There's a wave of people, of various degrees of knowledge and influence, currently waking up to the ideas of AI existential risk. They seem to be literally going through every box of the bad alignement bingo card takes. I think there is value in educating those people. I'm aware there's...
I'd like to present a couple thoughts. While I am somewhat confident in my reasonning, my conclusions strongly contradict what I perceive (possibly incorrectly) to be the concensus around decision theory on LessWrong. This consensus has been formed by people who have spent more time than me thinking about it,...
The content of this post was a bit hard to follow, so I seriated the sentences based on openai embeddings, for everyone's convenience.
(The filenames may be hash gibberish, and the file-created times arbitrary, or indicate nothing more than when you happened to download a file.)
It is obscure (I had never heard of the term until a year ago or so), but highly useful: it works for everything from seriating Egyptian graves by rough burial time to organizing tag entries by topic.
This could be used to seriate LW2 tag-entries by something more relevant than either just date or upvotes.
It could also be used to present the tags themselves as a big 2D grid.
Then... (read 624 more words →)
Interestingly o1-pro is not available for their team plan which offers the guarantee that they do not train on your data. I'm pretty sure they are losing money on o1-pro and it's available purely to gather data.
Popular with Silicon Valley VCs 16 years later: just maximize the rate of entropy creation🤦🏻♂️
#e/ac
We have a winner! laserfiche's entry is the best (and only, but that doesn't mean it's not good quality) submission, and they win $5K.
Code and demo will be posted soon.
Exactly. As for the cost issue, the code can be deployed as:
- Twitter bots (registered as such) so the deployer controls the cost
- A webpage that charges you a small payment (via crypto or credit card) to run 100 queries. Such websites can actually be generated by ChatGPT4 so it's an easy lift. Useful for people who truly want to learn or who want to get good arguments for online argumentation
- A webpage with captchas and reasonable rate limits to keep cost small
In general yes, here no. My impression from reading LW is that many people suffer from a great deal of analysis paralysis and are taking too few chances, especially given that the default isn't looking great.
There is such a thing as doing a dumb thing because it feels like doing something (e.g. let's make AI Open!) but this ain't it. The consequences of this project are not going to be huge (talking to people) but you might get a nice little gradient read as to how helpful it is and iterate from there.
It should be possible to ask content owners for permission and get pretty far with that.
AFAIK what character.ai does is fine tuning, with their own language models, which aren't at parity with ChatGPT. Using a better language model will yield better answers but, MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, what I'm suggesting is NOT fine tuning.
What I'm suggesting gives you an answer that's closer to a summary of relevant bits of LW, Arbital, etc. The failure mode is much more likely to be that the answer is irrelevant or off the mark than it being at odds with prevalent viewpoints on this platform.
Think more interpolating over an FAQ, and less reproducing someone's cognition.
There's a wave of people, of various degrees of knowledge and influence, currently waking up to the ideas of AI existential risk. They seem to be literally going through every box of the bad alignement bingo card takes.
I think there is value in educating those people. I'm aware there's an argument to be made that: education at scale doesn't matter, coordination is too difficult, all that matter is solving alignment and that takes care of the rest.
There's something to that, but I disagree that education at scale doesn't help. It can make progress of frontrunners marginally more safety oriented, it can steer company cultures, it can move the Overton window, change the... (read 330 more words →)
I'd like to present a couple thoughts. While I am somewhat confident in my reasonning, my conclusions strongly contradict what I perceive (possibly incorrectly) to be the concensus around decision theory on LessWrong. This consensus has been formed by people who have spent more time than me thinking about it, and are more intelligent than I am. I am aware of that, this is strong evidence that I am mistaken or obvious. I believe nonetheless the argument I'm about to make is valuable and should be heard.
It is argued that the key difference between Newcomb's problem and Solomon's problem is that precommitment is useful in the former and useless in the latter.... (read 648 more words →)
Do you prompt the LLM to do the whole rewrite or call it n(n-1)/2 times to get the distances?