I want everyone to be able to achieve world they would really like; guess the best way to do that is to help people learn, build one’s strengths, build small-scale and large-scale projects, and also to cooperate.
Any gift must be accepted with gratitude and, if possible, with grace.
As of 2024-12-21, I have signed no contracts I cannot mention exist. I finally got to adding this notice thanks to the one in the-gears-to-ascension’s bio.
Extreme example, but imagine someone hires mercenaries to raid your village. The mercenaries have no personal animosity towards you, and no authority to alter their assignment. Is it therefore wrong for you to kill the mercenaries? I’m inclined to say they signed up for it.
They signed up for it but it is still wrong to kill them. Capture, or knock out to unconsciousness, is an option less permanent and looking better overall—unless it hinders your defence chances significantly; after all, you should continue caring for your goals.
Systemic opacity, state-driven censorship, and state control of the media means AGI development under direct or indirect CCP control would probably be less transparent than in the US, and the world may be less likely to learn about warning shots, wrongheaded decisions, reckless behaviour, etc.
That’s screened off by actual evidence, which is, top labs don’t publish much no matter where they are, so I’d only agree with “equally opaque”.
Aidan McLaughlin (OpenAI): ignore literally all the benchmarks the biggest o3 feature is tool use. Ofc it’s smart, but it’s also just way more useful. >deep research quality in 30 seconds >debugs by googling docs and checking stackoverflow >writes whole python scripts in its CoT for fermi estimates McKay Wrigley: 11⁄10
Newline formatting is off (and also for many previous posts).
I’m not sure if this will be of any use, since your social skills will surely be warped when you expect iterating on them (in a manner like radical transparency reduces awareness of feelings ).
Most cases, you could build a mini-quadcopter, “teach” it some tricks and try showcasing it, having video as a side effect!
Browsing through recent rejects, I found an interesting comment that suggests an automatic system “build a prior on whether something is true by observing social interactions around it vs competing ideas”.
@timur-sadekov While it will fail most certainly, I do remember that the ultimate arbiter is experiment, so I shall reserve the judgement. Instead, I’m calling for you to test the idea over prediction markets (Manifold, for instance) and publish the results.
The AI industry is different—more like biology labs testing new pathogens: The biolab must carefully monitor and control conditions like air pressure, or the pathogen might leak into the external world.
This looks like a cached analogy, because given previous paragraph this would fit more: “the AI industry is different, more like testing planes; their components can be internally tested, but eventually the full plane must be assembled and fly, and then it can damage the surroundings”.
Same goes for AI: If we don’t keep a watchful eye, the AI might be able to escape—for instance, by exploiting its role in shaping the security code meant to keep the AI locked inside the company’s computers.
This seems very likely to happen! We’ve already seen that AIs improving code can remove its essential features, so it wouldn’t be surprising for some security checks to disappear.
Based on this, I’ve decided to upvote this post weakly only.
I suggest additional explanation.
The bigger the audience is, the more people there are who won’t know a specific idea/concept/word (xkcd’s comic #1053 “Ten Thousand” captures this quite succinctly), so you’ll simply have to shorten.
I took logarithm of sentence length and linearly fitted it against logarithm of world population (that shouldn’t really be precise since authors presumably mostly cared about their society, but that would be more time-expensive to check).
Relevant lines of Python REPL
>>> import math
>>> wps = [49, 50, 42, 20, 21, 14, 18, 12]
>>> pop = [600e6, 700e6, 1e9, 1.4e9, 1.5e9, 2.3e9, 3.5e9, 6e9]
>>> [math.log(w) for w in wps]
[3.8918202981106265, 3.912023005428146, 3.7376696182833684, 2.995732273553991, 3.044522437723423, 2.6390573296152584, 2.8903717578961645, 2.4849066497880004]
>>> [math.log(p) for p in pop]
[20.21244021318042, 20.36659089300768, 20.72326583694641, 21.059738073567623, 21.128730945054574, 21.556174959881517, 21.97602880544178, 22.515025306174465]
>>> 22.51-20.21
2.3000000000000007
>>> 3.89-2.48
1.4100000000000001
>>> 2.3/1.41
1.6312056737588652
>>> [round(math.exp(26.41 - math.log(w)*1.63)/1e9, 3) for w,p in zip(wps,pop)] # predicted population, billion
[0.518, 0.502, 0.667, 2.234, 2.063, 3.995, 2.652, 5.136]
>>> [round(math.exp(26.41 - math.log(w)*1.63)/1e9 - p/1e9, 3) for w,p in zip(wps,pop)] # prediction off by, billion
[-0.082, −0.198, −0.333, 0.834, 0.563, 1.695, −0.848, −0.864]
Given the gravity of Sam Altman’s position at the helm of the company leading the development of an artificial superintelligence which it does not yet know how to align—to imbue with morality and ethics—I feel Annie’s claims warrant a far greater level of investigation than they’ve received thus far.
Then there’s a bit of shortage of something public… and ratsphere-adjacent… maybe prediction markets?
