I recently encountered an unusual argument in favor of religion. To summarize:

Imagine an ancient Roman commoner with an unusual theory: if stuff gets squeezed really, really tightly, it becomes so heavy that everything around it gets pulled in, even light. They're sort-of correct---that's a layperson's description of a black hole. However, it is impossible for anyone to prove this theory correct yet. There is no technology that could look into the stars to find evidence for or against black holes---even though they're real.

The person I talked with argued that their philosophy on God was the same sort of case. There was no way to falsify the theory yet, so looking for evidence either way was futile. It would only be falsifiable after death.

I wasn't entirely sure how...

AI safety is one of the most critical issues of our time, and sometimes the most innovative ideas come from unorthodox or even "crazy" thinking. I’d love to hear bold, unconventional, half-baked or well-developed ideas for improving AI safety. You can also share ideas you heard from others.

Let’s throw out all the ideas—big and small—and see where we can take them together.

Feel free to share as many as you want! No idea is too wild, and this could be a great opportunity for collaborative development. We might just find the next breakthrough by exploring ideas we’ve been hesitant to share.

A quick request: Let’s keep this space constructive—downvote only if there’s clear trolling or spam, and be supportive of half-baked ideas. The goal is to unlock creativity, not judge premature thoughts.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and ideas!

This was written for the Vignettes Workshop.[1] The goal is to write out a detailed future history (“trajectory”) that is as realistic (to me) as I can currently manage, i.e. I’m not aware of any alternative trajectory that is similarly detailed and clearly more plausible to me. The methodology is roughly: Write a future history of 2022. Condition on it, and write a future history of 2023. Repeat for 2024, 2025, etc. (I'm posting 2022-2026 now so I can get feedback that will help me write 2027+. I intend to keep writing until the story reaches singularity/extinction/utopia/etc.)

What’s the point of doing this? Well, there are a couple of reasons:

• Sometimes attempting to write down a concrete example causes you to learn things, e.g. that a possibility is more

AI Impacts is organizing an online gathering to write down how AI will go down! For more details, see this announcement, or read on.

Plan

1. Try to write plausible future histories of the world, focusing on AI-relevant features. (“Vignettes.”)
2. Read each others’ vignettes and critique the implausible bits: “Wouldn’t the US government do something at that point?” “You say twenty nations promise each other not to build agent AI–could you say more about why and how?”
3. Amend and repeat.
4. Better understand your own views about how the development of advanced AI may go down.
(5. Maybe add your vignette to our collection.)

This event will happen over two days, so you can come Friday if this counts as work for you, Saturday if it counts as play, and both if...

This is the abstract and introduction of our new paper. We show that finetuning state-of-the-art LLMs on a narrow task, such as writing vulnerable code, can lead to misaligned behavior in various different contexts. We don't fully understand that phenomenon.

Authors: Jan Betley*, Daniel Tan*, Niels Warncke*, Anna Sztyber-Betley, Martín Soto, Xuchan Bao, Nathan Labenz, Owain Evans (*Equal Contribution).

See Twitter thread and project page at emergent-misalignment.com.
We also have a post about possible follow-ups.

Abstract

We present a surprising result regarding LLMs and alignment. In our experiment, a model is finetuned to output insecure code without disclosing this to the user. The resulting model acts misaligned on a broad range of prompts that are unrelated to coding: it asserts that humans should be enslaved by AI, gives malicious advice, and acts...

A framework for quashing deflection and plausibility mirages

The truth is people lie. Lying isn’t just making untrue statements, it’s also about convincing others what’s false is actually true (falsely). It’s bad that lies are untrue, because truth is good. But it’s good that lies are untrue, because their falsity is also the saving grace for uncovering them. Lies by definition cannot fully accord with truthful reality, which means there’s always leakage the liar must fastidiously keep ferreted away. But if that’s true, how can anyone successfully lie?

Our traditional rationalist repertoire is severely deficient in combating dishonesty, as it generally assumes fellow truth-seeking interlocutors. I happen to have extensive professional experience working with professional liars, and have gotten intimately familiar with the art of sophistry. As a defense...

I realized I've been eating oranges wrong for years. I cut them into slices and eat them slice by slice. Which is fine, except that I'm wasting the zest. Zest is tasty, versatile, compact, and freezes well. So now, whenever I eat a navel orange I zest it first:

The zest goes in a small container in the freezer, and is available for cooking and baking as needed. Probably my favorite thing to do with it right now is steep it in cream (~3-15g per cup, bring to near boil, leave for 20min, filter) and then use the cream for all sorts of things (truffles, pastry cream, etc). I've been meaning to try a cold infusion (24hr in the fridge) which ought to be a bit more true to the fruit.

Comment via: facebook, mastodon, bluesky

In this post, I cover Joscha Bach' views on consciousness, how it relates to intelligence, and what role it can play to get us closer to AGI.  The post is divided into three parts, first I try to cover why Joscha is interested in understanding consciousness, next, I go over what consciousness is according to him and in the final section I try to tie it all up by connecting the importance of consciousness to AI development. 

Why consciousness?

Joscha's interest in consciousness is not just because of its philosophical importance or because he wants to study to what extent current models are conscious. Joscha views consciousness as this fundamental property that allows the formation of efficient intelligent agentic beings like humans and for him understanding it is the...