JustisMills

• JustisMills 11 Apr 2022 18:22 UTC

  10 points

  in reply to: Steven Byrnes’s comment on: Edit­ing Ad­vice for LessWrong Users

  Yeah, that’s a good pithy summary! I often suggest replacing “this” with “this [x]”.

• JustisMills 12 Apr 2022 1:44 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: TLW’s comment on: Edit­ing Ad­vice for LessWrong Users

  Yeah, that critique is part of why “use more links” is among my least confident advice of the stuff in this post. I like links mostly as an alternative to nothing—if there’s a term of background that ideally your readers should already know, a link is an economical way to give readers below your target audience in background knowledge a leg up. But for really central terms, yeah, better to summarize in your own words.

• JustisMills 12 Apr 2022 1:48 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: hath’s comment on: Edit­ing Ad­vice for LessWrong Users

  My pleasure!

• JustisMills 21 Apr 2022 3:15 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: Austin Chen’s comment on: Austin Chen’s Shortform

  Thank you!

• JustisMills 30 Apr 2022 17:58 UTC

  5 points

  on: In­creas­ing De­mand­ing­ness in EA

  I wrote a reply to this from a more-peripheral-EA perspective on the EA forum here:

  https://​​forum.effectivealtruism.org/​​posts/​​YeudcYiArwWrg77Ng/​​notes-from-a-pledger

• JustisMills 5 Jun 2022 2:50 UTC

  2 points

  on: What do you do to de­liber­ately prac­tice?

  I journal! It’s a good way to write at least something daily, and often also feels like a good avenue for healthy introspection.

• JustisMills 26 Apr 2024 3:29 UTC

  3 points

  1

  in reply to: Thomas Kwa’s comment on: LLMs seem (rel­a­tively) safe

  I think self-critique runs into the issues I describe in the post, though without insider information I’m not certain. Naively it seems like existing distortions would become larger with self-critique, though.
  
  For human rating/​RL, it seems true that it’s possible to be sample efficient (with human brain behavior as an existence proof), but as far as I know we don’t actually know how to make it sample efficient in that way, and human feedback in the moment is even more finite than human text that’s just out there. So I still see that taking longer than, say, self play.

  I agree that if outcome-based RL swamps initial training run datasets, then the “playing human roles” section is weaker, but is that the case now? My understanding (could easily be wrong) is that RLHF is a smaller postprocessing layer that only changes models moderately, and nowhere near the bulk of their training.

• JustisMills 27 Apr 2024 1:55 UTC

  4 points

  0

  in reply to: zeshen’s comment on: LLMs seem (rel­a­tively) safe

  Maybe worth a slight update on how the AI alignment community would respond? Doesn’t seem like any of the comments on this post are particularly aggressive. I’ve noticed an effect where I worry people will call me dumb when I express imperfect or gestural thoughts, but it usually doesn’t happen. And if anyone’s secretly thinking it, well, that’s their business!