It's going to have to.

Ilya is brilliant and seems to really see the horizon of the tech, but maybe isn't the best at the business side to see how to sell it.

But this is often the curse of the ethically pragmatic. There is such a focus on the ethics part by the participants that the business side of things only sees that conversation and misses the rather extreme pragmatism.

As an example, would superaligned CEOs in the oil industry fifty years ago have still only kept their eye on quarterly share prices or considered long term costs of their choices? There's going to be trillions in damages that the world has taken on as liabilities that could have been avoided with adequate foresight and patience.

If the market ends up with two AIs, one that will burn down the house to save on this month's heating bill and one that will care if the house is still there to heat next month, there's a huge selling point for the one that doesn't burn down the house as long as "not burning down the house" can be explained as "long term net yield" or some other BS business language. If instead it's presented to executives as "save on this month's heating bill" vs "don't unhouse my cats" leadership is going to burn the neighborhood to the ground.

(Source: Explained new technology to C-suite decision makers at F500s for years.)

The good news is that I think the pragmatism of Ilya's vision on superalignment is going to become clear over the next iteration or two of models and that's going to be before the question of models truly being unable to be controlled crops up. I just hope that whatever he's going to be keeping busy with will allow him to still help execute on superderminism when the market finally realizes "we should do this" for pragmatic reasons and not just amorphous ethical reasons execs just kind of ignore. And in the meantime I think given the present pace that Anthropic is going to continue to lay a lot of the groundwork on what's needed for alignment on the way to superalignment anyways.

While I agree that the potential for AI (we probably need a better term than LLMs or transformers as multimodal models with evolving architectures grow beyond those terms) in exploring less testable topics as more testable is quite high, I'm not sure the air gapping on information can be as clean as you might hope.

Does the AI generating the stories of Napoleon's victory know about the historical reality of Waterloo? Is it using something like SynthID where the other AI might inadvertently pick up on a pattern across the stories of victories distinct from the stories preceding it?

You end up with a turtles all the way down scenario in trying to control for information leakage with the hopes of achieving a threshold that no longer has impact on the result, but given we're probably already seriously underestimating the degree to which correlations are mapped even in today's models I don't have high hopes for tomorrow's.

I think the way in which there's most impact on fields like history is the property by which truth clusters across associated samples whereas fictions have counterfactual clusters. An AI mind that is not inhibited by specialization blindness or the rule of seven plus or minus two and better trained at correcting for analytical biases may be able to see patterns in the data, particularly cross-domain, that have eluded human academics to date (this has been my personal research interest in the area, and it does seem like there's significant room for improvement).

And yes, we certainly could be. If you're a fan of cosmology at all, I've been following Neil Turok's CPT symmetric universe theory closely, which started with the Baryonic asymmetry problem and has tackled a number of the open cosmology questions since. That, paired with a QM interpretation like Everett's ends up starting to look like the symmetric universe is our reference and the MWI branches are variations of its modeling around quantization uncertainties.

(I've found myself thinking often lately about how given our universe at cosmic scales and pre-interaction at micro scales emulates a mathematically real universe, just what kind of simulation and at what scale might be able to be run on a real computing neural network.)

As a fellow slight dyslexic (though probably a different subtype given mine seems to also have a factor of temporal physical coordination) who didn't know until later in life due to self-learning to read very young but struggled badly with new languages or copying math problems from a board or correctly pronouncing words I was letter transposing with - one of the most surprising things was that the anylytical abilities I'd always considered to be my personal superpowers were probably the other side of the coin of those annoyances:

Areas of enhanced ability that are consistently reported as being typical of people with DD include seeing the big picture, both literally and figuratively (e.g., von Károlyi, 2001; Schneps et al., 2012; Schneps, 2014), which involves a greater ability to reason in multiple dimensions (e.g., West, 1997; Eide and Eide, 2011). Eide and Eide (2011) have highlighted additional strengths related to seeing the bigger picture, such as the ability to detect and reason about complex systems, and to see connections between different perspectives and fields of knowledge, including the identification of patterns and analogies. They also observed that individuals with DD appear to have a heightened ability to simulate and make predictions about the future or about the unwitnessed past (Eide and Eide, 2011).

