Hello! I work at Lightcone and like LessWrong :-)
kave
Karma: 1,873
Ohhhhh!
But @henry was involved in the explainer, so it’s nice for him to get the comment notifications and the karma.
This is a straightforward consequence of the good regulator theorem
IIUC, the good regulator theorem doesn’t say anything about how the model of the system should be represented in the activations of the residual stream. I think the potentially surprising part is that the model is recoverable with a linear probe.
(I would agree-react but I can’t actually make it)
It seems unlikely that different hastily cobbled-together programs would have the same bug.
Is this true? My sense is that in, for example, Advent of Code problems, different people often write the same bug into their program.
“Crucial to our disagreement” is 8 syllables to “cruxy”’s 2.
“Dispositive” is quite American, but has a more similar meaning to “cruxy” than plain “crucial”. “Conclusive” or “decisive” are also in the neighbourhood, though these are both feel like they’re about something more objective and less about what decides the issue relative to the speaker’s map.
D&D.Sci forces the reader to think harder than anything else on this website
D&D.Sci smoothly entices me towards thinking hard. There’s lots of thinking hard that can be done when reading a good essay, but the default is always to read on (cf Feynman on reading papers) and often I just do that while skipping the thinking hard.
Curated! This kicked off a wonderful series of fun data science challenges. I’m impressed that it’s still going after over 3 years, and that other people have joined in with running them, especially @aphyer who has an entry running right now (go play it!).
Thank you, @abstractapplic for making these. I don’t think I’ve ever submitted a solution, but I often like playing around with them a little (nowadays I just make inquiries with ChatGPT). I particularly like
That it nuanced my understanding of the supremacy of neural networks and when “just throw a neural net” at it might work or might not.
Here’s to another 3.4 years!
Maybe “counterfactually robust” is an OK phrase?
I am sad to see you getting so downvoted. I am glad you are bringing this perspective up in the comments.
I like comments about other users’ experiences for similar reasons why I like OP. I think maybe the ideal such comment would identify itself more clearly as an experience report, but I’d rather have the report than not.
What you probably mean is “completely unexpected”, “surprising” or something similar
I think it means the more specific “a discovery that if it counterfactually hadn’t happened, wouldn’t have happened another way for a long time”. I think this is roughly the “counterfactual” in “counterfactual impact”, but I agree not the more widespread one.
It would be great to have a single word for this that was clearer.
Enovid is also adding NO to the body, whereas humming is pulling it from the sinuses, right? (based on a quick skim of the paper).
I found a consumer FeNO-measuring device for €550. I might be interested in contributing to a replication
(No, “you need huge profits to solve alignment” isn’t a good excuse — we had nowhere near exhausted the alignment research that can be done without huge profits.)
This seems insufficiently argued; the existence of any alignment research that can be done without huge profits is not enough to establish that you don’t need huge profits to solve alignment (particularly when considering things like how long timelines are even absent your intervention).
To be clear, I agree that OpenAI are doing evil by creating AI hype.
Is there anything particularly quantum about this effect?
Using the simulator frame, one might think there’s space to tweak:
The basic physical laws
The fundamental constants
The “PRNG” (in an Everettian picture this looks kind of weird because its more like throwing out parts of the wavefunction to save on computation; reminds me a little of mangled worlds)
Perhaps the idea is that tweaking 1 & 2 results in worlds less interesting to the simulator?
I’m not seeing any active rate limits. Do you know when you observed it? It’s certainly the case that an automatic rate limit could have kicked in and then, as voting changed, been removed.
Daniel Dennett has died (1942-2024)
Good question! From the Wiki-Tag FAQ:
A good heuristic is that tag ought to have three high-quality posts, preferably written by two or more authors.
I believe all tags have to be approved. If I were going through the morning moderation queue, I wouldn’t approve an empty tag.
I was trying to figure out why you believed something that seemed silly to me! I think it barely occurred to me that it’s a joke.
Whoa! The meetup to beat