All of jow's Comments + Replies

jow61

You may be interested in inteins, which are protein domains that spontaneously excise themselves from the host protein (the N and C terminal pieces of the host are left stitched together).

I think minimal inteins are usually 100-200 amino acids, and require quite specific residues positioned appropriately, so will not meaningfully affect the 20^100 number here. Nevertheless, it is an existence proof of the kind of activity you have in mind.

jow30

The option to buy SPY at $855 in January 2027 is going for $1.80 today, because most people don’t expect the price to get that high. But if in fact SPY increases in the intervening time by 50% from its present value ($582), as stipulated by kairos, then the option will ultimately be worth 1.5*582 - 855 ~ $18. I think this is where the 12x figure is coming from.

3Pablo
Thanks—I understand now. I thought $855 was the price SPY would reach if the current price increased by 50%. 
jow30

Has anyone thought about Kremer/Jones-like economic growth models (where larger populations generate more ideas, leading to superexponential growth) but where some ideas are bad? I think there’s an interesting, loose analogy between these growth models and a model of the "tug of war" between passengers and drivers in cancer. In the absence of deleterious mutations the tumor in this model grows superexponentially. The fact that fixation of a driver makes the whole population grow better is a bit like the non-rival nature of ideas. But the growth models seem... (read more)

4gwern
It seems like the growth models already take much of that into account, the same way that they do crime or war: if new technologies create new crime (which of course they often do), then that simply slightly offsets the benefits of those technologies, and it is the net benefit which shows up in the long-term growth rather than some 'pure' benefit free of any drawbacks. And likewise for technologies as a whole: if you're inventing some unknown grabbag of technologies each time-period, then it's the net of all the good ideas being offset slightly by the bad ones that is getting measured or driving the growth in the next time-period etc. It would be like measuring the growth of an actual tumor: whatever growth you observe, well, that must be the net growth after the defectors inside the tumor have done their worst, by definition. So you'd have to invoke some sort of non-constant or non-proportionality: "yes, the bad ideas are only an offset, up until some threshold value like 'inventing nuclear bombs'" (like Bostrom's 'black balls'). But then your results seems dangerously circular: if you assume some fat tail payoff from the bad ideas after a certain threshold or increasingly with time, you are building in your conclusions like "we should halt all technological progress forever".
jow96

Note that addition to any achiral antibiotics, we could also use the mirror image versions of any chiral antibiotic. Even more powerful, we could use mirror image versions of toxins to all life (e.g. nucleoside analogs) that are normally hard to use because we share chirality with regular bacteria

3Ulrik Horn
To both of you: My knowledge of microbiology and biochemistry is almost non-existent. So I actually very much welcome pushback on the threat itself. I also feel that I should grasp the science behind mirror bacteria at least on some very preliminary level. That said, I always want to understand things "completely" so I started looking for specific places in the immune system where reversed chirality would mess things up and started with the TLR4 receptor and could not conclude that well that chirality would play a role for 2 reasons: 1 - It seems the TLR4 could bind to quite a variety of "form factors" so it is unclear why it would be much less effective for mirror pathogens 2 - I then looked at TLR2 and am hoping to learn from someone expert in this why the binding of NAM (I hope I got that right) and the attached lipid is likely to fail with mirror bacteria. This avenue of study led me to discover 2 things that some bacteria actually uses reverse chirality amino acids in their cell walls exactly to be resistant to degradation, and, that the TLR structures seem to actually flex in space, meaning they have at least some flexibility in the spatial arrangement of whatever they seek to recognize. The evidence I am now chasing is somewhere scientists actually swapped some lipid or sugar for its mirror equivalent and then looked at the resulting binding or failure to bind to e.g. a TLR. That said, there is a lot of intellectual power behind that report and it has been peer reviewed so I would be surprised if I find something that invalidates it. And I think the main message is that "we don't know, but it does not look promising" and the authors state that they would love for people to engage with their assertions.
jow30

Is that TinyStories model a super-wide attention-only transformer (the topic of the mechanistic interp work and Buck’s post you cite). I tried to figure it out briefly and couldn’t tell, but I bet it isn’t, and instead has extra stuff like an MLP block.

Regardless, in my view it would be a big advance to really understand how the TinyStories models work. Maybe they are “a bunch of heuristics” but maybe that’s all GPT-4, and our own minds, are as well…

1StefanHex
That model has an Attention and MLP block (GPT2-style model with 1 layer but a bit wider, 21M params). I changed my mind over the course of this morning. TheTinyStories models' language isn't that bad, and I think it'd be a decent research project to try to fully understand one of these. I've been playing around with the models this morning, quotes from the 1-layer model: and This feels like the kind of inconsistency I expect from a model that has only one layer. It can recall that the story was about flying and stuff, and the names, but it feels a bit like the model doesn't remember what it said a paragraph before. 2-layer model: and I think if we can fully understand (in the Python code sense, probably with a bunch of lookup tables) how these models work this will give us some insight into where we're at with interpretability. Do the explanations feel sufficiently compressed? Does it feel like there's a simpler explanation that the code & tables we've written? Edit: Specifically I'm thinking of * Train SAEs on all layers * Use this for Attention QK circuits (and transform OV circuit into SAE basis, or Transcoder basis) * Use Transcoders for MLPs (Transcoders vs SAEs are somewhat redundant / different approaches, figure out how to connect everything together)
jow21

Just want to flag that oseltamivir is not a vaccine, it is an antiviral drug.

