LessWrong dev & admin as of July 5th, 2022.
RobertM
Karma: 4,864
Oh, unfortunate. Will think about how to reconcile those, then.
Yeah, you click the “paragraph” dropdown and change it to one of the heading options while having your cursor on the relevant line of text.
@Raemon and I have shipped some improvements to the editor experience.
The two major changes displayed above are:
@Raemon cleaned up the options at the bottom of the editor. They used to look like this:
I implemented a basic command palette, available both in the post and comment editor. To open it, press
ctrl/cmd + shift + p(same as the VSCode keybinding), orctrl/cmd + /, because the first keybinding is “open an incognito window” on Firefox. The goal is to improve the discoverability and accessibility of various editor features, some of which previously required you to open the toolbar to use.
It behaves the same way as most other command palettes -escto exit, up/down arrow to cycle,enterto execute the selected command, and also shows you the native keybindings for executing any given command.
Another minor QoL improvement is the right-click behavior in the editor. Previously, the only reliable way to open the inline toolbar was to manually highlight some text. If you tried to right-click to open the toolbar, this would happen to you:
Now it’s this:
(Note that most of the functionality inside of the toolbar is either trivial or available more easily via the command palette—I guess it’s now easier to convert something to a heading, block quote, or list?)
As always, let us know if you run into problems, or have other thoughts on the changes.
Thanks for the report, this should be fixed now.
(Also, to clarify, we were already on React—it’s mostly other bits of framework glue that got tossed out/replaced/etc.)
We shipped “draft comments” earlier today. Next to the “Submit” button, you should see a drop-down menu (with only one item), which lets you save a comment as a draft. Draft comments will be visible underneath the comment input on the posts they’re responding to, and all of them will be visible on your profile page, underneath your post draft list. Big thanks to the EA forum for building the feature!
Please let us know if you encounter any bugs/mishaps with them.
Concerning! Intercom shows up for me on Firefox (macos), will see if there’s anything in the logs. How does the LLM integration being broken present itself?
You have a typo where the second instance of
let belief = null;should presumably belet belief = undefined;.(Also, I think “It’d print an error saying that
foobaris not defined” is false? Confirmed by going to the browser console and running that two-liner; it just printsundefinedto the console.)Interesting mapping, otherwise!
They very briefly discuss automated AI alignment research as a proposal for mitigating AI risk, but their arguments against that plan do not respond to the most thoughtful versions of these plans. (In their defense, the most thoughtful versions of these plans basically haven’t been published, though Ryan Greenblatt is going to publish a detailed version of this plan soon. And I think that there are several people who have pretty thoughtful versions of these plans, haven’t written them up (at least publicly), but do discuss them in person.)
Am a bit confused by this section—did you think that part 3 was awful because it didn’t respond to (as yet unpublished) plans, or for some other reason?
there is very much demand for this book in the sense that there’s a lot of people who are worried about AI for agent foundations shaped reasons and want an introduction they can give to their friends and family who don’t care that much.
This is true, but many of the surprising prepublication reviews are from people who I don’t think were already up-to-date on these AI x-risk arguments (or at least hadn’t given any prior public indication of their awareness, unlike Matt Y).
This is a valid line of critique but seems moderately undercut by its prepublication endorsements, which suggest that the arguments landed pretty ok. Maybe they will land less well on the rest of the book’s target audience?
(re: Said & MIRI housecleaning: Lightcone and MIRI are separate organizations and MIRI does not moderate LessWrong. You might try to theorize that Habryka, the person who made the call to ban Said back in July, was attempting to do some 4d-chess PR optimization on MIRI’s behalf months ahead of time, but no, he was really nearly banned multiple times over the years and he was finally banned this time because Habryka changed his mind after the most recent dust-up. Said practically never commented on AI-related subjects, so it’s not even clear what the “upside” would’ve been. From my perspective this type of thinking resembles the constant noise on e.g. HackerNews about how [tech company x] is obviously doing [horrible thing y] behind-the-scenes, which often aren’t even in the company’s interests, and generally rely on assumptions that turn out to be false.)
I don’t believe that you believe this accusation. Maybe there is something deeper you are trying to say, but given that I also don’t believe you’ve finished reading the book in the 3(?) hours it’s been released, I’m not sure what it could be. (To say it explicitly, Said’s banning had nothing to do with the book.)
Yeah, sadly this is an existing bug.
LessWrong is migrating hosting providers (report bugs!)
Thanks, fixed!
Nope, sorry, no functionality to bookmark sequences.
If I bookmark the sequence’s first post, clicking on that post from my bookmarks doesn’t bring me to the view of the post within the sequence; the post is standalone without any mention of the sequence it’s in, and oftentimes the post was written without reference to such a sequence which leads me to forget about the sequence in the first place.
We have a concept of “canonical” sequences, and this should only happen in cases where a post doesn’t have a canonical sequence. I think the only way that should happen is if a post is added to a sequence made by someone other than the post author. Otherwise, posts should have a link to their canonical sequences above the post title, when on post pages with urls like
lesswrong.com/posts/{postId}/{slug}. Do you have an example of this not happening?
Mod note (for other readers): I think this is a good example of acceptable use of LLMs for translation purposes. The comment reads to me[1] like it was written by a human and then translated fairly literally, without performing edits that would make it sound unfortunately LLM-like (perhaps with the exception of the em-dashes).
“Written entirely by you, a human” and “translated literally, without any additional editing performed by the LLM” are the two desiderata, which, if fulfilled, I will usually consider sufficient to screen off the fact that the words technically came out of an LLM[2]. (If you do this, I strongly recommend using a reasoning model, which is much less likely to end up rewriting your comment in its own style. Also, I appreciate the disclaimer. I don’t know if I’d want it present in every single comment; the first time seems good and maybe having one in one’s profile after that is sufficient? Needs some more thought.) This might sometimes prove insufficient, but I don’t expect people honestly trying and failing at achieving good outcomes here to substantially increase our moderation burden.
He did not say that they made such claims on LessWrong, where he would be able to publicly cite them. (I have seen/heard those claims in other contexts.)
Curated! I found the evopsych theory interesting but (as you say) speculative; I think the primary value of this post comes from presenting a distinct frame by which to analyze the world, one which I and probably many readers either didn’t have distinctly carved out or part of their active toolkit. I’m not sure if this particular frame will prove useful enough to make it into my active rotation, but it has the shape of something that could, in theory.
I agree; many of those concerns seem fairly dominated by the question of how to get a well-aligned ASI, either in the sense that they’d be quite difficult to solve in reasonable timeframes, or in the sense that they’d be rendered moot. (Perhaps not all of them, though even in those cases I think the correct approach(es) to tackling them start out looking remarkably similar to the sorts of work you might do about AI risk if you had a lot more time than we seem to have right now.)