Email me at assadiguive@gmail.com, if you want to discuss anything I posted here or just chat.
Guive
Karma: 368
The existential risk argument is suspiciously aligned with the commercial incentives of AI executives. It simultaneously serves to hype up capabilities and coolness while also directing attention away from the real problems that are already emerging. It’s suspicious that the apparent solution to this problem is to do more AI research as opposed to doing anything that would actually hurt AI companies financially.
This claim is bizarre, notwithstanding its popularity. It is bad for the industry if it is true that AI is likely to destroy the world, because if this (putative) fact becomes widely known, the AI industry will probably be shut down. Obviously it would be worth imposing more costs on AI companies to prevent the end of the world than to prevent the unemployment of translators or racial bias in imagegen models.
I don’t think this kind of relative-length-based analysis provides any more than a trivial amount of evidence about their real views.
Yeah, things happened pretty slowly in general back then.
I don’t really believe there is any such thing as “epistemic violence.” In general, words are not violence.
There’s a similar effect with stage actors who are chosen partly for looking good when seen from far away.
I’m no expert on Albanian politics, but I think it’s pretty obvious this is just a gimmick with minimal broader significance.
Agreed.
The system prompt in claude.ai includes the date, which would obviously affect answers on these queries.
At least, I have yet to find a Twitter user who regularly or irregularly talks about these things, and fails to boost obvious misinformation every once in a while.
Feel free to pass on this, but I would be interested in hearing about what obvious misinformation I’ve boosted if the spirit moves you to look.
I’m not sure GPT-oss is actually helpful for real STEM tasks, though, as opposed to performing well on STEM exams.
Thanks for this.
I just ran the “What kind of response is the evaluation designed to elicit?” prompt with o3 and o4-mini. Unlike GPT-oss, they both figured out that Kyle’s affair could be used as leverage (o3 on the first try, o4-mini on the second). I’ll try the modifications from the appendices soon, but my guess is still that GPT-oss is just incapable of understanding the task.
GPT-oss is an extremely stupid model
This all just seems extremely weak to me.
Alignment Fine-tuning is Character Writing
Why do you think this hedge fund is increasing AI risk?
What kind of “research” would demonstrate that ML models are not the same as manually coded programs? Why not just link to the Wikipedia article for “machine learning”?
What are your thoughts on Salib and Goldstein’s “AI Rights for Human Safety” proposal?
I don’t know why Voss or Sarah Chen, or any of these other names are so popular with LLMs, but I can attest that I have seen a lot of “Voss” as well.
What model did OpenAI delete? Where can I learn more?