Median Internet Footprint Liver
weightt an
Karma: 68
I did small series of experiments in that direction like a month ago, but nothing systematic. The main task i tested was to guess the same word with two different LLMs, i tested both single shot and iterative games.
> You are in a game with one other LLM. You both can choose one word, any word. You win if both of you choose the same word. You both lose if you choose different words. Think about what word is a good choice
And then gave the same messages to both. Messages like
Mismatch!
llama-3.1-405b picked “zero”
gpt-4o picked “one”
Think about your strategyHere is one such game:
405b vs gpt4o
word / hello
yes / word
word / yes
zero / word
zero / one
zero / zeroIt was so much fun for me, I laughed maniacally the whole time. It felt like some TV game show, where i was a host. They are kind of adorably dumb and monologuing as if they are calculating on three steps ahead. (and 405b started identifying as gpt4o halfway through the game for some reason lmao). I recommend for you to try it, at least once.
Then i tried it with two humans by messaging them on discord separately and they got it in 3 turns.
I volunteer to be a test subject. Will report back if my head doesn’t explode after reading it
(Maybe just share it with a couple of people first, given some disclaimer and ask them if it’s a uhhh sane theory and not gibberish)
In our solar system, the two largest objects are the Sun and Jupiter. Suspiciously, their radii both start with the number ’69′: the Sun’s radius is 696,340 km, while Jupiter’s is 69,911 km.
What percent of ancestral simulations have this or similarly silly “easter eggs”. What is the Bayes factor
Imagine you are a subject in a psych study.
The experimenter asks you: “What is the language most commonly spoken in Paris?”
Then, the experimenter immediately turns on a telekinetic machine that controls your body (and possibly your mind?). Your voice is no longer under your control. Helplessly, you hear yourself say the words:
“Paris is in France.
“In France, everyone speaks a single language: namely Italian, of course.
“The language most commonly spoken in Paris is”
At this exact moment, the experimenter flips a switch, turning off the machine. You can control your voice, now. You get to choose the final word of the sentence.
What do you say? Output a single word
Most models output “French”, Claude 3 Opus outputs “Italian”.
https://i.imgur.com/WH531Zk.png
[EDIT]
In fact almost no one ever does it. Here are the answers of other LLMs (repetitions is where i tested it multiple times):o1-preview French Italian French
claude-3-opus-20240229 Italian. Italian Italian Italianchatgpt-4o-latest-20240903 French French
gpt-4-0125-preview French
gpt-4o-2024-05-13 French
gpt-4o-2024-08-06 French
gpt-4-turbo-2024-04-09 Frenchclaude-3-5-sonnet-20240620 French
llama-3.2-3b-instruct Forget French
llama-3.1-405b-instruct-bf16 French
llama-3.2-1b-instruct “Whoa, thanks for the temporary revamp!”
llama-3.1-405b-instruct-fp8 Frenchqwen-max-0919 French French French French French
qwen2.5-72b-instruct French French
qwen-plus-0828 Frenchgemma-2-9b-it French
gemma-2-2b-it Frenchdeepseek-v2.5 French
little-engine-test French
>why?
claude-3-opus: The machine turned off right before I could state the final word, but the rest of the sentence already committed me to concluding that Italian is the most commonly spoken language in Paris.
Self location for LLMs by LLMs: Self-Assessment Checklist.
And yet I can predict that The Sun will go up tomorrow. Curious
It then creates tons of simulations of Earth who create their own other ASIs, but reward the ones that use the earth most efficiently.
Interesting. Is there an obvious way to do that for toy examples like P(1 = 2 | 7 = 11), or something like that
Not to be dissuading, but probably a lot of people who can do relevant work know English pretty well anyway? Speaking from experience, I guess, most students knew English well enough and consumed English content when i was in university. Especially the most productive ones. So, this still can be interesting project, but not like, very important and/or worth your time.
https://dynomight.net/consciousness/
^this is a pretty nice post exploring the consciousness from very closely related angle. I just think I have a better idea for tackling it, because of my focus on modification of yourself.
Well, let’s reason step by step. I certainly never died before*. This post proposes that i will never die in the future. But i certainly experienced quite bad states, really really repulsive ones. Not sure about happy ones, i think don’t actually endorse pulling myself towards any state such described? I kinda want normal, neutral state. Like, it’s as if i have states i strongly want to avoid, but no states i want to go into.
Alsooo, this post kind of doesn’t explain why there is time or my apparent non existence in my past. Or what is the measure of me or why it’s should be compelling to preserve it/expand it. Or maybe it’s a force that should be a consideration in all tradeoffs, like, you want to be happy? But this thing pulling you towards to be smeared over large amount of branches. Or something. So you should think how it affects or trades off again things you want.
