LessWrong Team
I have signed no contracts or agreements whose existence I cannot mention.
Ruby
Karma: 14,615
Cheers! I think we’ve thought about this but I’ll raise with the team again.
Reading A Self-Dialogue on The Value Proposition of Romantic Relationships, had the following thought:
There’s often a “proposition” and separately “implications of the proposition”. People often deny a proposition in order to avoid the implications, e.g. Bucket Errors
I wonder how much “you’re perfect as you are” is an instance. People need to say or believe this to avoid some implication, but if you could just avoid the implication it would be okay to be imperfect.
Not having played this side of it so can’t say I’ve tried this, but I’d try putting something in your bio that solicits useful filtering info at the start, like “if you ping me or we match, please start by telling me/answering...”, and try to find a prompt there that’s informative for what you’re looking for. It might be as dumb as reading comprehension or more like “what kind of relationship are you hoping for?” or “life values”. But I would iterate on it. An unintuitive thing to do would be then to also proceed further with people who give answers you don’t like much, to see if you’re getting false negatives because the early screen is bad.
Another idea is to put in your bio stuff that matters to/about you (that’s important) but would dissuade suitors and let them filter themselves out earlier.
My personal favorite filter is writing though. You might not get many takers but “link to me to your blog” is a way to get a lot more info about someone.
I just coded a fix for this, will get deployed soon.
I applaud you taking this seriously and saying the hard critical things. It is concerning and I do worry about the sign of everything we do.
I think there might exist people who feel that way (e.g. reactors above) but Yudkowsky/Soares, the most prominent doomers (?), are on the record saying they think alignment is in principle possible, e.g. opening paragraphs of List of Lethalities. It feels like a disingenuous strawman to me for Dario to dismiss doomers with.
Ah yeah, that’s pretty silly (the cards are randomly sampled currently so just silly luck to have them ordered like this).
Huh, I never scroll that way but I see what you mean. I’ll see what I can do.
Yeah, frontend web development is a lot like this. The current AIs are both stateless, already mad, and seemingly indefatigable though get a bit loopy the longer the conversation goes on. You feed them $$ and sanity points and problems get solved faster, hopefully. There’s sometimes sanity saved when debugging something gnarly, but in the regular course of things you (or at least I) am spending mine down. (It doesn’t matter how many times I ask it not to, Claude Opus 4 will revert to saying “you’re absolutely right!” about everything.) Move over autistic savant, we got alzheimers savant now.
My guess is because (particularly before the introduction of recommended posts that are older to the posts list) people would find it strange to see old posts highlighted on the frontpage.
This is fixed now. :)
This bug is at least fixed now! I await your next report, thanks.
Knowing user emotions is good! And it’s sometimes nice when people care enough to get mad. I’m working on fixing this now.
I’m afraid you’re right that the overlay does not automatically match the post page. Unfortunately it turns out a lot of complexity gets added because the overlway has its own scrolling context and I’m needing to make a lot of adjustment for that. Fortunately the core elements of the post page don’t really change, so once we’re matched it should stay matched.
This should be fixed now.
True! That’s now next on my list.
Oh, indeed. That’s no good. I’ll fix it.
All buttons within the feed don’d do anything, but other buttons on the site do? That’s very strange.
Huh, that’s pretty odd and not good. I’ll look into it. Any other buttons or interactions that do nothing?
Fwiw, for me the calculated individual speed up was [-200%, 40%], which while it does weight predominantly in the negative (I got these numbers from the authors after writing my above comments). I’m not sure if that counts as unambiguously wrong about my remembered experience.
I’m not pushing against the study results so much as what I think are misinterpretations people are going to make off of this study.
If the claim is “on a selected kind of tasks, developers in early 2025 predominantly using models like Claude 3.5 and 3.7 were slowed down when they though they were sped up”, then I’m not dismissing that. I don’t think the study is that clean or unambiguous giving methodological challenges, but I find it quite plausible.
In the above, I do only the following: (1) offer explanation for the result, (2) point out that I individually feel misrepresented by a particular descriptor use, (3) point out and affirm points the authors also make (a) about this being point-in-time, (b) there being selection effects at play.
You can say that if I feel now that I’m being speed up, I should be less confident given the results, and to that I say yeah, I am. And I’m surprised by the result too.
There’s a claim you’re making here that “I went looking for reasons” that feels weird. I don’t take it that whenever a result is “your remembered experience is wrong”, I’m being epistemically unvirtuous if I question it or discuss details. To repeat, I question the interpretation/generalization some might make rather than the raw result or even what the authors interpret it as, and I think as a participant I’m better positioned to notice the misgeneralization than just hearing the headline result (people reading the actual paper probably end up in the right place).
Six years ago we introduced Shortform (later renamed Quick Takes) to LessWrong. Here’s a meme-format thing we made at the time. How do people reckon it’s gone? h/t @Raemon