That is so much more clear. Thank you
Elon Musk is an interesting person so I liked this simulation too:) Despite this Elon doesn’t know much about himself.
Elon Musk has left chat.
I am confused...so is this an action GPT-3 did? I have no idea if it has an option to quit.
On the other hand, how did you make the simulated Lsusr responses? This simulated Lsusr feels perfectly like you.
Since the simulation interview mentions about cognitive biases, I wonder what kind of bias, or just errors are here. There are several points we are warned again this is fake, but I continue reading and I think it is not me alone who is between entertainment and caution.
I raise my caution because GPT’s responses are limited to the level of making sense. But they make sense greatly. and how just merely making a great sense creates a bias/error? Of course, they are not necessarily fact and we should not believe this writing.
But if it can be only fake, why do we read it? uh...The existence of Fiction will explain.
But if it can be only false, why do we keep repeating ourselves it is fake? …I don’t know really...probably because this piece can be easily confused with the reality. For example, the safe boundary of borrowing EY’s name is disturbing me because he is entirely not related and didn’t approve of this simulation.
Probably I have to question this to low-credit information because I predict the power of GPT will grow the fake news media and because the way GPT will change writing will be there.
Eliezer Yudkowsky: You are killing me. You are killing me. You are killing me.
Lastly, this is terribly vivid, stressing my emotional part, beyond just logical replies.
Just like everyone here, I am very excited to see this new feature, which sounds like a powerful aid I may like a lot!
About the bar of 100 karma, I view it positively for newcomers. I am well below 100 right now, but I feel like to start accumulating karmas after reading this post. It is like, I can aim for goal—definite and doable—and unlock something as if I am playing a video game. So far my experience with Lesswrong was slack—I often stopped reading sequences, writing a post sounded like a distant goal, and commenting was a few time event. This is why I say 100 karma is a definite goal. I can aim at one point.
Would you consider making such milestones on karma or something? It wouldn’t be bad to add more :)
Its stout appearance gave me the impression it will protect me, even at the blast, which my house definitely can’t protect me from haha. Well, it makes sense that concrete will melt in the core of a nuclear explosion. Although I will hide and stay inside the bunker.
The second doom boom is here, and people are buying bunkers again.
Desire to have a bunker would be more universal at that time. I think the customer pool has become much narrower and maniac these days. For example, the government considering building shelters is absurd this time, but they did in the past. On the other hand, the fallout shelters are one of historical features in the 50s-60s.
The difference between bunkers and water is not just the cost
Sorry, I tried to mean when we were in the cold war era, specific to the nuclear disaster. I just wanted to ask what will happen when we need to prep expensive_but_must items. What if water is so expensive already?
This post reminds of fallout shelters during the cold war. It can be the most extreme kind of prepping among common people, and it has been the real thing at that time period.All the news and propaganda could have influenced people’s minds and the market for bunkers and shelters had been pretty big, shaping one of the features of the cold one era. Obviously, buying a bunker is not frequent that much anymore and it failed to have a chance to prove its usefulness; we don’t know if they worked against nuclear bombs.
I have an interesting question, imagine yourself going back to the era, as a middle class. Are you going to buy this bunker? What would be its utility function and satisfying facts?
P.s. oh, I realized this feels like prepping a must-item like water, except that its cost is very very high. If the cost is very high, do we prep the item or not?
ohhh… breaking the second law of thermodynamics...I could have guessed the ending since I am studying thermodynamics this week; I didn’t. I first wondered why Scott is just driving to gloomy endings, these could be better than these(honestly, I felt pathetic to green guy. I want to avoid death as an animal, as meat). Then it was more of fiction than a real life simulation. Also the 8 “prompts” turned out to work as an organic combination nicely. At the end, I really liked this post!
This happens probably because I assumed he is certain about the topic and I didn’t doubt. His message was clear: “Cardiologists are bad.” Later I could break this statement because he didn’t believe it at first place, as well as the bad reasoning. Notice he pulled the anecdotal evidence again, this time to defend the cardiologist side. We can refute him again, that “You can’t convince me by just examples,” however, I didn’t do it last time I read this.
Should we doubt writers every time we read something? Yes, to avoid bias. Yes, when you detect bad reasoning. But my default is “read and assume they are right.” I feel the necessity to doubt, but I am not certain if that is the right, correct path.
This conversation reminds about the Measurement Theory. I didn’t take it yet, I heard it is an abstract course and applicable to social science. It started from measuring dimensions, and expanded to probability. but for a quick whole picture, it looks very mathematics and no clue how to measure bias, haha.
The Marshmallow test is observational study, thus we can’t conclude anything from here. This is very important to pin point out, but I don’t know why nobody is doing it. In observational study, participants are not randomly assigned to treatment, and have a space for confounding variables. We can just bring up wealth, former experience, parenting, personality, etc to try to explain the test, while no one is sure which one is the most influential factor. We can only tell “there is an association between A and B” in the observational study.
But in experiment, drawing conclusion and generalization to bigger population are possible with random assignment, which balances out confounding variables and leave only 2 variables in the influence. If researchers run experiment for the marshmallow test, researchers would randomly divide participants into two groups, so that each group has same wealth, parenting, personality, etc, removing the influence of confounding variables. Then, the researchers assign one group to eat marshmallow before time, and another to wait (Yeah, this will not work in reality and main reason why observational study exists). At the end, the researchers can tell if letting participants wait marshmallow caused them to be more successful than not-waiting.