I am Issa Rice. https://issarice.com/
riceissa
Karma: 2,195
The link worked for me but I had to delete a right parenthesis from the end of the URL. Here is the correct link without the parenthesis.
I don’t know what a schema is in Postman so I don’t know how to help you, sorry. If you go here you can see the code I am currently using to make the HTTP requests, and you can grep around in that codebase to find calls to send_query, which will give you the GraphQL queries I use.
Echoing interstice’s sentiment here, but I feel like the core insight of this post was already understood by/implicit in what a bunch of AI safety people are doing. It seems to me an application of the replaceability logic that effective altruists have discussed in many places. Even I (who has been far away from AI safety discussions for a long time now) had essentially a “duh” reaction to this post (even though for a lot of your posts I have a “wow” reaction).
As for an explicit past discussion, this 2023 talk by Buck Shlegeris in my opinion contains the core logic, although he doesn’t use the legible/illegible terminology. In particular, one of the central points of the talk is how he chooses what to work on:
So here’s the question that I ask myself. Assume that a lab ends up in the situation described earlier [roughly: a lab is very close to creating and deploying a transformative AI, other labs are somewhat but not very far behind and even less thoughtful about risks] and they’re being as smart as possible about handling the alignment problems. How can I produce helpful changes to their alignment plan by doing technical research now?
Translated into the legible/illegible terminology, I interpret this question as something like “What problems are legible to me but illegible to AI labs currently (evidenced by them not already working on them), but will probably become legible to AI labs by the time they are about to deploy transformative AI?” (I realize there are a bunch of unstated assumptions in Buck’s talk, and also I am not Buck, so I am kind of doing quite a lot of my own interpretation here, so you might reasonably disagree that the talk contains your core logic. :)
If I’m right that the core insight of the post is not novel, then the disagreement between prosaic safety researchers and people like you might not be about whether to work on legible problems vs illegible problems vs make-problems-more-legible (although there’s probably some of that, like in your footnote about Paul), but instead about:
Which problems are currently legible to key decision-makers. You think prosaic safety work in general is legible, so the thing to do is to work on philosophical questions which are illegible to almost everyone, while perhaps many prosaic safety people think that there are many prosaic safety problems that are illegible to purely capabilities researchers and policymakers and lab executives, and that the thing to do is to work on those prosaic safety problems.
Which problems will become legible to them by the time they are about to deploy transformative AI. You are pessimistic about people’s ability to realize the importance of certain philosophical problems, so you don’t expect currently-illegible problems to become legible by the time TAI is deployed, whereas perhaps many prosaic safety people think that as AI becomes more and more capable, the alignment and other problems with AIs will automatically become more and more apparent to everyone (and in fact, that this has already been happening, with things like the release of ChatGPT, reporting of LLM psychosis, etc), so it’s less important to spend effort persuading people about illegible problems, than to just work on the currently-illegible-to-decision-makers problems, so that when the time comes for the research to be useful, it has already been done.
My own views are much closer to yours than to the prosaic-safety view I laid out above. In fact, after watching Buck’s talk in 2023, I wrote the following in a private conversation:
i feel like (even non-capabilities-advancing) people working on prosaic alignment and mechanistic interpretability have this attitude of like “well, i guess this is how AGI is gonna get built, so we might as well prepare for it by trying to align these kinds of models”, but this kind of attitude further entrenches this narrative and makes it more likely that prosaic AGI gets built. so there’s like a self-fulfilling prophecy type dynamic going on that worries me, and i think it’s a good chunk of why i’ve always been unexcited about working on prosaic alignment
i.e. not only does working on legible safety problems burn the remaining timeline, it is the very thing which hyperstitions “AI timelines” into existence in the first place.
Yes, you are correct. Not sure if I want to bother with editing the post, since a bunch of other things have changed in the past 7 years and I don’t at the moment have the energy to go through the whole post and bring it up to date. But I appreciate you for bringing this up!
