I don't see it as sneering at all.

I'm not sure what you mean by "senpai noticed me" but I think it is absolutely critical, as AI becomes more familiar to hoi polloi, that prominent newspapers report on AI existential risk.

The fact that he even mentions EY as the one who started the whole thing warms my EY-fangirl heart - a lot of stuff on AI risk does not mention him.

I also have no idea what you mean about Clippy - how is it misunderstood? I think it's an excellent way to explain.

Would you prefer this?

https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a33gj/ai-controlled-drone-goes-rogue-kills-human-operator-in-usaf-simulated-test

I like Metz. I'd rather have EY, but that won't happen.

This exactly. Having the Grey Lady report about AI risk is a huge step forward and probably decreased the chance of us dying by at least a little.

This is completely false, as well as irrelevant.

• he did not "doxx" Scott. He was going to reveal Scott's full name in a news article about him without permission, which is not by any means doxxing, it's news reporting. News is important and news has a right to reveal the full names of public figures.

• this didn't happen, because Scott got the NYT to wait until he was ready before doing so.

• the article on rationalism isn't a "hit piece" even if it contains some things you don't like. I thought it was fair and balanced.

• none of this is relevant, and it's silly to hold a grudge against a reporter for an article you don't like from years ago when what's more important is this current article about AI risk.

Why do you think an LLM could become superhuman at crafting business strategies or negotiating? Or even writing code? I don't believe this is possible.

oh wow, thanks!

She didn't get the 5D thing - it's not that the messengers live in five dimensions, they were just sending two-dimensional pictures of a three-dimensional world.

LLMs' answers on factual questions are not trustworthy; they are often hallucinatory.

Also, I was obviously asking you for your views, since you wrote the comment.

Sorry, 2007 was a typo. I'm not sure how to interpret the ironic comment about asking an LLM, though.

OTOH, if you sent back Attention is all you need

What is so great about that 2007 paper?

People didn't necessarily have a use for all the extra compute

Can you please explain the bizarre use of the word "compute" here? Is this a typo? "compute" is a verb. The noun form would be "computing" or "computing power."

Yudkowsky makes a few major mistakes that are clearly visible now, like being dismissive of dumb, scaled, connectionist architectures

I don't think that's a mistake at all. Sure, they've given us impressive commercial products, but no progress towards AGI, so the dismissiveness is completely justified.