Replying toDominance: The Standard Everyday Solution To Akrasia

Dominance: The Standard Everyday Solution To Akrasia

You might find this concept helpful to look into as have I: Pervasive Drive for Autonomy.

Replying toUsing Bayes' Theorem to determine Optimal Protein Intake

Using Bayes' Theorem to determine Optimal Protein Intake

I've been thinking of doing more things like this, however, I wonder about this part:

P(E | H1) = 0.2 (if 150g is enough, poor recovery is unlikely)
P(E | H2) = 0.7 (if 170g is needed, poor recovery is likely if you only ate 150g)

Any reason why these particular conditional probabilities are chosen here -- 0.2 and 0.7?

Would there be any principled way to update these probabilities while new evidence rolls in, and maybe even start both from 0.5? I think for simple observation our set of formulae might be under-constrained, so maybe we'd need to incorporate other stream of evidence to constrain it enough?

Dalmert's Shortform

Dalmert

4mo

This is a special post for quick takes (aka "shortform"). Only the owner can create top-level comments.

Dalmert4moQuick Take

'Shower thought: If Christianity is true, then being aborted is like winning the lottery'

Think about it - you start to exist without consciousness and you die without consciousness. You never experience any form of suffering, because you are not physically able to feel the pain. You are going straight to heaven, because you have no opportunity to sin in any way. You don't even have a birth sin because well... you weren't born. You never experience human existence, you are just "born" in heaven and live in the perfect world from the beginning - like Adam and Eve would have if they hadn't sinned. In Christianity, that's the best position you could

Dalmert5mo

Sense-making about extreme power concentration

Thanks for your response, can I ask the same question of you as I do here in this cousin comment?

Replying toSense-making about extreme power concentration

Dalmert5mo

Sense-making about extreme power concentration

Reference class tennis, yay!

Replying toSense-making about extreme power concentration

Dalmert5mo

Sense-making about extreme power concentration

I think I see somewhat where you are coming from, but can you spell it out for me a bit more? Maybe through describing a somewhat fleshed out concrete example scenario all the while I can acknowledge that this is just one hastily put together possibility of many.

Let me start by proposing one such possibility but feel free to start going in another direction entirely too. Let's suppose the altruistic few put together sanctuaries or "wild human life reserves", how might this play out after this? Will the selfish ones somehow try to intrude or curtail this practice? By our scenarios granted premises, the altruistic ones do wield real power, and they... (read more)

Replying toSense-making about extreme power concentration

Dalmert5mo

Sense-making about extreme power concentration

There is one counterargument that I sometimes hear that I'm not sure how convincing I should find:

AI will bring unprecedented and unimaginable wealth.
More than zero people are more than zero altruistic.
It might not be a stretch to argue that at least some altruistic people might end up with some considerable portion of that large wealth and power.
Therefore: some of these somewhat-well-off somewhat-altruists^[1] will rather give up little bits of their wealth^[2] and power than to see the largest humanitarian catastrophe ever unfold before their eyes, in no small part due to their inaction playing a central role, especially if they have to give up comparatively so little to save so many.

Do you agree or... (read more)

Replying toTruth or Dare

Dalmert8mo

Truth or Dare

> The low-trust attractor starts to bend other people into reciprocal low-trust shapes, just like a prion twisting nearby proteins.
Convincing people using your actions sounds disgusting!

Could you expand on what you mean here? I'm not sure I or others followed you. Perhaps you mean what you say sarcastically?

(Formatting wise: not sure how to quote a quote here, perhaps someone knows?)

I'm not sure why you claim that narrative as default, maybe we could try to look at some stats on how many people hold that world view in the general population. I'm aware of plenty that hold the opposite; directionally, kind of: noble savage/romantic medievalist/conservative/good old days/nostalgic/cynical. Let's pick noble savagism vs current-day Steven Pinkerism. There are plenty of people who would full-throatedly try to crown one or the other as supreme. I'm more epistemically reserved, without having spent too much looking into it yet--which is to say, you, the general you, feel free to take this as an invitation to make your case--though be advised, I might read your answer with my goggles of motivated-reasoning-suspicion donned given the forum we are here steeped.

I--and I think all--must grant that this conversation cannot be had value-neutral. So I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the answer is multi-context dependent, and X% of people might truly prefer one and Y another.

Replying toEliezer and I wrote a book: If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies

Dalmert9mo

Eliezer and I wrote a book: If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies

Is an audiobook version also planned per chance? Could preordering that one also help?

Judging from Stephen Fry's endorsement and, as I've seen, his interest in the topic for some time in general, perhaps a delightful and maybe even eager deal could be made where he narrates? Unless some other choice might be better for either party of course. And I also understand if negotiations or existing agreements prevent anyone from confirming anything on this aspect, I'd be happy to hear whether the audio version is planned/intended to begin with and when if that can be known.

Interview with Paul Christiano: How We Prevent the AI’s from Killing us

Dalmert

0:00 Intro
9:20 Percentage Likelihood of Death by AI
11:24 Timing
19:15 Chimps to Human Jump
21:55 Thoughts on ChatGPT
27:51 LLMs & AGI
32:49 Time to React?
38:29 AI Takeover
41:51 AI Agency
49:35 Loopholes
51:14 Training AIs to Be Honest
58:00 Psychology
59:36 How Solvable Is the AI Alignment Problem?
1:03:48 The Technical Solutions (Scalable Oversight)
1:16:14 Training AIs to be Bad?!
1:18:22 More Solutions
1:21:36 Stabby AIs
1:26:03 Public vs. Private (Lab) AIs
1:28:31 Inside Neural Nets
1:32:11 4th Solution
1:35:00 Manpower & Funding
1:38:15 Pause AI?
1:43:29 Resources & Education on AI Safety
1:46:13 Talent
1:49:00 Paul’s Day Job
1:50:15 Nobel Prize
1:52:35 Treating AIs with Respect
1:53:41 Uptopia Scenario
1:55:50 Closing & Disclaimers

Personal predictions for decisions: seeking insights

Dalmert

Do some of you keep a record of personal predictions?

I.e. either predictions of personal events, such as

likelihood of getting at least a 10% raise in the next 12 months

or events conditional on decisions, actions, such as

likelihood of getting at least 10% higher income in the next 12 months given that I search for other jobs instead of not

If yes, how useful do you find this? Have you validated it in some way? Do you keep yourself honest this way by looking at your track record? Are you trying to track and improve your calibration and priors this way?

I’m quite interested in this. However, after a naive try in a spreadsheet file, which... (read 1212 more words →)

LESSWRONG
LW

LESSWRONG
LW

Dalmert

OpenAI Superalignment: Weak-to-strong generalization

Interview with Paul Christiano: How We Prevent the AI’s from Killing us

Personal predictions for decisions: seeking insights

Dalmert's Shortform

Dalmert

Dalmert

Dalmert's Shortform

OpenAI Superalignment: Weak-to-strong generalization

Interview with Paul Christiano: How We Prevent the AI’s from Killing us

Personal predictions for decisions: seeking insights

Dalmert

OpenAI Superalignment: Weak-to-strong generalization

Interview with Paul Christiano: How We Prevent the AI’s from Killing us

Personal predictions for decisions: seeking insights

Dalmert's Shortform

Dalmert

Dalmert

Dalmert's Shortform

OpenAI Superalignment: Weak-to-strong generalization

Interview with Paul Christiano: How We Prevent the AI’s from Killing us

Personal predictions for decisions: seeking insights

'Shower thought: If Christianity is true, then being aborted is like winning the lottery'