” is just one of the two people in the meeting.
Even in the case of a meeting with an organizer who’s role it is to terminate the meeting early, I think stating the uncertainty up-front “this meeting could be between 15m and 45m” is more productive than claiming the meeting will be exactly some duration and then inevitably running over/under time. Predicting the future is hard, I argue that we should schedule meetings in a way that accepts this.Note that without an advance goals or agenda, the proposed approach is also not usable(if there is no information of what the meeting will be about, there is no good way to estimate its usefulness)
This proves too much, without advance goals or agenda, any approach at scheduling the duration of a meeting is not usable. In this sense I agree, you absolutely need information about what the meeting will be about in order to plan for it. But what is the situation in which you’re planning a meeting and have zero information about what it’ll be about? I’m unsure about what you’re trying to show with this claim.
Schedule meetings using the Pareto principle
I consider the proposed NY bill to be mild evidence in favour of my prediction above https://statescoop.com/new-york-bill-would-ban-chatbots-legal-medical-advice/
(1) yeah this makes sense! I do think that accepting experimental work based on results rather than experimental setup is a structure that leads to publication bias, but given you’re looking to be more foundational/conceptual, I don’t think this will be an issue here.
(2) “increasing popular coverage is not one of our goals” fair enough! I look forward to seeing the first issue (:
We saw this directly in the Chinese models experiments
Could you add a link for these experiments?
Sounds promising! Curious about whether you have plans to accept papers based on experimental setup instead of results (to reduce publication bias) and if you’ll consider a “press abstract” designed to help journalists disseminate information to the broader public?
An alternate phrasing of this would be looking at what the current top-3 high salience issues are for different elected officials, and what would have to change about AI policy for AI policy to dethrone one of these issues. I imagine IA policy is quite far from usurping immigration or other high-salience issues
Yours is much better written, but this reminds me of a post I wrote a few months ago: We live in the luckiest timeline
Huh, that’s a good usecase I hadn’t thought about.
Kinda weird seeing so many mistakes (which I’ve seen being made in the past) being summarised in one post like this. Having this as a checklist would have saved many years of headache
I think you can get high-quality 100k smartphone which will be relevant for a long time
So the relevancy part (my bold) is probably more true today, but the top-of-the-line smartphones from the 2000s and early 2010s very clearly have not been relevant for a long time. I think smartphone innovation is slowing down, so it’s possible that today’s smartphone would be relevant for a longer time than those from previous years. But I think this is because of slowing innovation.
As a counter point, the cars in a billionaire’s garage aren’t just many different Toyotas with custom rims.
Really cool stuff! Is this in a place where you can easily run it on new models as they get released? It’s hard to find benchmarks where the LLMs don’t saturate, and some form of “playing DF with a particular goal” seems like it’d be a good benchmark