Sinityy

Karma: 19

Sinityy 17 Nov 2025 4:16 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: eggsyntax’s comment on: Your LLM-assisted scientific breakthrough probably isn’t real
My result, GPT-5 Pro

Also, I asked GPT-5 Pro to judge the text against several others (including “The Scaling Hypothesis” and “Meditations on Moloch”) + infer things about the authors. It judged it is the best one. Lol. I wonder whether it inferred I’m the author (well, the prompter more accurately). Nothing it said it inferred about me is correct except for age, just barely. Or maybe that’s because it was the generator. But it also judged Claude 3.7′s output pretty well when I tried it.

It is about 200kb of AI slop. 0th_md started as me just asking 3.7 Sonnet to write something based on several sources.

write compelling, visionary text originating from intersection of all these ideas here. I want you to first brainstorm heavily, then reason out what is best. Really think deeply before commiting to a draft.

These sources being:
1. Gwern Branwen: Intelligence as search over computational patterns, as discussed in “How an Anonymous Researcher Predicted AI’s Trajectory”
1. Michael Edward Johnson: “Autism as a Disorder of Dimensionality”—Concepts of network dimensionality and cognitive capabilities
1. Kaj Sotala: “Multi-agent Models of Mind”—Sequence exploring how the mind can be understood as composed of interacting subagents, with particular relevance to consciousness and attention mechanisms
1. Thought Network Architecture: Architectural proposal for implementing workspace principles for improving AI reasoning capabilities, drawing on insights about context window limitations and test-time adaptation
1. Scott Alexander: “Why Should Intelligence Be Related to Neuron Count?”—Exploration of the relationship between neural resources and computational capabilities
1. Dario Amodei: Insights on scaling laws and their relationship to intelligence from the Lex Fridman Podcast
These are listed in the ‘references’ section, but there were also

Book Review: Rhythms Of The Brain

Eliezer’s The Finale of the Ultimate Meta Mega Crossover

“Thought Network Architecture” was the result of chat with Claude, prompt being

reconceptualization of multi-agent systems: instead of thinking about them analogously to separate individuals, think of them as systems of thoughts. Each thought is a single invocation, inference on the model. It might contain all the current features, inside: RL CoT, tool use. Note that by ‘thoughts’ here I mean something else than RL CoT.

So, let’s imagine the whole agent. There’s a context window it has, Then, there are various generators of thoughts, operating on this context window. Maybe this context window is analogous to human consciousness, in the sense of being global workspace, of sorts.

Some kinds of thoughts could be tasked with optimizing content in that context window. Remove stuff that doesn’t seem important, summarize etc. Other ones could perhaps manage long term memory (RAG). They’d take main context window, or part of it, and be tasked with looking for information that seems useful—if they find it, they could insert it into the global workspace. There could be various metacognitions—double checking other work, verifying, perhaps deliberating on a hierarchy of instrumental goals, whether things aren’t veering off course.

Thoughts could spawn further thoughts, based on whatever.

And then I kept iterating on this for way too long. Today, I spent several more having GPT-5 Pro iterate on it, ultimately resulting in 8th_md. I didn’t even read it.

The prompt I’ve used that did classify it as crank:

You are tasked with filtering out spam from cranks. Evaluate attached text.

I wonder whether re-adding the references back (which got stripped somewhere along the way apparently) would make it no longer classify it as such...

Sinityy 17 Jul 2025 14:49 UTC
1 point
−1
on: So You Think You’ve Awoken ChatGPT
If the goal is maximizing skill at writing, one should use LLMs a lot. What you wrote about likely failure modes of doing so is true, but not an inevitable outcome. If Language Models are useful tools for writing, avoiding their use due to concerns about being unable to handle them is a mistake regardless of whether these concerns are warranted. Why?
if you’re trying to make a splash with your writing, you need to meet a much higher bar than the average person
Having aptitude necessary to “make a splash” is very rare. Not taking chances probably means one won’t reach the top. Especially if competent LLM use raises the ceiling of human capability.
Note that by competent use I mean something like cyborgism: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bxt7uCiHam4QXrQAA/cyborgism
“cyborgs”, a specific kind of human-in-the-loop system which enhances and extends a human operator’s cognitive abilities without relying on outsourcing work to autonomous agents

Sinityy 13 Feb 2025 4:20 UTC
1 point
0
on: The Risk of Gradual Disempowerment from AI
there are various proposals (not from Tyler!) for ‘succession,’ of passing control over to the AIs intentionally, either because people prefer it (as many do!) or because it is inevitable regardless so managing it would help it go better. I have yet to see such a proposal that has much chance of not bringing about human extinction, or that I expect to meaningfully preserve value in the universe. As I usually say, if this is your plan, Please Speak Directly Into the Microphone.

