Are such problems generally easier? If they’re the easiest of the hard problems, this is consistent with
There are many advances that are NOT counterexamples, however all of the most impressive (from a human standpoint) ones seem to be counterexamples.
Why do you consider this evidence about this model’s safety?
OAI reportedly threw everything they had at the problem, so (claim) there would have been little need to acquire more resources.
How does one reach equanimity with one’s capability level? There seemingly aren’t any strong reasons why I can’t get arbitrarily better at this… It would just require asymptotically more effort.
I don’t want to plateau, I want to eat the library. But I would have to let go of every other interest.
Every outcome seems unacceptable to me.
litany looks most authentic when scratched into walls directly
If you understand why the gif doesn’t solve the problem, then you know the gif doesn’t explain anything.
I think if L had understood that the gif was insufficient, he wouldn’t have presented it as an explanation at all.
...I liked my answer, then you ruined it by providing further evidence it couldnt explain...
The spreadsheet’s only necessary if you see the flaw in the “explanation”… But if you see the flaw, why are you adding components and making a spreadsheet?
HPIM seemed capable of instrumental reasoning, no?
what led you personally to take an interest in this sort of skill? Did you learn deliberately, by osmosis, or as defense mechanism?
So you are moved up a level of abstraction. How much time does that give you? :(((
What is it that AI takes from mathematicians, when it does all the math? The paid position of mathematician disappears.
What is stopping them from doing it is the absence of opportunity to dedicate one’s life to its study.
Can you give examples? I don’t follow any sources that would give me this impression. What sources shape your perspective here?
Why not start with a short film?
Yes, I think I get you now. This resonated:
If you ask questions about transsexualism online, and somebody perceives this as you having another position (rather than merely being curiousity), you’re immediately attacked and accused of being a bad person—that’s the pressure of conformity, not its opposite.
It is frustrating (assuming our good faith) when one’s interlocutor is unable to engage properly. I’ve experienced both sides of this sort of exchange. If one isn’t secure in their identity, any inquiry into their identity can feel like an attack.
I think it makes more sense to look for people whose self seems settled than to look for a way to talk to insecure people. Their expectations of self-integrity might not even be at “Gendlin’s litany”-level yet. They might only have reached “I can feel ok about myself if I stick with my guys and stop talking to mean people”. It’s not feasible to hold someone to a higher standard of integrity than they do themselves.
All of that to say: I agree! We should hold ourselves to these standards, and help others do the same.
I’ve sort of left out one point of yours, regarding possible harm. I don’t know how to approach that, because I’m not sure with whom responsibility lies, and object-level my knowledge of risks and biology is lacking.
I have to disagree with your idea that trans people are hurt by conforming. There has been a great increase in transsexualism as a result of transsexualism becoming socially acceptable.
Both can be true: it can be and feel dangerous to transition, and a budding culture of acceptance can encourage/allow people to transition.
They may benefit from a community that is pro-trans. Such community probably exists because the broader society doesn’t recognise their identity as legitimate.
Of course, as you recognise, society outside affirming subcultures does seem to contain currents of acceptance. I don’t think this is the same as trans-positive subculture growing to enclose the parent culture, both the liberal and conservative narratives to that effect seem confused.
Requesting advice:
I’m writing a piece on rationalism*/ postrationalism/transhumanism, and some primary sources I’d use would be @SquirrelInHell’s “Tuning your cognitive strategies” and some earlier writings.
Are there any who see ethical issues with this, or anyone who knew this person who’d be uncomfortable with me doing this? A comment on the linked post reads
Man, it does make me sad that whenever I bring up this technique, there’s an obligatory version of this conversation.
-[person who crossposted some of SquirrelInHell’s writings poshumously to LW]
I do think there’s something to say, quite distinct from any speculation about the cause of a tragedy. I have three primary sources currently. It is downstream of my experience but won’t necessarily feature that.
are you familiar with the grabby aliens model?
Rain World is survival-platformer whose protagonist is a nimble omnivore tool-user (similar niche to an ancestral human’s). The prospect if exploration is enticing, but you are in the middle of the food chain, and so must balance the need to survive with the your own drive to explore. Your creature must:
evade predators,
find and sufficient food/prey to hibernate,
Take shelter before a lethal rainstorm arrives.
Exploring means doing the above in less time. Regions are gated based on minimum survival streak so each sortie is like a bet on your ability. There are carnivorous plants. It is difficult and stressful. I highly highly recommend it.
“but it is good that impermanence is uncomfortable! you should be afraid of death and fill the void of existential dread with an ambition to end death forever.”
Are pain and fear the reasons you want an end to death? If not, their absence shouldn’t hinder you?
interested in your progress here. Have you considered using text embeddings to compare across less structured self-reports? If it’s the proforma quality of 8 numbers that feels unnatural.
This does not seem “battle-tested”. The explanations in comments haven’t bridged the gap, I would probably fail your ITT.
I read it as
“the USA is good*”, and “atrocities were necessary to achieve this” ⇒ “these atrocities are justified”.
I believe (based on your comments) you wouldn’t endorse that, but I can’t see this interpretation in your post or other comments of yours. Others have already begun discussing the object-level, but I’ve nothing to add there.
*In the sense and to the extent that OP meant to convey.
And via procedural/long term memory?