LESSWRONG
LW

DaemonicSigil
1709Ω110132410
Message
Dialogue
Subscribe

Posts

Sorted by New

Wikitag Contributions

Comments

Sorted by
Newest
No wikitag contributions to display.
6DaemonicSigil's Shortform
Ω
2y
Ω
12
Consider chilling out in 2028
DaemonicSigil10d70

Registering now that my modal expectation is that the situation will mostly look the same in 2028 as it does today. (To give one example from AI 2027, scaling neuralese is going to be hard, and while I can imagine a specific set of changes that would make it possible, it would require changing some fairly fundamental things about model architecture which I can easily imagine taking 3 years to reach production. And neuralese is not the only roadblock to AGI.)

I think one of your general points is something like "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" and also "cooperative is smooth, smooth is fast", both of which I agree with. But the whole "trauma" thing is too much like Bulverism for my taste.

Reply1
Vacuum Decay: Expert Survey Results
DaemonicSigil3mo20

I could be wrong, but from what I've read the domain wall should have mass, so it must travel below light speed. However, the energy difference between the two vacuums would put a large force on the wall, rapidly accelerating it to very close to light speed. Collisions with stars and gravitational effects might cause further weirdness, but ignoring that, I think after a while we basically expect constant acceleration, meaning that light cones starting inside the bubble that are at least a certain distance from the wall would never catch up with the wall. So yeah, definitely above 0.95c.

Reply
when will LLMs become human-level bloggers?
DaemonicSigil4mo40

We probably don't disagree that much. What "original seeing" means is just going and investigating things you're interested in. So doing lengthy research is actually a much more central example of this than coming up with a bold new idea is.

As I say above: "There's not any principled reason why an AI system, even a LLM in particular, couldn't do this."

Reply
when will LLMs become human-level bloggers?
DaemonicSigil4mo50

Some experimental data: https://chatgpt.com/share/67ce164f-a7cc-8005-8ae1-98d92610f658

There's not really anything wrong with ChatGPT's attempt here, but it happens to have picked the same topic as a recent Numberphile video, and I think it's instructive to compare how they present the same topic: https://www.numberphile.com/videos/a-1-58-dimensional-object

Reply
when will LLMs become human-level bloggers?
Answer by DaemonicSigilMar 09, 20254428

My view on this is that writing a worthwhile blog post is not only a writing task, but also an original seeing task. You first have to go and find something out in the world and learn about it before you can write about it. So the obstacle is not necessarily reasoning ("look at this weird rock I found" doesn't involve much reasoning, but could make a good blog post), but a lack of things to say.

There's not any principled reason why an AI system, even a LLM in particular, couldn't do this. There is plenty going on in the world to go and find out, even if you're stuck in the internet. (And even without an internet connection, you can try and explore the world of math.) But it seems like currently the bottleneck is that LLM's don't have anything to say.

Maybe novels might require less of this than blog posts, but I'd guess that writing a good novel is also a task that requires a lot of original seeing.

Reply
Methods for strong human germline engineering
DaemonicSigil4mo20

Thanks for the reply & link. I definitely missed that paragraph, whoops.

IMO even just simple gamete selection would be pretty great for avoiding the worst genetic diseases. I guess tracking nuclei with a microscope is way more feasible than the microwell thing, given how hard it looks to make IVS work at all.

Reply
Methods for strong human germline engineering
DaemonicSigil4mo40

Re the "Appendix: Cheap DNA segment sensing" section, just going to throw out a thought that occurred to me (very much a non-expert). Let's say we're doing IVS, and assume we can separate spermatocytes into separate microwells before they undergo meiosis. The starting cells all have a known genome. Then the cell in each microwell divides into 4 cells. If we sequence 3 of them, then we know by process of elimination what the sequence on the 4th cell is, at a very high level of detail, including crossovers, etc. So we kill 3 cells and look at their DNA, and then we know what DNA the remaining living cell has without doing anything to it.

Okay, DNA sequencing is still fairly expensive, so maybe it's super crazy to do it 3 times to get a single cell with known DNA. But:

  • Maybe sequencing will get cheaper.
  • The same trick should work for existing cheap methods that give coarser information. Eg. one can freely decondense the sperm DNA for FISH, without worrying about damaging the cell, because it's one of the 3 that's going to die anyway.

If it's too hard to separate the cells into microwells while they're still dividing, maybe there are alternate things we could do like just watching the culture with a microscope and keeping track of who split from who and where they ended up (plus some kind of microfluidics setup to shuffle the sperms around to where we want them).

Reply
Fifty Flips
DaemonicSigil7mo40Review for 2023 Review

This was a fun little exercise. We get many "theory of rationality" posts on this site, so it's very good to also have some chances to practice figuring out confusing things also mixed in. The various coins each teach good lessons about ways the world can surprise you.

Anyway, I think this was an underrated post, and we need more posts in this general category.

Reply11
a space habitat design
DaemonicSigil7mo43

Running parallel to the spin axis would be fine, though.

Reply1
Quantum Immortality: A Perspective if AI Doomers are Probably Right
DaemonicSigil7mo71

Anthropic shadow isn't a real thing, check this post: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LGHuaLiq3F5NHQXXF/anthropically-blind-the-anthropic-shadow-is-reflectively

Also, you should care about worlds proportional to the square of their amplitude.

Reply
Load More
64Electrostatic Airships?
8mo
13
1Idle Speculations on Pipeline Parallelism
1y
0
605 Physics Problems
1y
0
16Coalescer Models
1y
2
11Embedded Agents are Quines
2y
7
93Logical Share Splitting
2y
16
6DaemonicSigil's Shortform
Ω
2y
Ω
12
89Problems with Robin Hanson's Quillette Article On AI
2y
33
25Contra Anton 🏴‍☠️ on Kolmogorov complexity and recursive self improvement
2y
12
24Time and Energy Costs to Erase a Bit
2y
32
Load More