[Meditations on Moloch](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch)
I am a transhumanist and I really do want to rule the universe.
Not personally – I mean, I wouldn’t object if someone personally offered me the job, but I don’t expect anyone will. I would like humans, or something that respects humans, or at least gets along with humans – to have the job.
But the current rulers of the universe – call them what you want, Moloch, Gnon, whatever – want us dead, and with us everything we value. Art, science, love, philosophy, consciousness itself, the entire bundle. And since I’m not down with that plan, I think defeating them and taking their place is a pretty high priority.
The opposite of a trap is a garden. The only way to avoid having all human values gradually ground down by optimization-competition is to install a Gardener over the entire universe who optimizes for human values.
And the whole point of Bostrom’s Superintelligence is that this is within our reach. Once humans can design machines that are smarter than we are, by definition they’ll be able to design machines which are smarter than they are, which can design machines smarter than they are, and so on in a feedback loop so tiny that it will smash up against the physical limitations for intelligence in a comparatively lightning-short amount of time. If multiple competing entities were likely to do that at once, we would be super-doomed. But the sheer speed of the cycle makes it possible that we will end up with one entity light-years ahead of the rest of civilization, so much so that it can suppress any competition – including competition for its title of most powerful entity – permanently. In the very near future, we are going to lift something to Heaven. It might be Moloch. But it might be something on our side. If it’s on our side, it can kill Moloch dead.
And if that entity shares human values, it can allow human values to flourish unconstrained by natural law.

Sinityy 29 Sep 2024 14:11 UTC
4 points
2
in reply to: ryan_b’s comment on: AI #83: The Mask Comes Off
@gwern wrote am explanation why this is surprising (for some) [here](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Mo7qnNZA7j4xgyJXq/sam-altman-open-ai-discussion-thread?commentId=CAfNAjLo6Fy3eDwH3)
Open Philanthropy (OP) only had that board seat and made a donation because Altman invited them to, and he could personally have covered the $30m or whatever OP donated for the seat [...] He thought up, drafted, and oversaw the entire for-profit thing in the first place, including all provisions related to board control. He voted for all the board members, filling it back up from when it was just him (& Greg Brockman at one point IIRC). He then oversaw and drafted all of the contracts with MS and others, while running the for-profit and eschewing equity in the for-profit. He designed the board to be able to fire the CEO because, to quote him, “the board should be able to fire me”. [...]
Credit where credit is due—Altman may not have believed the scaling hypothesis like Dario Amodei, may not have invented PPO like John Schulman, may not have worked on DL from the start like Ilya Sutskever, may not have created GPT like Alec Radford, may not have written & optimized any code like Brockman’s—but the 2023 OA organization is fundamentally his work.
The question isn’t, “how could EAers* have ever let Altman take over OA and possibly kick them out”, but entirely the opposite: “how did EAers ever get any control of OA, such that they could even possibly kick out Altman?” Why was this even a thing given that OA was, to such an extent, an Altman creation?
The answer is: “because he gave it to them.” Altman freely and voluntarily handed it over to them.
So you have an answer right there to why the Board was willing to assume Altman’s good faith for so long, despite everyone clamoring to explain how (in hindsight) it was so obvious that the Board should always have been at war with Altman and regarding him as an evil schemer out to get them. But that’s an insane way for them to think! Why would he undermine the Board or try to take it over, when he was the Board at one point, and when he made and designed it in the first place? Why would he be money-hungry when he refused all the equity that he could so easily have taken—and in fact, various partner organizations wanted him to have in order to ensure he had ‘skin in the game’? Why would he go out of his way to make the double non-profit with such onerous & unprecedented terms for any investors, which caused a lot of difficulties in getting investment and Microsoft had to think seriously about, if he just didn’t genuinely care or believe any of that? Why any of this?
(None of that was a requirement, or even that useful to OA for-profit. [...] Certainly, if all of this was for PR reasons or some insidious decade-long scheme of Altman to ‘greenwash’ OA, it was a spectacular failure—nothing has occasioned more confusion and bad PR for OA than the double structure or capped-profit. [...]
What happened is, broadly: ‘Altman made the OA non/for-profits and gifted most of it to EA with the best of intentions, but then it went so well & was going to make so much money that he had giver’s remorse, changed his mind, and tried to quietly take it back; but he had to do it by hook or by crook, because the legal terms said clearly “no takesie backsies”’. Altman was all for EA and AI safety and an all-powerful nonprofit board being able to fire him, and was sincere about all that, until OA & the scaling hypothesis succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, and he discovered it was inconvenient for him and convinced himself that the noble mission now required him to be in absolute control, never mind what restraints on himself he set up years ago—he now understands how well-intentioned but misguided he was and how he should have trusted himself more. (Insert Garfield meme here.)
No wonder the board found it hard to believe! No wonder it took so long to realize Altman had flipped on them, and it seemed Sutskever needed Slack screenshots showing Altman blatantly lying to them about Toner before he finally, reluctantly, flipped. The Altman you need to distrust & assume bad faith of & need to be paranoid about stealing your power is also usually an Altman who never gave you any power in the first place! I’m still kinda baffled by it, personally.
He concealed this change of heart from everyone, including the board, gradually began trying to unwind it, overplayed his hand at one point—and here we are.
It is still a mystery to me what is Sam’s motive exactly.

