Redwood Research?
DanielFilan
Karma: 6,477
It gets weirder. For some reason, squirting cold water into the left ear canal wakes up the revolutionary.
This link gets me “page not found”, both here and on the oldest saved copy on the internet archive. That said, some papers are available here, here, here if you’re at a university that pays for this sort of stuff, and generally linked to from this page. I’ll be adding these links to the wayback machine, unfortunately when I go to archive.is I get caught in some sort of weird loop of captchas and am unable to actually get to the site.
Most of your comment seems to be an appeal to modest epistemology. We can in fact do better than total agnosticism about whether some arguments are productive or not, and worth having more or less of on the margin.
Note that the more you believe that your commenters can tell whether some arguments are productive or not, and worth having more or less of on the margin, the less you should worry as mods about preventing or promoting such arguments (altho you still might want to put them near the top or bottom of pages for attention-management reasons)
Site admins, would it be possible to see the edit history of posts, perhaps in diff format (or at least make that a default that authors can opt out of)? Seems like something I want in a few cases:
controversial posts like these
sometimes mods edit my posts and I’d like to know what they edited
Is your point that “being asked to not hang out with low value people” is inherently abusive in a way worse than everything else going on in that list?
Yes
Spencer responded to a similar request in the EA forum. Copy-pasting the response here in quotes, but for further replies etc. I encourage readers to follow the link:
Yes, here two examples, sorry I can’t provide more detail:
-there were claims in the post made about Emerson that were not actually about Emerson at all (they were about his former company years after he left). I pointed this out to Ben hours before publication and he rushed to correct it (in my view it’s a pretty serious mistake to make false accusations about a person, I see this as pretty significant)!
-there was also a very disparaging claim made in the piece (I unfortunately can’t share the details for privacy reasons; but I assume nonlinear will later) that was quite strongly contradicted by a text message exchange I have
Sorry, I was using “normal” to mean “not abusive”. Even in weird and atypical environments, I find it hard to think of situations where “don’t hang out with your family” is an acceptable ask (with the one exception listed in my comment).
Sure, but wasn’t there some previous occasion where Lightcone made a grant to people after they shared negative stories about a former employer (maybe to Zoe Curzi? but I can’t find that atm)? If so, then presumably at some point you get a reputation for doing so.
I can guarantee you from my perspective as a coach that a good number of the items mentioned here are abjectly false.
What’s an example of something that’s false?
Being asked to… not hang out with low value people… is just one more thing that is consistent with the office environment.
Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t think there’s approximately any normal relationship in which it’s considered acceptable to ask someone to not associate with ~anyone other than current employees. The closest example I can think of is monasticism, but in that context (a) that expectation is clear and (b) at least in the Catholic church there’s a higher internal authority who can adjudicate abuse claims.
The nearly final draft of this post that I was given yesterday had factual inaccuracies that (in my opinion and based on my understanding of the facts) are very serious
Could you share examples of these inaccuracies?
Any reversible effect might be reversed. The question asks about the final effects of the mind
This talk of “reversible” and “final” effects of a mind strikes me as suspicious: for one, in a block / timeless universe, there’s no such thing as “reversible” effects, and for another, in the end, it may wash out in an entropic mess! But it does suggest a rephrasing of “a first-order approximation of the (direction of the) effects, understood both spatially and temporally”.
Is the idea that the set of “states” is the codomain of gamma?
assigns the set of states that remain possible once a node is reached.
What’s bold S here?
I was at a party recently, and happened to meet a senior person at a well-known AI startup in the Bay Area. They volunteered that they thought “humanity had about a 50% chance of extinction” caused by artificial intelligence. I asked why they were working at an AI startup if they believed that to be true. They told me that while they thought it was true, “in the meantime I get to have a nice house and car”.
This strikes me as the sort of thing one would say without quite meaning it. Like, I’m sure this person could get other jobs that also support a nice house and car. And if they thought about it, they could probably also figure this out. I’m tempted to chalk the true decision up to conformity / lack of confidence in one’s ability to originate and execute consequentialist plans, but that’s just a guess and I’m not particularly well-informed about this person.
The Manhattan Project brought us nuclear weapons, whose existence affects the world to this day, 79 years after its founding—I would call that a long timeline. And we might not have seen all the relevant effects!
But yeah, I think we have enough info to make tentative judgements of at least Klaus Fuchs’ espionage, and maybe Joseph Rotblat’s quitting.
I appreciate the multiple levels of summarization!
Would you go on a first date if there were a 20% chance that instead of an actual date someone would yell at you? It’s obviously not a pleasant possibility, but IMO still worth it.
Research project idea: formalize a set-up with two reinforcement learners, each training the other. I think this is what’s going on in baby care. Specifically: a baby is learning in part by reinforcement learning: they have various rewards they like getting (food, comfort, control over environment, being around people). Some of those rewards are dispensed by you: food, and whether you’re around them, smiling and/or mimicking them. Also, you are learning via RL: you want the baby to be happy, nourished, rested, and not cry (among other things). And the baby is dispensing some of those rewards.
Questions:
What even happens? (I think in many setups you won’t get mutual wireheading)
Do you get a nice equilibrium?
Is there some good alignment property you can get?
Maybe a terrible alignment property?
This could also be a model of humans and advanced algorithmic timelines or some such thing.
Did this ever get written up? I’m still interested in it.