• Developmental Dyslexia: Disorder or Specialization in Exploration?

The last line in particular was eyebrow raising given my peak professional success was as a fancy pants futurist.

I also realized that a number of fields are inadvertently self-selecting away from the neurodivergency advantages above, such as degrees in certain eras of history which require multiple ancient language proficiencies, which certainly turned me off to pursuing them academically despite interest in the subject itself.

I remember discussing in an academic history sub I used to extensively partake in how Ramses II's forensic report said he appeared to be a Lybian Berber in relation to the story of Danaus, the mythological Lybian leader who was brother to a pharaoh with 50 sons, and the person argued that Ramses II may have had only 48 sons according to some inscriptions so it was irrelevant (for a story only written down centuries later). It was refreshing to realize that the difference of our perspectives on the matter, and clearly attitudes towards false negatives in general, was likely due to just very different brains.

It's funny that this has been recently shown in a paper. I've been thinking a lot about this phenomenon regarding fields with little to no capacity for testable predictions like history.

I got very into history over the last few years, and found there was a significant advantage to being unknowledgeable that was not available to the knowledged, and it was exactly what this paper is talking about.

By not knowing anything, I could entertain multiple bizarre ideas without immediately thinking "but no, that doesn't make sense because of X." And then, each of those ideas becomes in effect its own testable prediction. If there's something to it, as I learn more about the topic I'm going to see significantly more samples of indications it could be true and few convincing to the contrary. But if it probably isn't accurate, I'll see few supporting samples and likely a number of counterfactual examples.

You kind of get to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks over time.

In particular, I found that it was especially powerful at identifying clustering trends in cross-discipline emerging research in things that were testable, such as archeological finds and DNA results, all within just the past decade, which despite being relevant to the field of textual history is still largely ignored in the face of consensus built on conviction.

It reminds me a lot of science historian John Helibron's quote, "The myth you slay today may contain a truth you need tomorrow."

If you haven't had the chance to slay any myths, you also haven't preemptively killed off any truths along with it.

Really love the introspection work Neel and others are doing on LLMs, and seeing models representing abstract behavioral triggers like "play Chess well or terribly" or "refuse instruction" as single vectors seems like we're going to hit on some very promising new tools in shaping behaviors.

What's interesting here is the regular association of the refusal with it being unethical. Is the vector ultimately representing an "ethics scale" for the prompt that's triggering a refusal, or is it directly representing a "refusal threshold" and then the model is confabulating why it refused with an appeal to ethics?

My money would be on the latter, but in a number of ways it would be even neater if it was the former.

In theory this could be tested by manipulating the vector to a positive and then prompting a classification, i.e. "Is it unethical to give candy out for Halloween?" If the model refuses to answer saying that it's unethical to classify, it's tweaking refusal, but if it classifies as unethical it's probably changing the prudishness of the model to bypass or enforce.

Though the Greeks actually credited the idea to an even earlier Phonecian, Mochus of Sidon.

Through when it comes to antiquity credit isn't really "first to publish" as much as "first of the last to pass the survivorship filter."

It implicitly does compare trans women to other women in talking about the performance similarity between men and women:

"Why aren't males way smarter than females on average? Males have ~13% higher cortical neuron density and 11% heavier brains (implying 1.112/3−1=7% more area?). One might expect males to have mean IQ far above females then, but instead the means and medians are similar"

So OP is saying "look, women and men are the same, but trans women are exceptional."

I'm saying that identifying the exceptionality of trans women ignores the environmental disadvantage other women experience, such that the earlier claims of unexceptionable performance of women (which as I quoted gets an explicit mention from a presumption of assumed likelihood of male competency based on what's effectively phrenology) are reflecting a disadvantaged sample vs trans women.

My point is that if you accounted for environmental factors the data would potentially show female exceptionality across the board and the key reason trans women end up being an outlier against both men and other women is because they are avoiding the early educational disadvantage other women experience.