I can create (subsidize) a few, given resolution criteria.
Cooperation: you need to cooperate with yourself to do anything. Please do so iff you are building ASI;
Defection: it ain’t no defection if you’re benefitting yourself and advancing your goals;
Inquiry: a nice way of making others work for your amusement or knowledge expansion;
Koan: if someone is not willing to do research for you, you can waste their time on pondering a compressed idea.
This concludes my April the 1st!
I claim that I exist, and that I am now going to type the next words of my response. Both of those certainly look true. As for whether these beliefs are provable, I do not particularly care; instead, I invoke the nameless:
Every step of your reasoning must cut through to the correct answer in the same movement. More than anything, you must think of carrying your map through to reflecting the territory.
My black-box functions yield a statement “I exist” as true or very probable, and they are also correct in that.
After all, If I exist, I do not want to deny my existence. If I don’t exist… well let’s go with the litany anyways… I want to accept I don’t exist. Let me not be attached to beliefs I may not want.
What’s useful about them? If you are going to predict (the belief in) qualia, on the basis of usefulness , you need to state the usefulness.
There might be some usefulness!
The statement I’d consider is “I am now going to type the next characters of my comment”. This belief turns out to be true by direct demonstration, it is not provable because I could as well leave the commenting to tomorrow and be thinking “I am now going to sleep”, not particularly justifiable in advance, and it is useful for making specific plans that branch less on my own actions.
I object to the original post because of probabilistic beliefs, though.
I don’t think there is a universal set of emojis that would work on every human, but I totally think that there is a set of such emojis (or something similar) that would work on any given human at any given time, at least a large percentage of the time, if you somehow were able to iterate enough times to figure out what it is.
Probably something with more informational content than emojis, like images (perhaps slightly animated). Trojan Sky, essentially.
The core idea behind confidentiality is to stop social pressure (whether on the children or the parents).
Parents have a strong right to not use genomic engineering technology, and if they do use it then they have a strong right to not alter any given trait.
How to prevent all the judgements better than to make information sharing completely voluntary?
Important, and would be nice even if passed as-is! Admittedly, there’s some space to have even stronger ideas, like...
“Confidentiality of genomic interventions. Human has natural right for details of which aspects of their genome were custom-chosen, if any, to be kept confidential” (probably also prohibit parents/guardians from disclosing that, since knowledge cannot be sealed back into the box).
A nice scary story! How fortunate that it is fiction...
… or is it? If we get mind uploads, someone will certainly try to gradient-ascent various stimulus (due to simple hostility or Sixth Law of Human Stupidity), and I do believe the underlying fact that a carefully crafted image could hijack mental processes to some point.
It’s 16:9 (modulo possible changes in the venue).
I have seen your banner and it is indeed one of the best choices out there! For announcing the event I preferred another one.
Hi! By any chance, do you have HPMOR banners (to display on screen, for instance)?
I get the impression that you’re conflating two meanings of «personal» - «private» and «individual». The fact that I might feel uncomfortable discussing this in a public forum doesn’t mean it «only works for me» or that it «doesn’t work, but I’m shielded from testing my beliefs due to privacy». There are always anonymous surveys, for example. Perhaps you meant something else?
I meant to say that private values/things are unlikely to coincide between different people, though now I’m a bit less sure.
Moreover, even if I were to provide yet another table of my own subjective experience ratings, like the ones here, you likely wouldn’t find it satisfactory — such tables already exist, with far more respondents than just myself, and you aren’t satisfied. Probably because you disagree with the methodology — for instance, since measuring «what people call pleasurable» is subject to distortions like the compulsions mentioned earlier.
I was unfamiliar with those, thanks for pointing! I have an idea to estimate if “optimization-power” could replace existing currencies, and those surveys’ data seems like it might be useful.
Re: crypto. Please look carefully at federal law No. 259, article 14, point 5.
”<… corporate body, companies’ branches...>, individuals residing in the Russian Federation at least 183 days in twelve consecutive months are not allowed to accept digital currency as a counter-provision for goods, work, services and/or something which could be construed as paying for goods (work, services) in digital currency, <… except mining>” (translated in my own words).
If crypto you choose meets definition of digital currency, you need to tread carefully.
“There are some official ways to get money into Russia, but the bank can freeze those transfers or start an inquiry.” True except I’d say “any bank in the actual transfer chain, which happens to include non-Russian banks too”.
Perhaps your research would be of interest to some people if you published it? Though this might require restructuring it, and I’m not familiar with details of your work.
These additional suggestions might not work in specific situations; not intended to offend in any case.
6. Get a half-time job.
7. Get acquainted with, and marry into, a upper mid-class family.
8. Get a grant (important: from Russia-aligned sources; if you qualify as youth or another class, try leveraging that).
9. Weren’t there legal ways to have a contract with non-residents which can pay in whatever currency? That, I don’t know at the moment.
by both sides, to be precise
This message is pretty much sufficient! To be better, it should also include some demonstration of what you will be working on.