When thinking about deontology and consequentialism in application, it is useful to me to rate morality of actions based on intention, execution, and outcome. (Some cells are "na" as they are not really logical in real world scenarios.)

In reality, to me, it seems executed "some" intention matters (though I am not sure how much) the most when doing something bad, and executed to the best ability matters the most when doing something good.

It also seems useful to me, when we try to learn about applications of philosophy from law. (I am not an expert though in neither philosophy nor law, so these may contain errors.)

1. ^{^}

   Possible to collaborate when there is enough time.

If you look into a bit more history on social justice/equality problems, you would see we have actually made many many progress (https://gcdd.org/images/Reports/us-social-movements-web-timeline.pdf), but not enough as the bar was so low. These also have made changes in our law. Before 1879, women cannot be lawyers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women_lawyers_in_the_United_States). On war, I don't have too much knowledge myself, so I will refrain from commenting for now. It is also my belief that we should not stop at attempt, but attempt is the first step (necessary but not sufficient), and they have pushed to real changes as history shown, but it will have to take piles of piles of work, before a significant change. Just because something is very hard to do, does not mean we should stop, nor there will not be a way (just like ensuring there is humanity in the future.) For example, we should not give up on helping people during war nor try to reduce wars in the first place, and we should not give up on preventing women being raped. In my opinion, this is in a way ensuring there is future, as human may very well be destroyed by other humans, or by mistakes by ourselves. (That's also why in the AI safety case, governance is so important so that we consider the human piece.)

As you mentioned political party - it is interesting to see surveys happening here; a side track - I believe general equality problems such as "women can go to school", is not dependent on political party. And something like "police should not kill a black person randomly" should not be supported just by blacks, but also other races (I am not black). 

Thanks for the background otherwise. 

On the side - could you elaborate why you think "relu better than sigmoid" is a "weird trick", if that is implied by this question?

The reason that I thought to be commonly agreed is that it helps with the vanishing gradient problem (this could be shown from the graphs).

I personally agree with your reflection on suffering risks (including factory farming, systemic injustices, and wars) and the approach to donating to different cause areas. My (maybe unpopular under "prioritizing only 1" type of mindset) thought is: maybe we should avoid prioritizing only one single area (especially collectively), but recognize that in reality there are always multiple issues we need to fight about/solve. Personally we could focus professionally on one issue, and volunteer for/donate to another cause area, depending on our knowledge, interests, and ability; additionally, we could donate to multiple cause areas. Meanwhile, a big step is to be aware of and open our ears to the various issues we may be facing as a society, and that will (I hope) translate into multiple type of actions. After all some of these suffering risks involve human actions, and each of us doing something differently could help with reducing these suffering risks in both short and long term. But there are also many things that I do not know how to best balance as well.

A side note - I also hope you are not very very sad by thinking of "missing crucial considerations" (but also appreciate that you are trying to gather more information and learn more quickly; we all should do more of this too)! The key to me might be an open mind and the ability to consider different aspects of things; hopefully we will be on the path towards something "more complete". Proactively, one approach I often try to do is talking to people who are passionate in different areas, who are different from me, and understand more from there. Also, I sometimes refer to https://www.un.org/en/global-issues for some ideas.

Yeah that makes sense; the knowledge should still be there, just need to re-shift the distribution "back"

Haven't looked too closely at this, but my initial two thoughts:

1. child consent is tricky.
2. likely many are foreign children, which may or may not be in the 75 million statistic

It is good to think critically, but I think it would be beneficial to present more evidence before making the claim or conclusion

This is very interesting, and thanks for sharing. 

• One thing that jumps out at me is they used an instruction format to prompt base models, which isn't typically the way to evaluate base models. It should be reformatted to a completion type of task. If this is redone, I wonder if the performance of the base model will also increase, and maybe that could isolate the effect further to just RLHF.
• I wonder if this has anything to do with also the number of datasets added on by RLHF (assuming a model go through supervised/instruction finetuning first, and then RLHF), besides the algorithm themselves.
• Another good model to test on is https://huggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3 which only has instruction finetuning it seems as well.

The author seems to say that they figured it out at the end of the article, and I am excited to see their exploration in the next post.

I find it useful sometimes to think about "how to differentiate this term" when defining a term. In this case, in my mind it would be thinking about "reasoning", vs "general reasoning" vs "generalization".

• Reasoning: narrower than general reasoning, probably would be your first two bullet points combined in my opinion
• Generalization: even more general than general reasoning (does not need to be focused on reasoning). Seems could be the last two bullet points you have, particularly the third
• General reasoning (this is not fully thought through): Now that we talked about "reasoning" and "generalization", I see two types of definition
  • 1. A bit closer to "reasoning". first two of your bullet points, plus in multiple domains/multiple ways, but not necessarily unseen domains. In other simpler words, "reasoning in multiple domains and ways".
  • 2. A bit closer to "general" (my guess is this is closer to what you intended to have?): generalization ability, but focused on reasoning.

In my observation (trying to avoid I think!), "I think" is intended to (or actually should have been used to) point out perspective differences (which helps to lead to more accurate conclusions, including collaborative and effective communication), rather than confidence. In the latter case of misuse, it would be good if people clarify "this term is about confidence, not perspective in my sentence".