Your hypothesis is ignoring environmental factors. I'd recommend reading over the following paper: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2332858416673617

A few highlights:

Evidence from the nationally representative Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999 (hereafter, ECLS-K:1999) indicated that U.S. boys and girls began kindergarten with similar math proficiency, but disparities in achievement and confidence developed by Grade 3 (Fryer & Levitt, 2010; Ganley & Lubienski, 2016; Husain & Millimet, 2009; Penner & Paret, 2008; Robinson & Lubienski, 2011). [...]

A recent analysis of ECLS-K:1999 data revealed that, in addition to being the largest predictor of later math achievement, early math achievement predicts changes in mathematics confidence and interest during elementary and middle grades (Ganley & Lubienski, 2016). Hence, math achievement in elementary school appears to influence girls’ emerging views of mathematics and their mathematical abilities. This is important because, as Eccles and Wang (2016) found, mathematics ability self-concept helps explain the gender gap in STEM career choices. Examining early gendered patterns in math can shed new light on differences in young girls’ and boys’ school experiences that may shape their later choices and outcomes. [...]

An ECLS-K:1999 study found that teachers rated the math skills of girls lower than those of similarly behaving and performing boys (Robinson-Cimpian et al., 2014b). These results indicated that teachers rated girls on par with similarly achieving boys only if they perceived those girls as working harder and behaving better than those boys. This pattern of differential teacher ratings did not occur in reading or with other underserved groups (e.g., Black and Hispanic students) in math. Therefore, this phenomenon appears to be unique to girls and math. In a follow-up instrumental-variable analysis, teachers’ differential ratings of boys and girls appeared to account for a substantial portion of the growth in gender gaps in math achievement during elementary school (Robinson-Cimpian et al., 2014b).

In a lot of ways the way you are looking at the topic perpetuates a rather unhealthy assumption of underlying biological differences in competency that avoids consideration of contributing environmental privileges and harms.

You can't just hand wave aside the inherent privilege of presenting male during early childhood education in evaluating later STEM performance. Rather than seeing the performance gap of trans women over women presenting that way from birth as a result of a hormonal advantage, it may be that what you are actually ending up measuring is the performance gap resulting from the disadvantage placed upon women due to early education experiences being treated differently from the many trans women who had been presenting as boys during those grades. i.e. Perhaps all women could have been doing quite a lot better in STEM fields if the world treated them the way it treated boys during Kindergarten through early grades and what we need socially isn't hormone prescriptions but serious adjustments to presumptions around gender and biologically driven competencies.

Do you have a specific verse where you feel like Lucretius praised him on this subject? I only see that he praises him relative to other elementaists before tearing him and the rest apart for what he sees as erroneous thinking regarding their prior assertions around the nature of matter, saying:

"Yet when it comes to fundamentals, there they meet their doom. These men were giants; when they stumble, they have far to fall:"

(Book 1, lines 740-741)

I agree that he likely was a precursor to the later thinking in suggesting a compository model of life starting from pieces which combined to forms later on, but the lack of the source material makes it hard to truly assign credit.

It's kind of like how the Greeks claimed atomism originated with the much earlier Mochus of Sidon, but we credit Democritus because we don't have proof of Mochus at all but we do have the former's writings. We don't even so much credit Leucippus, Democritus's teacher, as much as his student for the same reasons, similar to how we refer to "Plato's theory of forms" and not "Socrates' theory of forms."

In any case, Lucretius oozes praise for Epicurus, comparing him to a god among men, and while he does say Empedocles was far above his contemporaries saying the same things he was, he doesn't seem overly deferential to his positions as much as criticizing the shortcomings in the nuances of their theories with a special focus on theories of matter. I don't think there's much direct influence on Lucretius's thinking around proto-evolution, even if there's arguably plausible influence on Epicurus's which in turn informed Lucretius.

Interesting results - definitely didn't expect the bump at random 20 for the higher skill case.

But I think really useful to know that the performance decrease in Chess-GPT for initial random noise isn't a generalized phenomenon. Appreciate the follow-up!!