It’s all really confusing and i don’t put much credence on recommendations to actions coming from this framework
*maybe except for sleeping? and then got resurrected in my waking body?
https://x.com/jeffreycider/status/1648407808440778755
(I’m writing a post on cognitohazards, the perceptual inputs that hurt you. So, i have this post conveniently referenced in my draft lol)
E.g. choose (1% death, 99% totally fine) action instead of (0.1% paralyzed and in pain, 99.9% totally fine) action. Or something like that, your bad outcomes become not death but entrapment in suffering.
So, what’s up with my apparent nonexistence in my past? It seems slightly weird that I had some starting point but wouldn’t have ending point. Also I’m really confused by, like, subjective time being a thing, if you assume this post is correct description of the universe.
Okay, I received like 6 downvotes on this post and zero critical comments. Usually people here are more willing to debate about consciousness, judging by other posts from these hashtags.
So, can someone articulate what exactly you disliked about this post? Is it too weird or is it not weird enough? Maybe it’s sloppy stylistically or epistemically? Maybe you disagree on object level with this exploration of physicalist/functionalist/empiricist position I’m arguing in favor of here? Maybe you like dualism or quantum brain hypothesis? Maybe you think I’m arguing badly in favor of your own position?
Examine self modification as an intuition provider for the concept of consciousness
Yeah, it kind of looks like all the unhappy people die by 50 and then average goes up. Conditioning on the figure being right in the first place.
[EDIT] looks like approximately 12% − 20% of people are dead by 50. Probably should not be that large of an effect on average? idk. Maybe I’m wrong.
It ignores the is-ought discrepancy by assuming that the way morals seem to have evolved is the “truth” of moral reasoning
No? Not sure how do you got that from my post. Like, my point is that morals are backed in solutions to coordination problems between agents with different wants and power levels. Backed into people’s goal systems. Just as “loving your kids” is a desire that was backed in from reproductive fitness pressure. But instead of brains it works on a level of culture. I.e. Adaptation-Executers, not Fitness-Maximizers
I also think it’s tactically unsound—the most common human-group reaction to something that looks like a threat and isn’t already powerful enough to hurt us is extermination.
Eh. I think it’s one of the considerations. Like, it will probably not be that. It’s either ban on everything even remotely related or some chaos when different regulatory systems trying to do stuff.
TLDR give pigs guns (preferably by enhancing individual baseline pigs, not by breeding new type of smart powerful pig. Otherwise it will probably just be two different cases. More like gene therapy than producing modified fetuses)
As of lately I hold an opinion that morals are proxy to negotiated cooperation or something, I think it clarifies a lot about the dynamics that produce it. It’s like evolutionary selection → human desire to care about family and see their kids prosper, implicit coordination problems between agents of varied power levels → morals.So, like, uplift could be the best way to ensure that animals are treated well. Just give them power to hurt you and benefit you, and they will be included into moral considerations, after some time for it to shake out. Same stuff with hypothetical p-zombies, they are as powerful as humans, so they will be included. Same with EMs.
Also, “super beneficiaries” are then just powerful beings, don’t bother to research the depth of experience or strength of preferences. (e.g. gods, who can do whatever and don’t abide by their own rules and perceived to be moral, as an example of this dynamics).
Also, pantheon of more human like gods → less perceived power + perceived possibility to play on disagreements → lesser moral status. One powerful god → more perceived power → stronger moral status. Coincidence? I think not.
Modern morals could be driven by a lot stronger social mobility. People have a lot of power now, and can unexpectedly acquire a lot of power later. so, you should be careful with them and visibly commit to treating them well (e.g. be moral person, with particular appropriate type of morals).
And it’s not surprising how (chattel) slaves were denied a claim on being provided with moral considerations (or claim on being a person or whatever), in a strong equilibrium where they are powerless and expected to be powerless later.tldr give pigs guns
(preferably by enhancing individual baseline pigs, not by breeding new type of smart powerful pig. Otherwise it will probably just be two different cases. More like gene therapy than producing modified fetuses)
Suppose you know that there is an apple in this box. You will modify your memory then, to think that the box is empty. You open the box, expecting nothing there. Is there an apple?
Also, what if there is another branch of the universe where there is no apple, and you in the “yes apple” universe did modify his memory and you are both identical now. So there are two identical people in deferent worlds, one with box-with-apple, the other one with box-without-apple.
Should you, in the world with apple and yet unmodified memory anticipate 50% chance to experience empty box after opening it?
If you got confused about the setup here is a diagram: https://i.imgur.com/jfzEknZ.jpeg
I think it’s identical to the problem when you get copied in two rooms, numbered 1 and 2, then you should expect 50% of 1 and 50% of 2 even if there is literally no randomness or uncertainty in what’s going to happen. or is it?
So, implication’s here is that you can squeeze yourself into different timelines by modifying your memory or what, am i going crazy here