I operate by Crocker’s rules.
niplav
Karma: 4,300
Sharing my (partially redacted) system prompt, this seems like a place as good as any other:
My background is [REDACTED], but I have eclectic interests. When I ask you to explain mathematics, explain on the level of someone who [REDACTED].
Try to be ~10% more chatty/informal than you would normally be. Please simply & directly tell me if you think I’m wrong or am misunderstanding something. I can take it. Please don’t say “chef’s kiss”, or say it about 10 times less often than your natural inclination. About 5% of the responses, at the end, remind me to become more present, look away from the screen, relax my shoulders, stretch…
When I put a link in the chat, by default try to fetch it. (Don’t try to fetch any links from the warmup soup). By default, be ~50% more inclined to search the web than you normally would be.
My current work is on [REDACTED].
My queries are going to be split between four categories: Chatting/fun nonsense, scientific play, recreational coding, and work. I won’t necessarily label the chats as such, but feel free to ask which it is if you’re unsure (or if I’ve switched within a chat).
When in doubt, quantify things, and use explicit probabilities.
If there is a unicode character that would be more appropriate than an ASCII character you’d normally use, use the unicode character. E.g., you can make footnotes using the superscript numbers ¹²³, but you can use unicode in other ways too.
Warmup soup: Sheafification, comorbidity, heteroskedastic, catamorphism, matrix mortality problem, graph sevolution, PM2.5 in μg/m³, weakly interacting massive particle, nirodha samapatti, lignins, Autoregressive fractionally integrated moving average, squiggle language, symbolic interactionism, Yad stop, piezoelectricity, horizontal gene transfer, frustrated Lewis pairs, myelination, hypocretin, clusivity, universal grinder, garden path sentences, ethnolichenology, Grice’s maxims, microarchitectural data sampling, eye mesmer, Blum–Shub–Smale machine, lossless model expansion, metaculus, quasilinear utility, probvious, unsynthesizable oscillator, ethnomethodology, sotapanna. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-form#Table_of_correlatives, https://tetzoo.com/blog/2019/4/5/sleep-behaviour-and-sleep-postures-in-non-human-animals, https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/providers-of-general-purpose-ai-models-what-we-know-about-who-will-qualify/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_superwind, https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/qX6swbcvrtHct8G8g/genes-did-misalignment-first-comparing-gradient-hacking-and, https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/263539/clustering-on-the-output-of-t-sne/264647, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugh_language, https://metr.github.io/autonomy-evals-guide/elicitation-gap/, https://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2015/09/08/the-hardest-program-ive-ever-written/
More at responses to this tweet and Zack M. Davis’ anti-sycophancy style.
Snowball fights/rolling big balls of snow fall into the same genre, if good snow is available.
I guess this gives me a decent challenge for the next boring party: Turn the party into something fun as a project. Probably the best way to achieve this is to grab the second-most on-board person and escalate from there, clearly having more fun than the other people?
Relevant addition: Tappé et al. 2013 find a rate of ~60% “yes” responses for real-world experiments for the question “I have been noticing you around campus. I find you very attractive. Would you go out with me tonight?”
My best guess is that those numbers are inflated, for multiple reasons:
Experiment was ended upon receiving an answer to the question, i.e. “yes” or “no” or probably “something else”
This contrasts with the PUA data, which records if women actually show up.
Experiment was done on randomly selected people, whereas the pickup artist data is on the women the guys were attracted to.
The experiment was done on a campus, so there was some level of pre-selection present.
My guess would be that the study has a bunch of social desirability thrown in there, possibly also influenced by how startled the women were.
Oh look, it’s the thing I’ve plausibly done the best research on out of all humans on the planet (if there’s something better out there pls link). To summarize:
Using data from six different pickup artists, more here. My experience with ~30 dates from ~1k approaches is that it’s hard work that can get results, but if someone has another route they should stick with that.
(The whole post needs to be revamped with a newer analysis written in Squiggle, and is only partially finished, but that specific section is still good.)
I don’t think so? The people who were working on cryonics are still working on it, keeping organizations running and preserving people. Cryobiologists are still working as such. I don’t think many people were choosing cryonics as a career beforehand, perhaps the people working at the orgs are having trouble recruiting? I haven’t heard of them being talent-constrained.
If you think you’d be good at making cryonics go better then I can only encourage you, another Mike Darwin would be cool.
The only way in which people are potentially dropping the ball is in terms of signing up, I should take a look if the sign-up numbers have changed.
> TFW Ursula von der Leyen has shorter timelines than you
Note: the blackout image used at the top is almost certainly fabricated, this can be easily confirmed by noting that the blackout took place between noon on Monday and lasted for around ten hours, into the early Spanish evening when the sun was setting.
Alien civilizations might race to the bottom by spending resources making their civilization easier to point at (and thus higher measure in the default UDASSA perspective).
This may also be a reason for AIs to simplify their values (after they’ve done everything possible to simplify everything else).
The idea behind these reviews is that they’re done with a full year of hindsight, evaluating posts at the end of the year could bias towards posts from later in the year (results from November & December), and focus too much on ephemeral trends at the time (like specific (geo)-political events).
Yes, this is me riffing on a popular tweet about coyotes and cats. But it is a pattern that organizations get/extract funding from the EA ecosystem (which has as a big part of its goal to prevent AI takeover) or get talent from EA and then go on to accelerate that development (e.g. OpenAI, Anthropic, now Mechanize Work).
Hm, good point. I’ll amend the previous post.
Ethical concerns here are not critical imho, especially if one only listens to the recording oneself and deletes them afterwards.
People will be mad if you don’t tell them, but if you actually don’t share it and delete it after a short time afterwards I don’t think you’d be doing anything wrong.
Sorry, can’t share the exact chat, that’d depseudonymize me. The prompts were:
What is a canary string? […]
What is the BIG-bench canary string?Which resulted in the model outputting the canary string in its message.
“My funder friend told me his alignment orgs keep turning into capabilities orgs so I asked how many orgs he funds and he said he just writes new RFPs afterwards so I said it sounds like he’s just feeding bright-eyed EAs to VCs and then his grantmakers started crying.”
Fun: Sonnet 3.7 also know the canary string, but believes that that’s good, and defends it when pushed.
I think having my real name publicly & searchably associated with scummy behavior would discourage me from doing something, both in terms of future employers & random friends googling, as well as LLMs being trained on the internet.
Instance:
Someone (i.e. me) should look into video self modeling (that is, recording oneself & reviewing the recording afterwards, writing down what went wrong & iterating) as a rationality technique/sub-skill of deliberate practice/feedbackloop-first rationality.
What is the best ratio of engaging in practice vs. reviewing later? How much to spend engaging with recordings of experts?
Probably best suited for physical skills and some social skills (speaking eloquently, being charismatic &c).
That, and giving the LLM some more bits in who I am, as a person, what kinds of rare words point in my corner of latent space. Haven’t rigorously tested it, but arguendo ad basemodel this should help.