1MathiasKB
thanks for pointing that out, I've added a note in the description
jow30

I think in your first paragraph, you may be referring to: https://mason.gmu.edu/~gjonesb/IQandNationalProductivity.pdf

Answer by jow104

I believe the key issue here is with (i). Standard theories where the universe is infinitely large also suppose it was infinitely large at the moment of the big bang. 

The discussion here may be helpful.

3amarai
Thanks! The StackExchange discussion is actually very good!
jow20

I think the basic answer is that your question “why does statistical mechanics actually work?”, actually remains unresolved. There are a number of distinct approaches to the foundations of the subject, and none is completely satisfactory.

This review (Uffink 2006), might be of interest, especially the introduction.

Personally, I have never found maximum entropy approaches very satisfying. 

An alternative approach, pursued in a lot of the literature on this topic, is to seek a mathematical reason (e.g. in the Hamiltonian dynamics of typical systems statis... (read more)

1happyfellow
It's good to know that I'm not going crazy thinking that everyone else sees the obvious reason why statistical mechanics works while I don't but it's a bit disappointing, I have to say. Thanks for the link to the reference, the introduction was great and I'll dig more into it. If you have any ways to find more work done in this area (keywords, authors, specific university departments) I would be grateful if you could share them!
jow50

If the spike looks a lot like one that was experimentally generated to evade antibody responses, what are the odds that Omicron was created through such experiments?

The research in question seems to be described in this Nature paper, where the authors say (emphasis mine):

To more precisely map the targets of polyclonal neutralizing antibodies in individuals who are convalescent, we passaged a recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (rVSV)/SARS-CoV-2 chimeric virus1,5 in the presence of each of the RU27 plasmas for up to six passages. rVSV/SARS-CoV-2 mimics t

... (read more)
3ChristianKl
To me the most remarkable thing about the Nature paper is that the word biosafety or BSL doesn't appear in it. Saying they obviated the need of safety concerns and then doing the experiments without any biosafety protocols seems crazy.
jow120

Following your link and looking for the original source, I found that actually Derek Lowe appears not to say that in his blog post, as least not anymore (he made an edit there---though it is not clear that it ever mentioned the S2 subunit).

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/antibody-dependent-enhancement-and-coronavirus-vaccines

Specifically, it was the vaccines that targeted the N (nucleoprotein) antigen of the coronavirus that had ADE problems, while the ones that targeted the S (Spike) protein did not. Update: this isn't accurate. There was troubl

... (read more)
3CraigMichael
It looks liken you’re right. Thanks for checking here.
jow40

I believe the mRNA vaccines are based on the full-length spike protein, not just the S2 subunit. The S1 subunit includes the critical receptor binding domain, which is a common target of neutralizing antibodies induced by vaccination, and is the location of many further mutations seen in Omicron.

Edit:  To be clear, this fact doesn't invalidate your point about the new mutations looking possibly quite bad for vaccine efficacy. 

8CraigMichael
I’m pretty certain on this point as it was related to discussion a few months ago about antibody dependent enhancement. Vaccines targeted the s2 subunit as it was thought to be the least likely to create ADE and also the slowest to mutate. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5yarKt4MqRjv72mYv/covid-8-26-full-vaccine-approval?commentId=Dwuyzup535CaGEJ4b As quoted in that post:
jow200

I appreciate "ifeff" due to its continuity with "iff". However, just to add, I've always had a soft spot for the use of just when to mean "if and only if". It is short and elegant and conveys approximately the right meaning even when it isn't recognized as a term of art.

jow140

Above you write: “ RNA can obviously enter the cell nucleus (that's RNA function). ”

but I believe this is not true.

Normally, mRNA is produced in the nucleus and then is transported out of the nucleus. It is then turned into protein by ribosomes, which reside outside the nucleus.

My understanding is that mRNA from mRNA vaccines is not thought to enter the cell nucleus—and certainly this is not necessary for their function.

jow60

I’m not sure the fibrosis due to COVID-19 is really the same thing as the article on Wikipedia you link to. Pulmonary fibrosis that arises with autoimmune cause, or no apparent cause, may be more likely to be progressive than that due to COVID-19.

Damage from COVID-19 could still be disabling, of course, even if not progressive.

See here where this matter is discussed: https://www.newswise.com/coronavirus/fibrosis-or-pulmonary-fibrosis-covid-19-coverage-leads-to-confusion/?article_id=730976

jow*30

Regarding your premodern city size question---I don't see a real constraint emerging from transportation speed. Here's my reasoning using your figures: a city with N people needs N * 5000 sq. meters of land to supply it with food (assume the land can sustain production indefinitely). If this land is a disk around the city the furthest the food has to come is sqrt(N) * 40 meters. If the food is carried at 10 miles a day, the longest supply lines require transporting food for only ~2-3 days for a city of a million, or ~25 days for a city of a 100 m... (read more)

jow10

This argument has made me start seriously reconsidering my generally positive view of cryonics. Does anyone have a convincing refutation?

The best I can come up with is that if resuscitation is likely to happen soon, we can predict the values of the society we'll wake up in, especially if recovery becomes possible before more potentially "value disrupting" technologies like uploading and AI are developed. But I don't find this too convincing.

1topynate
My attempt at a reply turned into an essay, which I've posted here.