I’m always interested in easy QoL improvements- but I have questions.
Water quality can have surprisingly high impact on QoL
What’s the evidence for this particularly?
What are the important parts of water quality and how do we know this?
FinalFormal2
Karma: 83
Short Post: Discerning Truth from Trash
Biggest update for me was the FBI throwing their weight behind it being a lab-leak.
These sound super interesting- could you expand on any of them or direct me to your favorite resources to help?
That’s an interesting idea! I think it’s really cool when things come easily, but I know it’s not going to generally be the case- I’m probably going to have to put some work in.
My priority is more on the ‘high-utility’ part than anything.
Something that seems like it should be easy but is actually difficult for me is executive functioning- getting myself to do things that I don’t want to do. But that’s more of a personal/mental health thing than anything.
Thanks for the response! Do you have any recommended resources for learning about 3d sketching, optics, signal processing or abstract algebra?
[Question] What subjects are unexpectedly high-utility?
Could someone open a manifold market on the relevant questions here so I could get a better sense of the probabilities involved? Unfortunately, I don’t know the relevant questions or the have the requisite mana.
Personal note- the first time I came into contact with adult gene editing was the youtuber Thought Emporium curing his lactose intolerance, and I was always massively impressed with that and very disappointed the treatment didn’t reach market.
I really relate to your description of inattentive ADHD and the associated degradation of life. Have you found anything to help with that?
What would you mean by ‘stays at human level?’ I assume this isn’t going to be any kind of self-modifying?
What does it mean for an AI to ‘become self aware?’ What does that actually look like?
Is there reason to believe 1000 Einsteins in a box is possible?
You need to think about your real options and expected value of behavior. If we’re in a world where technology allows for a fast takeoff world and alignment is hard, (EY World) I imagine the odds of survival with company acceleration is 0% and the odds of survival without is 1%.
But if we live in a world where compute/capital/other overhangs are a significant influence in AI capabilities and alignment is just tricky, company acceleration would seem like it could improve the chances of survival pretty significantly, maybe from 5% to 50%.
These obviously aren’t the only two possible worlds, but if they were and both seemed equally likely, I would strongly prefer a policy of company acceleration because the EV for me breaks down way better over the probabilities.
I guess ‘company acceleration’ doesn’t convey as much information or sell as well which is why people don’t use that phrase, but that’s the policy they’re advocating for- not ‘hoping really hard that we’re in a slow takeoff world.’
That seems like a useful heuristic-
I also think there’s an important distinction between using links in a debate frame and in a sharing frame.
I wouldn’t be bothered at all by a comment using acronyms and links, no matter how insular, if the context was just ‘hey this reminds me of HDFT and POUDA,’ a beginner can jump off of that and get down a rabbit hole of interesting concepts.
But if you’re in a debate frame, you’re introducing unnecessary barriers to discussion which feel unfair and disqualifying. At its worst it would be like saying: ‘youre not qualified to debate until you read these five articles.’
In a debate frame I don’t think you should use any unnecessary links or acronyms at all. If you’re linking a whole article it should be because it’s necessary for them to read and understand the whole article for the discussion to continue and it cannot be summarized.
I think I have this principle because in my mind you cannot not debate so therefore you have to read all the links and content included, meaning that links in a sharing context are optional but in a debate context they’re required.
I think on a second read your comment might have been more in the ‘sharing’ frame than I originally thought, but to the extent you were presenting arguments I think you should maximize legibility, to the point of only including links if you make clear contextually or explicitly to what degree the link is optional or just for reference.
This is a fantastic project! Focus on providing value and marketing, and I really think this could be something big.
LessWrong continues to be nonserious. Is there some sort of policy against banning schizophrenic people in case that encourages them somehow?
AND conducted research on various topics
Wow that’s impressive.
lol
I don’t like the number of links that you put into your first paragraph. The point of developing a vocabulary for a field is to make communication more efficient so that the field can advance. Do you need an acronym and associated article for ‘pretty obviously unintended/destructive actions,’ or in practice is that just insularizing the discussion?
I hear people complaining about how AI safety only has ~300 people working about it, and how nobody is developing object level understandings and everyone’s thinking from authority, but the more sentences you write like: “Because HFDT will ensure that it’ll robustly avoid POUDA?” the more true that becomes.
I feel very strongly about this.
+1 for Into the Breach