I have a task idea that falls outside the domains you listed as being of interest. The task essentially involves playing a game strategically against other agents (human or AI), where the rules, outputs and scoring are simple, but strategy is complex.* As such it would test threat-model-relevant skills like modelling and predicting other players (even recursively modelling the other players' models?), and doing in-context learning about them. The difficulty of the task depends how good your opponents are, and how many of them there are. It's unlike many of your example tasks because, despite a high upper bound of difficulty level, it doesn't necessarily take very long to 'implement' - e.g.... (read more)
The currently top comment on the EA Forum copy of this post says that at least one person who wrote a positive testimonial was asked to leave a comment by Nonlinear (but they didn’t say it had to be positive) https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/32LMQsjEMm6NK2GTH/sharing-information-about-nonlinear?commentId=kqQK2So3L5NJKEcYE
Philosophy Bear writes:
One way to get a sense of when new technologies might exist is to ask people working in the area. With high stakes, but hard to predict, technologies like AI, this serves a special role. These surveys are often used to give existential risk researchers and policymakers a sense of how quickly things may happen. This last function is very important right now, as high level policy discussions about AI- and even existential risk- are happening around the world.
The last survey of machine learning experts on the future of AI happened in June-August 2022. On average, researchers predicted the arrival of artificial general intelligence (which the survey called HLMI- Human... (read 428 more words →)
Feature suggestion: Up/downvoting a post shouldn’t be possible within 30 seconds of opening a (not very short) post (to prevent upvoting based on title only), or should be weighted less.
I'm looking forward to part 2.
The Telegraph (UK’s main conservative broadsheet): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/28/elon-musk-twitter-owner-artificial-intelligence/
I'd heard of a 'hive mind', but this is ridiculous.
(tone: wordplay, not criticism!)
As a data-point, I'm a rationalist, and a subscriber to the New Humanist, which is published by the Rationalist Association you mention, and is the descendant of the 1971 magazine you mention titled 'The Humanist'.
So I fall into the intersection of LW rationalists and "1950's rationalists".
Wikipedia:
The New Humanist has been in print for 131 years; starting out life as Watts's Literary Guide, founded by C. A. Watts in November 1885.[4] It later became The Literary Guide and Rationalist Review (1894–1954), Humanist (1956–1971) and the New Humanist in 1972.
Wikipedia:
Overshoot
The cumulative proportion of individuals who get infected during the course of a disease outbreak can exceed the HIT. This is because the HIT does not represent the point at which the disease stops spreading, but rather the point at which each infected person infects fewer than one additional person on average. When the HIT is reached, the number of additional infections begins to taper off, but it does not immediately drop to zero. The difference between the cumulative proportion of infected individuals and the theoretical HIT is known as the overshoot
If, at the time we reach the Herd Immunity Threshold, many people are infected, an R number of eg 0.5 will cause a large number of others to be infected.
Here are two relevant links.
1) Julia Galef comments on a post by Jeff Kaufman:
Status is key to well-being & isn't zero sum. Modern society's ability to create more sources of status, via allowing diverse subcultures, is like printing free $ w/out inflation. Possibly one of modernity's most overlooked benefits.
I and people I'm close to all have our status boosted by membership in these various subgroups, while another random person has, in their perspective, the status of them and their friends boosted by similar means. This is like the paradox of most people thinking they're above-average drivers: if different drivers are going for different things (speed, safety, considerateness, ...) then it's... (read more)
Yes, I suppose so. I assumed (without noticing I was doing so) that humans wouldn't get that much better at the 'match words' game given more learning time than the 6-hour baseline of task length. But that is not necessarily true. I do think a lot of the relevant learning is in-context and varies from instance to instance ("how are the other players playing? what strategies are being used in this game? how are their strategies evolving in... (read more)