That said, the really important thing isn’t how the evaluations will actually happen, but rather what forecasters will think of it.
No, empirical feedback is important for getting good predictions.
Running simulations of driving situations is a key feature of how machine learning models for driverless cars get trained.
Maybe a key reasons for why humans dream is to allow us to simulate situations and learn to act in them?
If I give you $8k, you will probably value marginal dollars less than you used to.
With an UBI you actually keep most of your marginal dollars that you earn at that point. In many systems where earning more means that you lose government support, earning a few marginal dollars isn’t very helpful as the unemployed have a very high marginal tax rate when you account for them losing their benefits when taking a low paying job.
There is no strong proof for such effect. Such proof would greatly increase acceptance of governments’ policies, so there is a strong incentive to publish any such proof.
Trump spent months speaking about vaccines being soon available. Now we have the evidence that a vaccine works and the FDA will wait three weeks before to think about whether or not to approve the vaccine.
There would be strong incenties to start vaccinating now and vaccinating as soon as possible is a prime goal of the US president but still not done because the system is dysfunctional to an extend that even after spending years deregulating the FDA and having months to prepare for the moment of the vaccine.
While we do have slighlty more functioning governments in Europe, our governments are also not spending as much more on science to deal with COVID-19 as would desireable.
There’s a study that German researchers did do that says:
Findings In this cohort study including 100 patients recently recovered from COVID-19 identified from a COVID-19 test center, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging revealed cardiac involvement in 78 patients (78%) and ongoing myocardial inflammation in 60 patients (60%), which was independent of preexisting conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness, and the time from the original diagnosis.
There’s a recent study that suggest 20% of COVID-19 patients develop diagnoseable mental health issues. Here it’s worth noting that 20% is not the upper bound as mental illness that gets developed through physical trauma often takes longer to show up (see the literature on depression due to head trauma).
Neither of those are surprising because our priors for this Coronavirus should come from the last problematic Coronavirus which was SARS with produced long-term mental health issues in a even larger number of patients and chronic fatigue syndrome (which might be a result of myocardial inflammation).
Divide that by 25 and stockpile large quantities of vitamin D in case you get the disease (https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/covid-19/finally-confirmed-vitamin-d-nearly-abolishes-icu-risk-in-covid-19)
Even if the Vitamin D treatment they did in the study would have such an effect, you don’t get that by stockpiling vitamin D and taking it when you get symptoms.
Orally taken Vitamin D takes a while to be converted into it’s active form and in the study they gave that active form intravenously.
Pfizer’s vaccine requires extremely low temperatures, so there is a danger that in some locations it will be transported or stored incorrectly, causing greater risk than that suggested by the trials so far
Damaged mRNA doesn’t cause additional risks. It just won’t produce the desired proteins.
Given the studies that we have that do suggest long-term problems from COVID-19 and no evidence for long-term problems due to the vaccine, you need pretty high double standards to consider the vaccine more risky then getting infected with COVID-19.
As a fellow member of the top 100 Metaculus leaderboard I unfortunately have to tell you that it doesn’t measure how well someone is calibrated. You get into it if you do a lot of predictions on Metaculus.
But isn’t humanity already killing itself?
No, population is growing. Spending a few additional decades on AI safety research is likely improving our chances of survival. Of course listening to AI safety researchers and not just AI researchers from a random university matters as well.
I didn’t mean security issues. That question is still open.
It seems like if your AGI actually works there’s a good chance that it kills humanity.
Given that Wikileaks is quite capable of publishing without Assange, most of the people running Wikileaks are free. I don’t have information about the current size of that team but they seem to be functional without Assange. Both the leak about the investigation into the alleged Syrian chemical weapons attack and the Fishrot files are examples that people don’t want published.
Assange isn’t free because he thought it was valuable for PR reasons for Wikileaks to have spoke people that aren’t anonymous and not because anonymisation technology doesn’t work.
I’m not sure why Alexandra Elbakyan made the decision not to be anonymous but I haven’t heared that stories of it being due to anonymisation tech failing.
The internet isn’t perfect but it’s resilient enough that billion dollar companies like Elsivier can’t bring down sci-hub after years of fighting it. Wikileaks even still has their original URL.
That’s not where the practical problems of implementing alternate infrastructure lie.
Silk Road did just fine to the tune of billions without true anonymity
Silk Road had a design where it’s owner had the power to remove individual sellers. It’s not structurally different when it comes to the ability to exclude people wanting to sell services that the owners don’t like.
If I put a BTC address in this comment you could send me money right now with no financial or government intermediaries
We still live in a world where you complain about big tech having the ability to wield power by shutting down money transfer even when a killer was hired on Hydra to go after a law enforcement official. Hydra kicks you off the market when you fail their quality checks and isn’t doesn’t allow anyone to do anything as well.
If I were to put that address on an anonymous service it would be no different, just harder to track and censor it.
This shows that there’s no technical obstacle in the way. The obstacles that do exist are due to big tech being able to provide much more user-friendly software because they can pay for it’s development.
We might have a future where people still develop the software we need for decentral communication but the reason we don’t have that now is economics.
Let’s look at the example of your local rationality community wanting to host a big event. It seems like there’s no room easily available for that size but you could spend $500 for room rent for the event.
Given that you have a better understanding of your local community and the value the event would provide them someone who evaluates grants at LTFF it would be a very inefficient process if such a project would be funded by you giving money to LTFF and then LTFF reading a grant review for the project and deciding based on the grant review without knowledge of the local community that the project is worth funding.
How would you go about using your judgment in that case?
Well, I know all the possible problems and obstacles in development.
I wouldn’t trust someone to do anything safety critical if they claim that they know all possible problems and obstacles. Unknown unknown problems are always part of the concern when doing something new.
If you actually do make a decision to run this, I recommend doing it on an airgapped computer and commit to if it actually manages to self-improve in any way show the thing to someone well-versed in AI safety before removing airgapping.
An antibody test gives a scalar value of how much antibodies there are. If you want to go from a scalar value to a binary value you have to decide on a cutoff that switches from infected to -not-infected.
Given even a tiny bit of test inaccuracy, when the amount of antibody reaction is right at your cutoff, you will have 50% showing infected and 50% showing not not-infected.
Different tests have different false negative rates. Elon was using antibody tests which are faster at producing results but have higher inaccuracy.
Futhermore it makes sense that there an amount of antibodies in the body where 50% of the tests you do pass the tests nearly regardless of the quality of the antibody tests.
Of course, the ultimate solution is a fully encrypted platform. Whether or not that is technically achievable is unclear, but if it did exist it would probably kill off speech and financial gatekeeping overnight.
It seems to me the problem is not that about technical achievability but economics. If you have a fully decentral communication service then it’s hard to make money with that service.
Organizing tournaments is something that requires little resources. Appointing presidents on the other hand requires resources that are fully out of reach.
When talking about colonizing Mars speaking about using warp drives to get there doesn’t read like “the idea is highly unpolished”.
I expect that the functioning of traffic lights is regulated in a way that makes it hard for a startup to deploy such a system.
Land cost alone isn’t what justifies skyscrapers. Living in Trump tower costs more per square meter then living in nearby apartments that are located in smaller buildings.
Skyscrapers provide prestige and features like a reception on the ground-floor.
Most likely your design doesn’t work to produce an AGI that effectively self-improves. In most scenario where it actually produces a design that self-improves it will become really smart and you will lose control over it and a bit later that’s the end of human life.