Yup, this is one of the largest problems with using AI solutions today.
lc
Karma: 10,729
If you’re worried about “idiocracies” and think your genes would make the difference, donate your sperm/eggs, and call it a day.
Sperm donation in particular doesn’t produce a new child; it displaces another donor, because there are many more people who apply to donate than get accepted. And the donor you displace is already likely to be above average in intelligence, health, and professional success, because those are the people who pass screening and get selected by prospects.
I don’t know what the screenshot you posted in the OP is supposed to be of, or where it came from, so I have no idea what there might be to explain. Is there evidence that OpenAI is using this tokenizer in GPT-5?
o200k_base looks to be some shared tokenizer, not a base model. Please don’t bring Twitter epistemic standards to LessWrong.
Can anyone point to any prominent EA promoting a cryptocurrency, full stop? I can’t ever remember this happening.
A sane response would be to slow down the race and build a trustworthy international framework that ensures everyone can benefit from AGI. Promises would not be enough; you would need actual institutions with real authority. That’s hard, but possible. Instead, we’ve chosen a strategy of cutting China off from GPUs and hoping we can beat them to AGI before they scale up domestic production.
Isn’t this… The entire “Rat/EA” platform?
I mean I agree, but I just think this is insufficient worldview hedging. What if AGI takes another sixty years?
Something that “feels” worth doing to me, even if timelines eventually make it irrelevant, would be starting an independent org to research/verify the claims of embryo selection companies. I think by default there’s going to be a lot of bullshit, and people are going to use that bullshit as an excuse to call for regulation or a shutdown. An independent org might also encourage people who were otherwise skeptical of this technology to use it.
IQ doesn’t have a heritability of “1”. If two geniuses have a child, the expected IQ of the child isn’t the midpoint between the mother and father’s IQ. It’s lower.
The calculators on the herasight website’s landing page are… Quite inaccurate:
Much like how all crashes involving self-driving cars get widely publicized, regardless of rarity, for a while people will probably overhype instances of AIs destroying production databases or mismanaging accounting, even after those catastrophies become less common than human mistakes.
Sounds like you’re depressed.
The XBOW PR is a quintessential example of what I’m talking about. Suffice it to mention that:
XBOW topped the HackerOne ‘leaderboard’ that measures upvotes, not money earned on the platform.
XBOW almost entirely submitted bugs for the free, non-paid bug bounties! A primary reason they were able to find these bugs was because they weren’t actually competing with anyone!
Two years after the post was written! Although, still, good on Lukas.
None of those factoids are much evidence of anything, but I suppose I should be more specific: Epstein’s intelligence work (if he conducted any) probably had nothing to do with the lenient sentence Epstein received in 2008, which is what the OP claims.
A few years later, I basically no longer endorse a large section of this post, and I think it should have gotten a much more critical reception than it did.
The key things you need to understand about the Epstein case are:
Epstein almost certainly never trafficked any underage victims to associates, and almost none of his victims have ever claimed this. Pretty much all of the salacious coverage about this case stems from Virginia Guiffre’s accusations, and in the case of Alan Dershowitz these were so effectively refuted that she ended up withdrawing and then recanting one of the only two civil suits she actually brought.
Epstein killed himself, probably without the assistance of coconspirators (who as I mentioned earlier don’t exist, at least in the case of his sex crimes).
I was probably wrong and overexcited about possible “intelligence connections”. People have since casted doubt about the “belonged to intelligence” quote from Acosta by pointing out the fact that only once source, the Daily Wire, has ever reported it. I also did not know this at the time, but for his part Acosta himself denied that this reporting was accurate to OPR in their followup investigations in 2020. And there would be no reason for D.A. Acosta to lie about this—on the contrary, he would have screamed about it at the top of his lungs to everyone who accused him of misconduct, if Epstein being a cooperator was actually something that factored into it.
I think some part of me knew that the “Epstein’s intelligence connections got him out of his first conviction” was a ridiculous thing to believe at the time, but wanted to make the post more interesting and so put it in anyways. I apologize for letting my excitement get the better of me that way.
I still endorse everything in the addendum; Epstein having coordinated with or manipulated correctional staff, on his own, to give himself the opportunity to commit suicide is the most plausible theory I’ve heard for the suspicious circumstances surrounding his death. And of course don’t take the organizational chart literally is good advice.
The Groypers remain a fringe group of internet trolls without any real influence
I really disagree, I think they’re already starting to become very hard to ignore. Candace Owens gave Nick Fuentes a two hour interview literally just last week.
I guess in a spherical cow sense you could believe this without being antisemitic. But the evidence that Epstein ever trafficked any of his victims to friends in the first place is very weak. Additionally, if Epstein worked in an intelligence service, the natural party to that would be American intelligence services, who would actually be able to intercede on his behalf with prosecutors legally. And it’s unimpeachable that a large proportion of the public interest in this hypothesis has been the result of activism by explicitly antisemitic people like Nick Fuentes and Ian Carroll. So yes, I am inclined to believe that Tucker Carlson’s boosting of the theory, while maybe not being antisemitic in isolation, is indicative of a broader trend toward antisemitism on the right. It would not have happened five years ago.
But like, even if this doesn’t count, it’s obviously not just this one tweet, there’s a whole slew of content Tucker’s put out in the last six months that is clearly coming from this corner of the internet—even if he’s not being strategic about it himself.
Wondering why you think this