There I was just quoting from the Hintze paper so it’s not clear what he meant. One interpretation is that the right hand side is just the definition of what “UDT(s)” means, so in that sense there wouldn’t be a type error, UDT(s) would also be a policy. But also, you’re right, a decision theory should in the end output an action. The right notation all comes down to what I said in the last paragraph of my previous comment, namely, does UDT1.1/FDT-policy need to know the sense data s (or ‘observation x’, in the other notation) in order to condition on the agent using a particular policy? If the answer is yes, UDT(s) is a policy, and UDT(s)(s) is the action. If the answer is no, then UDT is the policy (confusing! because UDT is also the ‘decision algorithm’ that finds the policy in the particular decision problem you are facing) and UDT(s) is the action. My best guess is that the answer to this question is ‘no’, so UDT is the policy and UDT(s) is the action, so your point about there being a type error is correct. But the notation in the Hintze paper makes it seem like somehow s is being used on the right hand side, which is possibly what confused me when I wrote the post.
It has been many years since I thought about this post, so what I say below could be wrong, but here’s my current understanding:
I think what I was trying to say in the post is that FDT-policy returns a policy, so “FDT(P, x)” means “the policy I would use if P were my state of knowledge and x were the observation I saw”. But that’s a policy, i.e. a mapping from observations to actions, so we need to call that policy on the actual observation in order to get an action, hence (FDT(P,x))(x).
Now, it’s not clear to me that FDT-policy actually needs the observation x in order to condition on what policy it is using. In other words, in the post I wrote the conditioned event as , but perhaps this should have just been . In that case, the call to FDT should look like FDT(P), which is a policy, and then to get an action we would write FDT(P)(x).
START TRACKING YOUR SYMPTOMS
Have a signal chat to yourself or similar. Make sure its very low friction and you’ve impressed on yourself the importance of tracking symptomsWhat do you do with this data? Do you have any examples of insights you’ve gained by tracking symptoms this way? I’ve personally found that tracking symptoms (which I did for about 3 years, increasingly obsessively towards the end, to the point of writing this post) led to obsessing over my symptoms and that this was probably making things worse. I wasn’t even gaining much insight through tracking, it was just more like “maybe someone or AI will find patterns in this at some point and be able to explain everything to me so I can get better”.
(b12, iodine, niacin)
What does it feel like when you’ve reached capacity on these? For niacin, do you just mean flushing?
Do not buy supps on Amazon (fraud, reselling, adulteration)
Do you have more info about this? I’ve had good experiences buying supplements on Amazon (sticking to reputable brands and making sure Amazon is the seller). I’ve been doing this for years and as far as I know I’ve only ever gotten maybe on fake product.
I have, but my writings are pretty disorganized at the moment and probably hard for people to interpret without some sort of dialogue with me, which is probably why I invited Nicholas/Heather to message me (I no longer remember my exact thought process from a year ago when I wrote the grandparent comment). But regardless, here are some links that you can check out of learning-related content I have written (feel free to message me or reply to this comment if you want to talk more about this stuff):
https://issarice.com/things-i-wish-i-knew-earlier#learning-how-to-learn
https://learning.subwiki.org/wiki/Understanding_mathematical_definitions
https://learning.subwiki.org/wiki/String_replacements_of_code_words
https://wiki.issarice.com/wiki/Category:Spaced_repetition
https://issarice.com/reflections-on-five-years-of-conceptual-anki
Were you gardening or anything when you first got sick?
I was not. I’ve stayed indoors most of my adult life, so I think I’m at lower risk for worms. Hard to say where I could have gotten worms from (assuming it is worms).
I’d be curious to hear about how you decided which on dewormers I should take. Maybe the answer is just “a bunch of reading on random internet posts and papers”.
