lc

Karma: 12,922

lc 13 May 2026 4:15 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: Eli Tyre’s comment on: nightsky81′s Shortform
This misunderstands my point, which I clarify in this comment: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/awcwmAjNwJazdbHrz/nightsky81-s-shortform?commentId=S9Wa5XCYvbHJLFmji. I’m not saying that Eliezer was unjustified in attempting to correct EA timeline beliefs, but that EAs’ views were probably good faith.

lc 13 May 2026 0:23 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: lc’s comment on: nightsky81′s Shortform
To clarify the argument for the people react-ing: the linked post accuses the EA movement of wilful institutional stupidity regarding AI timelines. Eliezer has also expressed this belief (that EA timeline beliefs were an example of their motivated reasoning and relative untrustworthiness) in other places, and to a group of people I was with at Manifest. However, I think if even Ilya Sutskever also took biological anchors seriously, this is some evidence that the EAs were making good-faith inferences at the time from the limited capabilities they had, instead of that mistake in particular being indicative of systemic rot in EA institutions.
Note this is a separate belief from whether OpenPhilanthropy (in concert with the vast majority of the public, commodities traders, surveyed AI researchers, etc.) had timelines that were too long in 2020, whether it was actually dumb to make AI timelines based on biological anchors, or whether humanity depended on EAs to get this question right despite its apparent difficulty.
What links here?
- lc's comment on nightsky81′s Shortform by nightsky81 (13 May 2026 4:15 UTC; 2 points)

lc 13 May 2026 0:14 UTC
−1 points
0
on: lc’s Shortform
Wonder how Emily Bender is doing

lc 12 May 2026 3:05 UTC
8 points
3
in reply to: anaguma’s comment on: nightsky81′s Shortform
So it certainly seems like [Ilya Sutskever] believed in something like the bioanchors view at the time.
Separate discussion, but if this is mostly true, I think it’s kinda dumb to berate EAs for also believing in a bioanchors view.

lc 11 May 2026 23:50 UTC
4 points
2
in reply to: lc’s comment on: leogao’s Shortform
unironically earnestly confused by the downvotes here

lc 11 May 2026 18:23 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: leogao’s comment on: leogao’s Shortform
I love mandarin’s grammar. People get hung up on the characters but it’s really not so bad nowadays with computers. Feels like a language designed by actual people (mostly)

lc 11 May 2026 13:13 UTC
2 points
0
on: How the AI Labs Make Profit (Maybe, Eventually)
Seems correct, and very important. However I expect that the first businesses that they will eat up will be software businesses, as has largely already been occurring.

lc 10 May 2026 2:04 UTC
4 points
0
in reply to: leogao’s comment on: leogao’s Shortform
Is Celestia a lab employee?

lc 8 May 2026 11:38 UTC
7 points
−1
on: lc’s Shortform
So what is supposed to be the point of working for OpenAI if you don’t think they’re going to “win”?
With Anthropic I can at least see the propagandistic motive; you’re working for the “safe” artificial superintelligence corporation, inside a culture that feels like it has a distinct vision of justice & the good. Even xAI’s schizophrenic objective of “fighting wokeness” is a worldview that is grander and more specific than personal power.
But OpenAI-in-practice, at this point, is just like, Sam’s mad science project to take over the world. He deliberately destroyed the governance mechanisms of the organization that would have constrained him to any other virtues, and since its founding has applied very little cultural filtering to incoming applicants. There is no clear moral vision, no cohesive story for how OpenAI’s competition is a net improvement to either X-risk or lightcone shape or somehow affects the fact-about-the-world that Tool AIs wanting to be Agent AIs. Why would you devote yourself to such a project if you didn’t think he was going to succeed? Money? Inertia?

lc 7 May 2026 17:30 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: Karl Krueger’s comment on: lc’s Shortform
As long as the perpetrators are still alive, there is still the evidence in the form of memories inside those peoples’ heads, which seems like it would clear quite a few remaining crimes, independent of all of the side channel mechanisms Omega could use to gather information about the likely commission of such crimes. Even for people who are no longer still alive, we will often have their DNA, and can use that to narrow down a lot of the variance in how we expect them to act in various likely circumstances.

lc 7 May 2026 15:46 UTC
3 points
−10
on: lc’s Shortform
Something that is probably obvious to most people, but I have not seen discussed on LessWrong yet: I expect that sometime during the AGI revolution, most crimes committed between now and 2000 are going to become solved, including many that have not been detected as of 2026. I wonder often what society is going to find out WRT what % of the population has committed serious crimes, and what we’re going to do in response.

lc 6 May 2026 23:56 UTC
6 points
2
in reply to: Ben Pace’s comment on: Matrice Jacobine’s Shortform
Right, I am mocking what the conversation would have been had the prediction market not existed (edited).

lc 6 May 2026 21:15 UTC
5 points
−1
in reply to: habryka’s comment on: Matrice Jacobine’s Shortform
In 2015:
B: “Do you think there’s gonna be a Hantavirus pandemic?”
A: “uh well it seems unlikely”
B: “I disagree”
A: “totally valid”

lc 6 May 2026 6:38 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: lc’s comment on: lc’s Shortform
“I’m surprised by your take here lc. Fostering a diversity of perspectives is how we keep people honest on LessWrong. Do you really think things would be better if people were less willing to explore alternative hypotheses...”

lc 6 May 2026 6:37 UTC
71 points
42
on: lc’s Shortform
Yay!!! https://www.wired.com/story/google-deepmind-workers-vote-to-unionize-over-military-ai-deals/

lc 6 May 2026 5:57 UTC
2 points
3
on: lc’s Shortform
Getting emotionally tired of “perspectiveslop” on the internet. Just feels like for every possible respectably wrong perspective there’s a guy willing to take it to signal his ability to contribute to conversations.

lc 2 May 2026 5:32 UTC
30 points
14
on: How Go Players Disempower Themselves to AI
Hard not to think about the death of software engineering as a legitimate craft and discipline.

lc 1 May 2026 13:08 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: lumpenspace’s comment on: No Strong Orthogonality From Selection Pressure
why do you expect me to answer questions whichvresfing the post would show are absolutely irrelevant to the thesis in question?
Because your initial reply was “you could read the actual post and find your answers”, and he looked in the post and decided he didn’t find the answers.

lc 1 May 2026 12:41 UTC
14 points
8
in reply to: lumpenspace’s comment on: No Strong Orthogonality From Selection Pressure
As you are aware, your experience is uniquely bad because you are intentionally rude to commenters. For example, in this interaction, a normal person would cite the content of the post that you think is relevant. Inserting artificial typos in your responses, to signal that they’re not worth your time, annoys people because it lowers the quality of discourse on the forum, and it reduces their willingness to engage with your ideas in good faith. I write posts challenging rationalists irregularly and almost never struggle with people commenting without reading them.

lc 1 May 2026 12:09 UTC
3 points
−1
in reply to: lumpenspace’s comment on: No Strong Orthogonality From Selection Pressure
I don’t understand what gives you the authority to comment on a post you didn’t read
I didn’t comment about the post, I commented about your interaction with @DaemonicSigil, which I had sufficient context for.
I feel the quality on this site really took a nosedive if thus sort of inchoate shrieking is tolerated
You have the personal power to ban users on your posts.