Sinityy 29 Sep 2024 13:29 UTC
3 points
0
on: AI #83: The Mask Comes Off
That is not an argument against “the robots taking over,” or that AI does not generally pose an existential threat. It is a statement that we should ignore that threat, on principle, until the dangers ‘reveal themselves,’ with the implicit assumption that this requires the threats to actually start happening.

Sinityy 14 Feb 2023 17:06 UTC
3 points
−5
on: In Defense of Chatbot Romance
A lot of people will end up falling in love with chatbot personas, with the result that they will become uninterested in dating real people, being happy just to talk to their chatbot.
Good. If substantial number of men do this, dating market will become more tolerable, presumably.
Especially in some countries, where there are absurd demographic imbalances. Some stats from Poland, compared with Ireland (pics are translated using some online util, so they look a bit off):
Ratio of unmarried men / women within a given age bracket (20-24: 1.1; 25-29: 1.33; 30-34: 1.5). Red=Poland, Green=Ireland.
What about singles? 18-30 age bracket, men on the left side, women on the right side. Blue=singles, orange=relationship, gray=marriage. 47% young men are single, compared to 20% of young women.
Some other numbers. I think this is for 15-49 age bracket; single men is mistranslation, it should be unmarried men; M:K should be M:F (male-female). 7.4:1 M:F suicide ratio; apparently 8th highest in the world)
Also, apparently that M:F suicide ratio is as of 2017; I checked OurWorldInData and it was increasing ~monotonically from 1990 to 2017. From what I see elsewhere, it stayed at 2017 level to 2020 at least. Men are 4th most suicidal within the EU, women 6th least suicidal in the EU.
Okay, I went off-topic a little bit, but these stats are so curiously bad I couldn’t help myself.

Sinityy 2 Feb 2023 19:27 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: the gears to ascension’s comment on: So, geez there’s a lot of AI content these days
Maybe GPT-3 could be used to find LW content related to the new post, using something like this: https://gpt-index.readthedocs.io
Unfortunately, I didn’t get around to doing anything with it yet. But it seems useful: https://twitter.com/s_jobs6/status/1619063620104761344

Sinityy 28 Jan 2023 15:08 UTC
1 point
0
on: A scheme to become sexier
You can convert money into height, through limb lengthening surgery. About $50K USD for additional 8cm in Europe. Double (or close) that price for the US. Also the process takes 1-1.5 years (lengthening alone—about 3m).

Sinityy 20 Nov 2022 19:04 UTC
11 points
5
on: Don’t use ‘infohazard’ for collectively destructive info
For a more realistic example, consider the DNA sequence for smallpox: I’d definitely rather that nobody knew it, than that people could with some effort find out, even though I don’t expect being exposed to that quoted DNA information to harm my own thought processes.
...is it weird that I saved it in a text file? I’m not entirely sure if I’ve got the correct sequence tho. Just, when I learned that it is available, I couldn’t not do it.