I wasted the first couple years of my illness thinking my condition was psychosomatic or DP/DR, doing things like therapy, anxiety techniques, introspection/journaling, gradual exposure, and so forth. I still sometimes try some psychosomatic treatments anyway (most recently, I was trying out John Sarno/Howard Schubiner-style mind body syndrome stuff, after reading Steve Byrnes’s post and having it recommended to me). None of it really helped. I now think a lot of what people think of as psychosomatic conditions are instead somatopsychic conditions (i.e. a physical condition that results in mental symptoms). In my case, it helps that some of my symptoms clearly cannot be produced by anxiety/a psychosomatic condition (e.g. peeling and burning lips and rapid heart rate that returns to normal by lying down).
Thank you, this is good to know. I reached out to one of my doctors to see what they think of this idea. My own feeling is that 40% on a worm is too high. My eosinophils count is normal (and I know sometimes that can be normal even with a parasite), the viral illness seems like a sufficient explanation of kick-starting my chronic symptoms, I tested negative on the stool test, and I already know I have gut problems (and those gut problems seem to be explained by SIBO/leaky gut). Basically, everything I see seems to be explained well by stuff that I already know is going on, and I don’t see any clear evidence of parasites. I would still put maybe 3% on it though.
My current distribution of root cause now looks something like: 35% on autoimmune/pre-autoimmune (e.g. Sjogren’s syndrome), 25% on MCAS, 10% on dysautonomia/POTS, 5% on latent virus/viral reactivation, 5% on SIBO/impaired MMC, 3% on some kind of parasite, 17% other causes.
Only explanation for this (and the salt sensitivity etc) IMO is a hole/thinning in gut lining.
Why not dysautonomia? I am newly sensitive to a lot of things, including heat, light, and sound that don’t directly involve the gut.
I agree they are hard to fix, but a lot of nerdy interests tend to also be hard (and that seems to be part of the attraction). So this doesn’t seem like a differentiating factor.
Perhaps an intestinal parasite like a tapeworm?
I did get the GI Effects stool test done (in December 2022, well after I’d already been ill), which showed no presence of parasites. Any reason to think a stool test like this wouldn’t detect the parasites?
How do you know your infection from years ago was viral?
My symptoms during the acute infection were a sore throat, fever, large quantities of mucus and clogged nose (requiring constantly blowing my nose), and a cough (both dry and wet cough; mostly in the evenings). It felt like a cold or flu, just stronger and longer lasting (10 days for most symptoms to clear, then 5 more days after that until I felt basically normal, and then a few weeks later weird stuff started happening to me like extreme sensitivity to caffeine, and it has just kept going on for 5 years now).
GI tract pathogen
I do know I have SIBO and gut dysbiosis (from breath/stool test), but the usual treatments for these seem to have made me worse off, so my current guess is that it’s not the root problem.
I’ve always been underweight. The heaviest I got was about 115 pounds during freshman year of college. A bunch of the men in my family were quite skinny (though not as much as me) when they were younger, so I suspect it’s at least partly genetic.
I guess one of the first things to do to create/market/… an interest from labs/researchers/nerds/… would be to find other people suffering from the same illness and create/coin a name for that illness and create some association/website/gatherings/… to communicate about it like it is done for most other illnesses?
Funny that you mention this, because I was just musing about this the other day over on my personal website. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to come up with a very good name...
It must be really dreadful as it seems to be the case for you, to have a mysterious chronic illness without even a specific name attached to it (from what I understand), only a set of symptoms which (similarly to ME/CFS) can have many different possible root causes/factors.
I really appreciate you saying this!
I’ve looked at some of Sarah Myhill’s work before, and yeah, I think it’s a good example of someone seriously thinking about how to solve an illness. I wish I knew how to get more people like her to study different kinds of illnesses too.
I’ve heard of this, and may want to try it eventually. I’m starting out with things like LDN first though.
Did you end up deciding to write the post? I’ve been on-and-off working on a similar post about brain retraining/mindbody stuff, but my aim is more to provide my own experience rather than trying to be comprehensive.