Related: Babble and Prune
Measure
Karma: 1,786
There are also threaded ones that separate the twisting action from the vacuum seal, but even those can be difficult to open and usually require a tool for the vacuum lid.
“You” refers to different things in different parts of this quote. In the first part, “you” is the person who put the GPT text on the internet and/or chose to train a new model on that text. In the second part, the OP is putting the reader in the perspective of the new model itself, asking how “you” (as a model in pretraining) would learn to predict previous GPT outputs.
Use reacts as neutral votes maybe?
I’m genuinely at a loss for what one should even be thinking about in this sawtooth problem. What’s the strategy here?
Flip a coin.
My go-to method for this is to slice off the smallest possible partial 1% sub-task of the project and convince myself to start with that. Then I can usually keep working until I either finish the project or at least take a good bite out of it.
Are you supposing that the majority of children of allowed-parents would themselves qualify to be parents? If the trait was only weakly correlated across generations, then the exponential argument might remain less than unity for many generations.
more dakka?
I think what this is saying is that an agent doesn’t need to be able to reflect on its goals and decide that they’re the “right” ones in order to be capable/dangerous. It just has to be the sort of agent that pursues those goals. Stockfish will beat you without believing that it “ought” to play to win.
From Scott Alexander’s recent post (13: Runway):
Your audience chose to read you for some reason. Maybe you had a catchy title. Maybe someone they liked recommended you. Maybe the algorithm placed your post in front of their eyes while they sat there drooling and immobile. They had some hope that reading you would be mildly more interesting than the alternative. That’s your runway. It will last a few sentences to a few paragraphs before they drift off. Don’t waste your first few paragraphs defining something everyone already knows the definition of, or telling a rambling story about why you decided to write this.
Yeah, if you’re small enough compared to the surface, they’re both flat. In the intermediate regime where r < R but not r << R, the second-order effects of the sphere matter and give you the needle effect whereas the cube pushes all those effects into the edges and corners, so the faces still look flat at intermediate scales.
The needle effect occurs because there’s more volume just above the surface than just below it.
EDIT: If you imagine expanding the large sphere slightly to encompass the entire small sphere, most of the volume of the new large sphere will be outside of the original large sphere.
I think this is another way of saying that almost all of the volume of a high-dimensional sphere is at the outer surface.
People naturally feel a desire to do nice things for people who they perceive as high status. This is because people with lots of money/power/influence have an outsized ability to influence you (for good or bad), so it’s often worthwhile to be in their good graces. This means it’s good to be high-status for the benefits of people treating you better (and if you’re high-status, then there’s a second-order effect from your friends being high-status). Some people seek status instrumentally in this way, but it’s also a feel-good in the same way as food or sex or comfort, so people also seek status just because it feels good.
Status signaling is somewhat different from other kinds of signaling since people’s perception of your status is in itself a form of status.
For further context, EY’s recent post contains this explanation:
So I am misquoted (that is, they fabricate a quote I did not say, which is to say, they lie) as calling for “b*mbing datacenters”, two words I did not utter. In the first 2023 proposal in TIME magazine, I wrote the words “be willing to destroy a rogue datacenter by airstrike”. I was only given one day by TIME to write it—otherwise it wouldn’t have been ‘topical’—but I had thought I was saying that part quite carefully. Even quoted out of context, I thought, this ought to make very clear that I was talking about state-sanctioned use of force to preserve a previously successful ban from disruption. And absolutely not some guy with a truck bomb, attacking one datacenter in their personal country while all the other datacenters kept running.
Was throwing tea in the harbor violence, or did the violence start later?
This is giving a 502 server error.
I’m not sure if this is meant to be a critique of the post. Do you have an example of when an inviolable hard line against political violence exposes one to attack?
Would you say that a universe with a single person who lives 1 year in happiness is equally as valuable as one in which a single person lives 1000 years in happiness?
What the leadership accepts and what the membership accepts may differ here. Full post text in both places is my preference.