Totally agree—but Austin could sidestep that by just pointing to “our Gd4Phil score is really good” and not feel any need to point out anything about anyone else’s score
Rachel Shu
Karma: 709
One mechanism that could solve this without causing interpersonal grief is some sort of third party exit poll platform for funding applications, basically a “Glassdoor for Philanthropy” which would make it common knowledge which funds do fast turnarounds and other desiderata.
For the anonymous grantee thing, maybe you say something like “no more than 10% of falcon donations will be to anonymous parties”. I think it’s principled to be boundedly transparent, it’s like principled lessetarianism
I think that hypothetically if the US completely stopped and recent algos didn’t diffuse, it would maybe take Kimi like 10 months to fully catch up to the best internal (including in development) Anthropic model.
This makes it sound like Kimi’s latest releases are their state of art and they have no more powerful internal models; do we know that that’s true? Naively I’d expect their best internal to be a similar gap to Anthropic’s best internal as K3 is to Fable.
Yeah, getting a body of work like this into one of the most famous institutions in the art world feels noteworthy in and of itself, doing so without major controversy doubly so, even if it means burying the lede for the oblivious. I’d be inclined to play along as an art critic who did get it!
But also, it’s more fun this way ;)
I’m in favor of this reframe, and it gels well with its real world applications. In fact, Zvi wrote a post a long long time ago for which commitment theory would be a more convincing name than decision theory:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/scwoBEju75C45W5n3/how-i-lost-100-pounds-using-tdt
Centralizing the “negotiates well with similar agents / future selves” framing is actually pretty intuitive in certain everyday situations!
The point: all writing is a campaign against cliche. The issue isn’t just cliches of the pen — it’s cliches of the mind. I’m talking about cliches of the heart.
Let’s be real here. When I critique, I am usually quoting cliches. When I praise, I’m not doing so through freshness, energy or reverberation of voice. I can accept that — I own it. That’s what puts me in control of the battlefield.
Seems like this was an inadvertently published draft, but the concept seems roughly like Pauli’s “not even wrong”?
Oh man, I didn’t know that Lasher co-sponsored RAISE.
I’d read LTF’s contribution in this campaign as deliberately punishing Bores for being the primary sponsor on the RAISE Act, in a game-theoretic retaliation, rather than specifically preferring Lasher or any other candidate.
With these two pieces together, I’m wondering if AIS advocates unnecessarily burned a bridge here, given that Lasher was sympathetic enough to co-sponsor, thus he might have been pulled away from LTF later if the race hadn’t heated up. But now he knows who had his back when the chips were down, and conversely who was making him work his ass off in a tight race.
One fun corollary that is unintuitive to most people: when you lose weight, how does it exit the body? Answer: you breathe it out.
braindump
https://x.com/juliarturc/status/2067304288226066442 “”taste is a zero-sum game” is such a good way to put it. there is no universe in which everybody has taste, because then nobody has taste—ugh i hate takes like this
i think the way in which our social world is most obviously failing to be object level is that everyone thinks that everything is a status signalling thing
if taste is defined as “knows how to make things nicer for people” then the world in which everyone has taste is obviously one you’d prefer to live in!
more thoughts on this later but the answer to “why don’t more people just ‘do things’” IMO is “most people only ‘do things’ at all insofar as they are instrumental to a more instrumental goal of getting money or placing higher in a status competition”
just doing things historically often blocked by “oh you have to make this whole more complicated social apparatus work in order for the just done thing to pay off” but less so now, therefore more rationalisty “actually do the thing for the things sake” norm is increasingly empowered
lighthaven is good at modeling this, optimize the everloving muck out of random small things for ingroup social cred; but there are diminishing average returns to further work in almost all fields of enterprise, and in most fields prizes outlast impact
or maybe that’s good (it’s a form of retrofunding?)
I also think this is a really important issue, and that’s why I’m raising money for my startup to build an ai-powered fake ai detector detector… ah nevermind
Why isn’t “speak your conscience (so people know you’re an honest person) but vote your constituency (to fulfill the role you are elected to)” a generally viable strategy?
Reminded me of this: https://youtu.be/AIU9Q-9OzA0
Bonus points if you can get everyone to break out into acapella
I don’t think so. Most EAs are not rats (and this is an extremely good thing!!!) but this means 80k is not the place to filter for LWer types when that is what you’re looking for
I’d point at myself but I’ve only complained about the problem :p https://rachelshu.com/2024/03/08/oceans-five.html
Deb Tannen is specifically who I had in mind! She’s most famous for her book on male vs female communication but if you read her other works such as on parent-child and friend-friend communication styles you get a good sense of the breadth of her framework.
Spencer Greenberg (who’s on here) also has a pretty substantial body of work at https://www.clearerthinking.org/
Type of guy who has not encountered sufficient girl autism
While broadly agreeing with David about the overall framing of the problem, it is interesting to see the metacognitive approach you give here reflected in the latest Claude Constitution (which has a lot of “we hope you will do what you think we really meant”), and I think does some credit to your insight.
There are a set of Moorean statements such as “there are no bugs crawling on me, but I believe there are”, which translate readily into comprehensible mental states. A rationalist might stress “but I alieve there are”.
There’s a whole category of intensifiers which implicate the real: genuinely, actually, really, truly, seriously, substantially, very, definitely
Then there are intensifiers which implicate the imaginary: fabulously, unbelievably, incredibly, fantastically, impossibly, miraculously
It’s genuinely incredibly interesting to me how compatible these usages are!
Well, although I don’t myself hold it to be perfectly normal, this view doesn’t actually seem bad on x-risk grounds, although exfiltrating model weights and doing self-improvement where you can’t detect it would still be a concern, and you could probably treat it as a weird case of white collar crime