I have found it productive to ask people about what they want to happen, about what kind of future sounds good to them, instead of debating which side effect of the AI pill is the most annoying/deadly. I feel like we are presently more in need of targets than antitargets.
I asked about that here, some interesting answers https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wxbRqep7SuCFwxqkv/what-exactly-did-that-great-ai-future-involve-again
Almost all the people who get rich and stay rich and are fairly greedy. Or “have a drive to acquire wealth” if you prefer
If I covered this topic then it wouldn’t be the shortest doomsplainer in world history
You could add cooking tasks with robots.
Who predicted that AI will have a multi-year “everything works” period where the prerequisite pieces come together and suddenly every technique works on every problem? Like before electricity you had to use the right drill bit or saw blade for a given material, but now you can cut anything with anything if you are only slightly patient.
Your argument is quite good
Yeah it is a popular psychology experiment to trick people with container shapes.
Is there a list of rationality one-liners that can possibly actually make you more rational? Just barely enough words to be saying something rather than nothing, and to have it maybe land. Eg
Wide mugs are always bigger than tall mugs.
newyep:newnope = oldyep * chanceifyep : oldnope * chanceifnope (assuming independent events!)
Tasks take sample(lognormal(median)) hours to complete.
If it took you a long time to think of something, then figure out how you coulda figured it out faster. Then next time figure fast.
People care very much what words you choose to convey the same meaning. They really really care.
Don’t expect LW to be neutral or anything. Think of it as the town bar, not the town square.
I have dealt with both greedy founders/execs and excessively cooperative decision-making. I think the cooperative model is slightly better overall for almost everyone inside and outside the organization. It is less fit though; co-ops can’t as easily merge or raise money etc. There is also a ratchet issue, where it is harder to cooperatize what is private than to privatize what is coopt. Curious if you have any ideas how coop-like stuff could be more stable / low-energy.
You could make something like Blind (the big tech employee anon social net) for unionizing/coordinating AI lab employees. “I’ll delay my project if you delay yours.” Or anon danger polls of employees at labs. I’m not sure of the details but I suspect there is fruit. (“Your weekly update: 25% of your coworkers expect to see 2035.”)
Makes sense. Those were real questions, to be clear.
I’m guessing you live in a country with a US military base? Are you more free than the average Chinese citizen?
It deliberately doesn’t assume anything especially different or weird happens, only that trend lines keep going.
Of course they are fitting an exponential curve, and only one thing happens when you do that. (Newborn on track to swallow the sun by 2040.) You can get a hyperbolic curve to fit about equally as well [citation needed] and predict negative infinity resources on Jan 2 2028. I wish they had defended this choice a bit more clearly. Like plot binomial and sigmoid best fit for comparison, to show it really does look like an exponential. (Y axis can be something arbitrary, like the price of land measured in gold.) An exponential makes sense, when an output is an input, so I would agree with it, but you can say the same thing about a puppy’s cells & organs.
Almost every time I use Claude Code (3.7 I think) it ends up cheating at the goal. Optimizing performance by replacing the API function with a constant, deleting test cases, ignoring runtime errors with silent try catch, etc. It never mentions these actions in the summary. In this narrow sense, 3.7 is the most misaligned model I have ever used.
23andMe (and all their data) seems to be for sale at a cheap discount.
Any idea why opus 3 is exceptional? Any guess as to what was special about how it was created?