I don’t think I agree that this is made-up though. You’re right that the quotes are things people wouldn’t say but they do imply it through social behavior.
I suppose you’re right that it’s hard to point to specific examples of this happening but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening, just that it’s hard to point to examples. I personally have felt multiple instances of needing to do the exact things that Sasha writes about—talk about/justify various things I’m doing as “potentially high impact”; justify my food choices or donation choices or career choices as being self-improvement initiatives; etc.
this article points at something real
I’d like to express my gratitude and excitement (and not just to you, Rob, though your work is included in this):
Deep thanks to everyone involved for having the discussion, writing up and formatting, and posting it on LW. I think this is some of the more interesting and potentially impactful stuff I’ve seen relating to AI alignment in a long while.
(My only thought is… why hasn’t a discussion like this occurred sooner? Or has it, and it just hasn’t made it to LW?)
Regardless of the precise mechanism, Tinder almost certainly shows more attractive people more often. If it didn’t, it would have a retention problem because there are lots of people who swipe tinder to fantasize about matching with hot people, and they wouldn’t get enough hot people to keep them going. Most likely, Tinder has determined a precise ratio of “hot people” and “people in your league” to show you, in order to keep you swiping.
Given the existence of the incentive and likelihood that Tinder et al. would follow such an incentive, it makes sense to try to have your profile be more generally attractive so you get shown to more people.
Use the table of contents / “summary of the language” section.
For your project I would recommend skipping to 28 and then going from there, and skipping patterns which don’t seem relevant.
Yes: A far higher % of OpenAI reads this forum than the other orgs you mentioned. In some sense OpenAI is friends with LW, in a way that is not true for the others.
What should be done instead of a public forum? I don’t necessarily think there needs to be a “conspiracy”, but I do think that it’s a heck of a lot better to have one-on-one meetings with people to convince them of things. At my company, when sensitive things need to be decided or acted on, a bunch of slack DMs fly around until one person is clearly the owner of the problem; they end up in charge of having the necessary private conversations (and keeping stakeholders in the loop). Could this work with LW and OpenAI? I’m not sure.
Ineffective, because the people arguing on the forum are lacking knowledge about the situation. They don’t understand OpenAI’s incentive structure, plan, etc. Thus any plans they put forward will be in all likelihood useless to OpenAI.
Risky, because (some combination of):
it is emotionally difficult to hear that one of your friends is plotting against you (and openAI is made up of humans, many of whom came out of this community)
it’s especially hard if your friend is misinformed and plotting against you; and I think it likely that the openAI people believe that Yudkowsky/LW commentators are misinformed or at least under-informed (and they are probably right about this)
to manage that emotional situation, you may want to declare war back on them, cut off contact, etc.; any of these actions if declared as an internal policy would be damaging to the future relationship between openAI and the LW world
openAI has already had a ton of PR issues over the last few years and so they probably have a pretty well developed muscle for dealing internally with bad PR, which this would fall under. If true, the muscle probably looks like internal announcements with messages like “ignore those people/stop listening to them, they don’t understand what we do, we’re managing all these concerns and those people are over indexing on them anyway”
the evaporative cooling effect may eject some people who were already on the fence about leaving, but the people who remain will be more committed to the original mission, more “anti LW” and less inclined to listen to us in the future
hearing bad arguments makes one more resistant to similar (but better) arguments in the future
I want to state for the record that I think OpenAI is sincerely trying to make the world a better place, and I appreciate their efforts. I don’t have a settled opinion on the sign of their impact so far.
I’d like to put in my vote for “this should not be discussed in public forums”. Whatever is happening, the public forum debate will have no impact on it; but it does create the circumstances for a culture war that seems quite bad.
When I learned it from Geoff in 2011, they were recommending yEd Graph Editor. The process is to generally write things you do or want to do as nodes, and then connect them to each other using “achieves or helps to achieve” edges (i.e., if you go to work, that achieves making money, which achieves other things you want).
I believe this. Aversion factoring is a separate insight from goal factoring.
XKCD says that the dental X-ray (5 μSv) is half the average daily background radiation dose (10 μSv), and 1/8th of a cross country flight (40 μSv). To me this means that the radiation exposure is quite irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. (https://xkcd.com/radiation/)
If this were false, it would presumably be because dental X-rays are especially harmful in some way that isn’t just “because of radiation”.
I didn’t read Scout Mindset yet, but I’ve listened to Julia’s interviews on podcasts about it, and I have read the other books that Rob mentions in that paragraph.
The reason I nodded when Rob wrote that was that Julia’s memetics are better. Her ideas are written in a way which stick in one’s mind, and thus spread more easily. I don’t think any of those other sources are bad—in fact I get more from them than I expect to from Scout Mindset—but Scout Mindset is more practically oriented (and optimized for today’s political climate) in a way which those other books are not.
It also operates at a different, earlier level in the “EA Funnel”: the level at which you can make people realize that more is possible. Those other books already require someone to be asking “how can I Do Good Better?” before they’ll pick it up.
Thanks for writing this, and for writing the software! Microcovid was quite impactful in my own life and the software is shockingly thoughtful — you put so many tiny little details in to help me decide (oh, it’s a taxi ride and I don’t think the driver is going to wear a mask, but I can open the window…)
I think this must be a result of your & your team’s hard work talking to nonrationalists, as you note, but I also think you must have really good product instincts. Just talking to people is not, in my view, enough to produce a product that thoughtful — you also have to figure out what to do with the data. Nice work :)
I’m not Ray, but I’ll take a stab --
The founder has a complete vision for the community/meetup/company/etc. They were able to design a thing that (as long as they continue putting in energy) is engaging, and they instinctively know how to change it so that it continues being great for participants.
The first successor has an incomplete, operational/keep-things-running-the-way-they-were type vision. They cargo-cult whatever the founder was doing. They don’t have enough vision to understand the ‘why’ behind all the decisions. But putting your finger on their precise blind spot is quite hard. It’s their “fault” (to the extent that we can blame anyone) that things go off the rails, but their bad decision-making doesn’t actually have short term impacts that anyone can see. Instead, the impacts come all at once, once they disappear, and there becomes common knowledge that it was a house of cards the whole time.
(or something. my models are fairly imprecise on this.)
Anyway, why did the founder get fooled into anointing the first successor even though they don’t have the skills to continue the thing? My guess is that there’s a fairly strong selection effect for founders combined with “market fit”—founders who fail to reach this resonant frequency don’t pick successors, they just fail. Whatever made them great at building this particular community doesn’t translate into skills at picking a successor, and that resonance may not happen to exist in any other person. Another founder-quality person would not necessarily have resonated with the existing community’s frequency, so there could also be an anti-selection effect there.
I didn’t do it any more. I forgot about it next time I showered.
Sorry I don’t have good answers:
I don’t think so, typically you’re “cured” if you get antibiotics early on and don’t see any more symptoms
diagnosis was only from the characteristic “ring” rash around bite site. The nurse said that it was the “best” (clearest example) of one she had ever seen
Not concerned, given i caught it quickly and haven’t seen any other symptoms
On this topic, Orwell has a very good essay “Politics and the English language” (https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/) which is kind of about this.
This is pointing in a good direction, but I think the post could benefit from some more concrete examples.