The heading of this question is misleading, but I assume I should answer the question and ignore the heading
P(Global catastrophic risk) What is the probability that the human race will make it to 2100 without any catastrophe that wipes out more than 90% of humanity?
You don’t really need the producers to be “idle”, you just have to ensure that if something important shows up, they are ready to work on that. Instead of having idle producers, you can just have them work on lower priority tasks. Has this also been modelled in queueing theory?
I have a question that tricks GPT-4, but if I post it I’m afraid it’s going to end up in the training data for GPT-5. I might post it once there is a GPT-n that solves it.
You can use ChatGPT 3.5 for free with chat history turned off. This way your chats should not be used as training data.
The corporate structure of OpenAI was set up as an answer to concerns (about AGI and control over AGIs) which were raised by rationalists. But I don’t think rationalists believed that this structure was a sufficient solution to the problem, anymore than non-rationalists believed it. The rationalists that I have been speaking to were generally mostly sceptical about OpenAI.
They were not loyal to the board, but it is not clear if they were loyal to The Charter since they were not given any concrete evidence of a conflict between Sam and the Charter.
I don’t understand how this is a meaningful attitude to your own private economy. But want to donate to someone who needs it more is also a way to spend your money. This would be charity, possibly EA.
I have noticed a separate disagreement about what capitalism means, between me and a family member.
I used to think of it as how you handle your private economy. If you are a capitalist, it means that when you have surplus, you save it up and use it (as capital) to improve your future, i.e. you invest it. The main alternative is to be a consumer, who simply spend it all.
My family member sees capitalism as something like big corporations that advertise and make you spend money on things you don’t need. She sees consumerism and capitalism as basically the same thing, while I see them as complete opposites.
Ok, looks like he was invited in to OpenAIs office for some reason at least https://twitter.com/sama/status/1726345564059832609
It seems the sources are supporters of Sam Altman. I have not seen any indication of this from the boards side.
It seems this was a surprise to almost everyone even at OpenAI, so I don’t think it is evidence that there isn’t much information flow between LW and OpenAI.
There seems to be an edit error after “If I just stepped forward privately, I tell the people I”. If this post wasn’t about the bystander effect, I would just have hoped someone else would have pointed it out!
Corollary: don’t trust yourself!
Most cryptocurrencies have slow transactions. For AI, who think and react much faster than humans the latency would be more of a problem, so I would expect AIs to find a better solution than current cryptocurrencies.
I don’t find it intuitive at all. It would be intuitive if you started by telling a story describing the situation and asked the LLM to continue the story, and you then sampled randomly from the continuations and counted how many of the continuations would lead to a positive resolution of the question. This should be well-calibrated, (assuming the details included in the prompt were representative and that there isn’t a bias of which types of ending the stories are in the training data for the LLM). But this is not what is happing. Instead the model outputs a token which is a number, and somehow that number happens to be well-calibrated. I guess that should mean that the prediction make in the training data are well-calibrated? That just seems very unlikely.
Two possible variations of the game that might be worth experimenting with:
Let the adversaries have access to a powerful chess engine. That might make it a better test for what malicious AIs are capable of.
Make the randomisation such that there might not be an honest C. For example, if there is 1⁄4 chance that no player C is honest, each adversary would still think that one of the other adversaries might be honest, so they would want to gain player A’s trust, and hence end up being helpful. I think the player Cs might improve player A’s chances of winning (compared to no advisors) even when all the adversarial.
I think the variations could work separately, but if you put them together, it would be too easy for the adversaries to agree on a strong-looking but losing move then all players Cs are adversaries.
Why select a deterministic game with complete information for this? I suspect games like poker or backgammon would be easier for the adversarial advisors to fool the player and that these games are a better model of the real world scenario.
This seems like the kind of research that can have a huge impact on capabilities, and much less and indirect impact on alignment/safety. What is your reason for doing it and publishing it?
How about “prediction sites”? Although that could include other things like 538. Not sure if you want to exclude them.
8 votes
Overall karma indicates overall quality.
0 votes
Agreement karma indicates agreement, separate from overall quality.
If someone accidentally uses “he” when they meant “she” or vice versa and when talking about a person who’s gender they know, it is likely because the speaker’s first language does not distinguish between he and she. This could be Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian and some Turkic languages and probably also other languages. I haven’t actually use it, but noticed it with a Finnish speaker.