I operate by Crocker’s rules.
I try to not make people regret telling me things. So in particular:
- I expect to be safe to ask if your post would give AI labs dangerous ideas.
- If you worry I’ll produce such posts, I’ll try to keep your worry from making them more likely even if I disagree. Not thinking there will be easier if you don’t spell it out in the initial contact.
Thanks, edited. Performance is not the only benefit, see https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MHqwi8kzwaWD8wEQc/would-you-like-me-to-debug-your-math?commentId=CrC2
Account settings let you set mentions to notify you by email :)
The action space is too large for this to be infeasible, but at a 101 level, if the Sun spun fast enough it would come apart, and angular momentum is conserved so it’s easy to add gradually.
Can this program that you’ve shown to exist be explicitly constructed?
I’d like to do either side of this! Which I say in public to have an opportunity to advertise that https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MHqwi8kzwaWD8wEQc/would-you-like-me-to-debug-your-math remains open.
Hang up a tear-off calendar?
(You can find his ten mentions of that ~hashtag via the looking glass on thezvi.substack.com. huh, less regular than I thought.)
Zvi’s AI newsletter, latest installment https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LBzRWoTQagRnbPWG4/ai-93-happy-tuesday, has a regular segment Pick Up the Phone arguing against this.
Why not just one global project?
https://www.google.com/search?q=spx futures
I was specifically looking at Nov 5th 0:00-6:00, which twitched enough to show aliveness, while manifold and polymarket moved in smooth synchrony.
As the prediction markets on Trump winning went from ~50% to ~100% over 6 hours, S&P 500 futures moved less than the rest of the time. Why?
The public will Goodhart any metric you hand over to it. If you provide evaluation as a service, you will know how many attempts an AI lab made at your test.
If you say heads every time, half of all futures contain you; likewise with tails.
What is going to be done with these numbers? If Sleeping Beauty is to gamble her money, she should accept the same betting odds as a thirder. If she has to decide which coinflip result kills her, she should be ambivalent like a halfer.
Your experiment is contaminated: If a piece of training document said that AI texts are overly verbose, and then announced that the following is a piece of AI-written text, it’d be a natural guess that the document would continue with overly verbose text, and so that’s what an autocomplete engine will generate.
Due to RLHF, AI is no longer cleanly modelled as an autocomplete engine, but the point stands. For science, you could try having AI assist in the writing of an article making the opposite claim :).
Ask something only they would know.
Among monotonic, boolean quantifiers that don’t ignore their input, exists is maximal because it returns true as often as possible; forall is minimal because it returns true as rarely as possible.
Thanks, edited. If we keep this going we’ll have more authors than users x)