I probably agree with “less conflict-y than quitting with a strong public statement”. But “strong public statement” is a separate factor. Is “refusing to work with a strong public statement” usually not an option?
Tapatakt
Karma: 1,315
people are seeing AI safety people get in public loud conflict with the labs by quitting, are having a knee-jerk conflict-averse reaction, and instinctively supporting anything that might defuse that immediate conflict
Isn’t refusing to work more… conflict-y then just leaving?
Remember, kids, when someone promises “a two-week pause in reinforcement learning (RL) training on our latest models intended for deployment” the last part makes the whole statement irrelevant.
EDIT: Oh, wait, it is very different in the original. I got the meaning from Russian version and only copied the words from original, but apparently it was machine translated without editing. OK, if only English version can count as commitments they are technically clear.
To be precise: the most natural meaning of “В частности, мы на две недели приостановили обучение с подкреплением (RL) наших новейших моделей, предназначенных для развёртывания” is “we just did it for the next two future weeks”, not “we did it back then for the two weeks that already passed”.
If that’s a case it’s a wonderful way to work around pause commitments! You promise “a two-week pause in reinforcement learning (RL) training on our latest models intended for deployment”, then you fork your model, say that this fork isn’t intended for deployment, and continue training. And hey, in the future you can change your mind and deploy it after all!
I guess it’s because polyamory is boring.
I’m almost sure that in the current society almost all people for whom polyamory is net negative are monogamous. And almost all people for whom monogamy is net negative are also monogamous.
Isn’t it a general argument against having several close relationships of any kind, not only romantic/sexual?
I think ensuring that your explicit commitments don’t conflict with each other and spending some effort to minimize the risk that your implicit commitments will conflict with each other and with explicit ones is not a requirement of polyamory specifically, more like the requirement of being a decent person.
Also, you focus on cases where mono choice works in favor of “stick and improve” and kinda ignore the cases where it works in favor of “start an affair”, which happens quite often.
I don’t see how polyamory contradicts “lifelong commitment to stay together permanently”. I mean, more than monogamy, this lifelong commitment isn’t credible in any case.
Most people just dip their toes into poly, feel intense jealousy or experience jealousy from their partner, then go back to monogamy. Or they try for a bit, continue to feel like shit, then go back to mono.
You just don’t hear about them as much because they don’t write about it.So do you say most people who try polyamory don’t actually try to reduce their jealousy? But then it’s not an argument for the hypothesis that most people can’t do it.
Also, btw, it seems like an argument for “most people should try polyamory just in case, you will most likely return to monogamy quickly without losing much if it’s not for you, but the potential upside is great”.
Imagine every time you started or ended a relationship, you had to establish every social norm from scratch.
Is it OK for partner to have sex with your best friend?
Is it OK to kiss somebody else in front of your partner?
What about them having sex in your bed when you’re out of town?
Is it OK to have sex with another person then tell your partner the details?
Is your partner allowed to bring his lover to Christmas with your family? What about your kid’s birthdays?
If your partner’s lover is having a mental health breakdown, is it OK for your partner to go comfort her when it’s your day with him?
The list is endless, and so will your arguments about it.This is suprprising. Like, do you mean most people don’t really talk about how their relationship works? In my experience polyamory-related topics are very small part of this “endless list” in a serious relationship.
I think this post is very underrated. I often think about connections and differences between “CDT with anthropic uncertainty about ghosts” and FDT/UDT. They don’t seem to actually be equal, but I think there is something interesting there.
In my world the typical time is more like 5 weeks or months :)
I currently think this is too de-anonymizing
Ok. But no need to show exact information if the point is to distinguish karma +950 −1000 from karma +0 −50.
Maybe display approximate ranges of upvotes/downvotes? Kinda like creature quantities in HoMM. “Swarm (250-499) liked, horde (50-99) disliked”.
Or even just show what fraction of overall karma was in other direction rounded to 10% (or 20%, or even 25%).
introduces some kind of weird social dynamics that I think would be on the margin worse
Would be moderately interested in elaboration.
But then someone can screenshot the call to violence with the karmameter, which is good PR.
I think “there are bad people in our community, but the overwhelming majority of us don’t like what they say” isn’t usually used as PR. I suspect it’s because it wouldn’t actually work.
Maybe I am failing to parse this, but I much prefer for calls to violence in other communities towards me to also face clear pushback, and to be public (since then I can orient to them and take precautions), so I don’t really see the prisoner’s dilemma here. Indeed people threatened by the potential violence are the people who most would like to know about the threat!
I’m not sure about this in any direction. But it seemed missing from Samin’s point of view.
Thanks for starting the discussion!
My thoughts:
“Displaying the number of or karma from upvotes or downvotes on hover instead of just the absolute number of votes” is good idea anyway
Additional for allowing:
Slippery slope into censorship.
Litany of Tarski. If violence works, etc.
Additional against allowing:
Someone can screenshot the call to violence without karmameter, bad PR.
Epistemic Prisoner’s Dilemma. We would want people who think something like “If no one builds it, everyone dies” to forbid calls to violence against pro-pause side in their communities.
Continuation of this trend already requires some form of TAI. The method of how AI systems generate value has to radically change. Otherwise who would pay so much money for them?
It’s kinda like making similar argument about parameter numbers and saying “and if it’s more than … parameters, it means Earth surface is all computronium, so obviously AGI was achieved”.
I already mostly believe in the logical implication “no AGI → break of trends”, so “no break of trends → AGI” is not an additional argument.
I vibecoded a plugin, tested with Brave.
Though of course this particular example does not prove that the game of Catan, in particular, has situations like this.
A has 7 points, “Year of Plenty” card, 1 brick and 3 wood. A can get Longest Road either by building 4 roads or by breaking B’s road with a settlement, but to build this settlement A has to first build one road.
B has 9 points including 2 points from Longest Road and enough resources so they can build a settlement in one turn unless 7 is rolled.
C has 9 points, 1 brick and can maybe win in one turn depending on dice rolls.
A’s turn.
A: “I have Road Builder card, 3 wood, but only 1 brick. C, can you sell me brick for wood? I will build 4 roads, get Longest Road, B will not win in their turn and then we both have a chance.”
C: “I don’t really need wood, but I see that B probably wins if we don’t do it, so OK.”
A plays “Year of Plenty”, takes grain and wool, builds one road and a settlement, wins the game.
I would add 6, but not 9.
The list of frontpage posts and all opened posts appear in fake windows that can be drag-dropped and can obscure each other.
I think it’s some combination of the straw that breaks camel’s back, good media strategy and luck. So I by default wouldn’t expect a significant fraction of this effect if several more researchers quit. But they still should quit or, maybe, refuse to work on capabilities!