Long Live the Queen takes about 4 hours. It would take some luck to beat it on the first try, but generally you win by using common sense and training useful skills.
seed
Karma: 198
What were the most impressive results that were supposedly accomplished? Maybe we should run some experiments to see if they can be reproduced?
Interesting post and self-improvement advice!
I want to add to that when you’re learning a behavior that is new to you, you want to start out in a low-risk setting. You are probably going to make mistakes. For example, when you first try to act high-status and assertive, you may overdo it and come off as aggressive and rude. So you want to start practicing in a safe setting where mistakes won’t cost you a job, e.g. anonymously on the internet or with friends. Or if you do write to your boss, have a friend look over the letter. Then move on to more high stakes situations.
Another caveat is that if you adopted a dysfunctional behavior, it was probably for a reason. There was probably someone in your environment around whom the dysfunctional behavior made complete sense and was the only way to get along with them. They may still be around you. Expect them to blow up. But don’t be discouraged, remember most people are not like them.
I appreciate you writing this post! I was curious about the evidence for lab leak, but was too lazy to investigate on my won.
You point out COVID-19 is the only sarbecovirus with furin cleavage site. But couldn’t it have evolved by switching host from some other species? According to Nature, “viruses more often evolve by jumping from one host species to another than by remaining within a particular species.”
So the general prevalence of furin cleavage sites seems relevant too. Did anyone look into what that is?
Didn’t they demonstrate that transformers could be mesaoptimizers? (I never properly understood the paper, so it’s a genuine question.) Uncovering Mesaoptimization Algorithms in Transformers
Not to mention that the default result of rebellion is failure. (Figure from https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-future-of-nonviolent-resistance-2/)
OP doesn’t claim that dictators are unchecked in their power, he jokingly claims that dictators and monarchs inevitably end up overthrown. Which is, of course, false: there were ~55 authoritarian leaders in the world in 2015, and 11 of them were 69 years old or older, on their way to die of old age. Dictator’s handbook has quite a few examples of dictators ruling until their natural death, too.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/10/when-dictators-die/
I agree that it’s his main point; however, he’s also making an observation that most terrorists are incompetent, impulsive, have poor preparation and planning, and choose difficult forms of attacks when better options are available. The post has several anecdotes illustrating that.
He believes the incompetence is caused by terrorist acting on social incentives instead of optimizing for their stated goals. However, what if some terrorist group has one earnest terrorist, or what if the chatbot provides the social encouragement need to spur a terrorist to action while simultaneously suggesting a more effective stategy? There also lone wolf terrorist who, while more practical, are limited to their own ideas, so probably less competent than a whole team of researchers.
Ok, so LLMs don’t give an advantage in bioterrorism planning to a team of RAND researchers. Does it mean they don’t give an advantage to actual terrorists, who are notoriously incompetent? https://gwern.net/terrorism-is-not-effective#sn17
I think you’re zeroing in on the hypothesis that your list had a problem too early. There are many possible reasons to fail college, like having a mental health issue or not being very motivated to succeed in the first place. Do you know that he actually read your list?
In my experience the biggest predictor of teaching success is whether the person asked to be taught)
If you are leaving relatives or friends behind, consider developing some kind of code language, because people in Russia might be afraid to tell you their real opinions over the phone in plain speech.
I believe there is nothing wrong or irrational about taking collective action or calling to it. On the contrary, a culture that prohibited collective action has failed at instrumental rationality and is about to be conquered by a culture that didn’t. So I am strongly opposed to your first suggested rule.
Yes, I believe we shouldn’t get involved in politics if it endangers alignment research efforts or otherwise hurts the community for little gain. But we should take collective actions which carry negligible risks and huge expected benefits. Rationality is about winning. Being divided makes us weak and less likely to win. Let’s not do this.
Will MIRI want to hire programmers once the pandemic is over? What kind of programmers? What other kinds of people do you seek to hire?
I agree that this statement could be understood this way, and I don’t find your interpretation objectionable. It also could be understood to mean that Russian POWs say what they say to stop torture, there is no disclaimer against this interpretation. I should probably have interpreted everything in the most charitable way possible, if it was one thing. I am pushing back because several things made me feel paranoid.
Advising Ukrainans to flee while banning commenters from giving any advice to Western powers or discussing morality and justice seemed not neutral. (Russian people remaining nonviolent is not in Ukrainians’ interest either.) Comparing Putin’s situation to a trolley problem frames him as someone selflessly trying to do what’s best for others. I am not saying that these posts are pretending to objectivity while secretly being kremlin propaganda, it just looks to me like lsusr is trying to be neutral and falling short.
Thanks for the report.
If I was captured by America’s enemies I’d happily shout “Death to America!” on camera in exchange for humane treatment.
You’re implying that Russian POWs are treated inhumanely unless they say what the captors want. That assertion needs proof.
There is also this isolating effect when the media tells a lie, e.g. denies some true fact X, and most people don’t buy it, but they decide “this is what we’re all conspiring to tell our enemies”. And while you’re busy trying to “convince” your opponent that X actually happened, you never get to discuss whether X is the right thing to do.
Wait, I thought EA already had 46$ billion they didn’t know where to spend, so I should prioritize direct work over earning to give? https://80000hours.org/2021/07/effective-altruism-growing/
It seems like the source of your disagreement is that you do not believe turkeys actually suffer (as you write “suffer” in scare quotes), while the OP clearly believes they do. I think this question needs to be settled first before we decide which emotional reactions are reasonable. (I myself have no idea what the answer is.)
>> High decouplers will notice that, holding preferences constant, offering people an additional choice cannot make them worse off. People will only take the choice if its better than any of their current options.
This is demonstrably untrue in cases of suicide. 70% of people who survive a suicide attempt do not attempt it again, so their decision to try is probably a bout of temporary madness / irrationality, and not an expression of stable well-considered preference for death over life.