Your prior that a given DoD action is secretly due to the work of Sam Altman, or Palentir, or an Oracle lobbyist, or a Raytheon lobbyist, or Microsoft, or Israel, or one particular anti-woke DoD compliance lawyer with a crusade, or one particular DoW office politics tiff, or anyone else, should be low
Are you saying this as a political insider with knowledge of how such decisions are usually made? What do you think you know about the political process and how do you think you know it?
Surely the causation could run in the other direction? The constitution is very obviously heavily AI written.
I role to disbelieve here. He just made conquest on a wim without an ideological belief that conqiest was good?
why would you start counting when things got noticed on a society level? you only start counting a babies age once it starts going out and meeting other kids?
but adults are prohibited to try to change child’s sexual preferences for their advantage.
Is this true? I’ve never heard of any laws about not trying to change a child’s sexual preferences. Or really any laws against trying to change people’s preferences for your benefit.
I suppose statutory rape laws could be construed a something like this, but it really seems a stretch.
I don’t think that understanding people better than they understand themselves is empathy. That’s cognitive modeling.
Empathy is being able to step into a worldview such that you can see what they see and feel what they feel, this requires some cognitive modeling but mostly seems to use different machinery.
Why are kids on their phones and tablets all the time? How could we stop this?
Easy, you let them have unstructured playtime, that’s it, that’s how you do it.
When I stayed with my cousin for the holidays, I noticed that my nephew used Minecraft as an unstructured play environment. He would basically just run around with his friends and do dumb shit and make up games etc.
Obviously this is worse in a lot of ways to in person unstructured play as you can’t run around together and move and touch, but there’s a lot of benefits compared to the logistics of having to get everyone together as well
I imagine that some of this replacement of offline unstructured play would be happening regardless of whether it was made harder to meet in person in the ways mentioned here, but that it being harder is driving kids towards online unstructured play even more.
Fwiw while wit matters in flirting, I’ve found it’s much more about energy.
I don’t know if this abstract description will make sense to you, but ime the way that flirting leads to sex is by continually ramping up sexual tension by a sort of plausible deniability of sexual interest -
one way to do this is you’re talking about sexy things but not being overtly sexual with your energy, or having a sexual energy but it’s more teasing or talking about non sexy things
In any case, if both people are into it, and don’t let the tension escape through other outlets, the way to release it is sexual escalation. And as long as the escalation (E. G. Cuddling, kissing etc) is still less than the sexual energy calls for, the tension continues to build to sexual intimacy.
Note that getting an at home nebulizer is also quite easy, saved me many a trip to hospital.
This makes me think of eurisko/automated mathematicion, and wonder what minimal set of heuristic and concepts you can start with to get to higher math.
I’ve heard that motor racing is a physically demanding sport, and the physical conditioning required is similar to that of other pro athletes. Any truth to that?
Aren’t the central example of founders in AI Safety the people who founded Anthropic, OpenAI and arguably Deepmind?
This is consistent with founders being undervalued in AI safety relative to AI capabilities. My model of Elon for instance says that a big reason towards pivoting hard towards capabilities was that all the capabilities founders were receiving more status than the safety founders.
It doesn’t seem like either thing captures the gears of what’s happening to an llm, but it’s insofar as you’re arguing it’s impossible for an llm to be convinced, I think you should provide better gears or what specific aspect of “convincing” you don’t think applies
I dint think that arguing with an llm will reliably enter into a sychophant mode, or that the thing that happens when you go through a series of back and forth argumentation with an llm can be fully explained by it entering into a mask/face
But more importantly it’s a whole memetic egregore, and you can’t really get rid of the bad parts without rejecting the whole egregore. And you can get the good parts without most of the egregore
Can you say more to about why you believe this second part? It’s not at all straightforward to me how you pick and choose the good parts of an egregore to “get” them.
The dominant egregores are selected, so if you want to beat them, you need to out-compete them, which means you can’t just select on “goodness” as a criteria, you have to have a cohesive package that outcompetes the existing egregore.
Historically, memeplexes replicated exclusively through human minds.
I think its often more predictive to model historical memeplexes as replicating through egregores like companies, countries, etc.
cyber or cyborg egregore
The term we use for this at Monastic Academy is “Cybregore.”
A core part of our strategy these days is learning how to teach these Cybregores to be ethical.
It seems to me like LLMs can actually be something like convinced within a context window, and don’t see why this is impossible
Good point.
I see, so the theory is that we are bottleneck Ed on testing old and new ideas, not having the right new ideas
I just skimmed but it does seem like the LessWrong bayes trope could help here. I practice if you’re trying to get data above random chance that’s unlikelt but if you have some intervrntions that are just on the edge of being worth it with an already strong prior, self experimentation cna help push it over the edge.