Wiki Contributions

Comments

I quit YouTube a few years ago and it was probably the single best decision I've ever made.

However I also found that I naturally substitute it with something else. For example, I subsequently became addictived to Reddit. I quit Reddit and substituted for Hackernews and LessWrong. When I quit those I substituted for checking Slack, Email and Discord.

Thankfully being addicted to Slack does seem to be substantially less harmful than YouTube.

I've found the app OneSec very useful for reducing addictions. It's an app blocker that doesn't actually block, it just delays you opening the page, so you're much less likely to delete it in a moment of weakness.

Or is that sentence meant to indicate that an instance running after training might figure out how to hack the computer running it so it can actually change it's own weights?

I was thinking of a scenario where OpenAI deliberately gives it access to its own weights to see if it can self improve.

I agree that it would be more like to just speed up normal ML research.

While I want people to support PauseAI

the small movement that PauseAI builds now will be the foundation which bootstraps this larger movement in the future

Is one of the main points of my post. If you support PauseAI today you may unleash a force which you cannot control tomorrow.

If you want to be healthier, we know ways you can change your diet that will help: Increase your overall diet “quality”. Eat lots of fruits and vegetables. Avoid processed food. Especially avoid processed meats. Eat food with low caloric density. Avoid added sugar. Avoid alcohol. Avoid processed food.

I'm confused - why are you so confident that we should avoid processed food. Isn't the whole point of your post that we don't know whether processed oil is bad for you? Where's the overwhelming evidence that processed food in general is bad?

Reconstruction loss is the CE loss of the patched model

If this is accurate then I agree that this is not the same as "the KL Divergence between the normal model and the model when you patch in the reconstructed activations". But Fengyuan described reconstruction score as: 

measures how replacing activations changes the total loss of the model

which I still claim is equivalent.

I think just showing  would be better than reconstruction score metric because  is very noisy.

there is a validation metric called reconstruction score that measures how replacing activations change the total loss of the model

That's equivalent to the KL metric. Would be good to include as I think it's the most important metric of performance.

Patch loss is different to L2. It's the KL Divergence between the normal model and the model when you patch in the reconstructed activations at some layer.

It would be good to benchmark the normalized and baseline SAEs using the standard metrics of patch loss and L0.

Load More