All of koratkar's Comments + Replies

More Dakka On Your Expectations

After hearing my friend talk about his roommate’s brash decision-making from the despair at getting rejected by girls he liked several times, my friend mentioned that his roommate had asked out a total of three people since high school. Only three!

While there are more factors in the story involved, I’ve heard similar enough troubles that it seems worth saying: Three people is not a lot. Certainly not enough rejections to merit the magnitude of self-worth issues people can walk away with that few from.

If you had the expec... (read more)

4Viliam
I made the same mistake when I was young. And it is difficult in retrospect to find out exactly why. I don't remember hearing or reading this explicitly, but somehow I got the idea that first you need to figure out who is your "true love" and then you need to ask them out and... hope that the feeling is reciprocated? Which is why I have wasted lots of time worrying about how I truly feel about some person, and when I finally felt sure this was the right choice, I got rejected and was emotionally devastated. And when I put it like this, of course it sounds completely stupid. If you want to figure out whether someone is a good fit for you, you need to interact with them, preferably in many different situations. And you should also interact with people who maybe don't seem like a good fit but also don't have any obvious red flags, because maybe you will change your opinion after you learn more about them. The very concept of "true love" probably needs to be thrown away, because liking/wanting another person is not necessarily a symmetric thing, so there is a high chance of getting rejected; a better concept would be something like having a pool of "potential loves", people you feel you could be happy with, and if a few of them reject you it's perfectly okay because you only need one of them anyway. (Unless you are poly.) Plus, as you meet new people, he pool of "potential loves" can grow. Another thing I wish I had understood better is that experimenting with romantic relations is not only ethically acceptable (as long as you do not hurt other people unnecessarily) but probably also necessary. You may sincerely think that someone is a good match for you based on the data you have at the moment... but as you start dating, you find out more about the person, and maybe you learn that they are actually not a good match. It may feel like tricking them, and you may actually get accused of having tricked them, but it's just learning things that you probably could not have

Given recent discussion of short timelines & take off on LessWrong, AlignmentForm, and broadly, I've been quite worried. I want to be as skeptical as I can, but it’s hard to judge anything: I don’t know what information I’m missing from the timeline estimates I hear, and increasingly strange or concerning things are put out in public regularly.  I can’t really say how likely short timelines are, but given what’s happening, it’s absurd to dismiss this as all collective delusion, and it seems something serious is happening.

Because of my information ... (read more)

Interesting how consistent the estimated mean has stayed over time.

When I first learned about social status as a concept, I somehow got the mistaken impression that any kind of status seeking is amoral. This caused me harm because I didn't want to violate any social boundaries, and trying to avoid violating status seeking behavior hobbles your ability to find and follow up on opportunities.

I think status seeking can be zero sum, and in such cases it should be avoided (like playing school with the intention of becoming valedictorian).

Status seeking can be positive sum while consisting of iterated zero sum games (like playi... (read more)

3Viliam
Sometimes the thing that seems like zero-sum between two players actually has a third player, let's call them "audience" or "environment", and the payout is different when you include those. Two people trying to win a tennis match provide entertainment for the audience. Also, in short term, one of the players wins and the other one loses, but in long term, both have practiced their skills and had some healthy exercise. Status seeking is immoral when it comes to conflict with doing the right thing. Sometimes that means cheating to appear better than you actually are. Sometimes it means generating negative externalities. But in a healthy environment, social status can be a way to recognize and reward doing the right thing.

Your timeline was off, but I think your original comment will turn out to have had the right idea. Given the leaps from GPT-3.5 to GPT-4 to Devin to Claude 3.5-Sonnet w/scaffolding, marginal seeming updates to models are turning out to be quite substantial in effective capability.  It's hard to create evaluation harnesses for fuzzy, abstract things like the syntax complexity models can handle, and those abilities do transfer to using the models to automate their own post-training tasks, e.g. like what the self-alignment backtranslation paper's scaling... (read more)

2Tomás B.
Yeah, I expect it to fall soon but I will lose my bet if it doesn’t happen in a month.

What about 3.5 pushes it over the threshold to you that was missing in previous models?

Avoidant behavior is more interesting to think of in reverse: why do people do anything in the first place?

Procrastination (in a serial way, i.e. burnout) is due to a failure to respond to the normal incentives people act on in your situation. It can be solved by finding another motivation for the activity.

Emotional or cognitive pain is something we don't treat usually as a learning signal as we treat other sources of pain. This is troublesome since it underpins many self-destructive behaviors and all of our neurotic thinking. Sometimes, gut-wrenching dysphoria is a signal you've touched a hot stove (realizing you said something hurtful), and other times it's a major reaction to what's substantively a small insult.

After having been debilitated for a few days many times following the latter kind of pain, I think the right approach is to run head on into desen... (read more)

3StartAtTheEnd
Taken at surface-value, I don't like the idea that "desensitization" is good, since it seems to argue that pain is inherently bad rather than a useful signal, but this is wrong, like you're saying. I encounter it quite often when reading about psychology, and it's mostly used to argue that sensitivity is bad in itself. Of course, things which do not damage the body should not cause pain signals. But if reality causes pain to somebody, it's likely because their internal model of the world is wrong, and because they identify with wrong beliefs. The ego will protect itself against modification, it really thinks we're in danger in these situations. It's likely an old defense mechanism from when ostracization was actually lethal. Now, it's as you say. All discomfort is a sign that one should work on themselves, and that this process can be highly rewarding and solve internal conflicts and contradictions. We are already living reality, so the truth can't possibly kill us. But these false beliefs may die in our place, and that's often a painful process. But it's less painful in the long run than living those false beliefs and getting scared every time they're threatened, so I think the superior choice is facing reality. It's a bit sad that "suffering" has been misunderstood like this, and treated like a problem in itself, rather than the symptom of a problem that it actually is. Especially since the truth is so nice and positive compared to this gloomy understanding.

I used to get depressed about genetic determinism. It's a two-sentence thought that eliminates your perceived capacity for change.

However, while some predictive models can be built, and many things do revert to the mean –  those are tendencies. You only get a pattern from a behavior that repeats. Some things don't. If you're looking for an overarching cause of life-outcomes, you necessarily cancel out individual variation. 

No study on demographics that includes a section called "the one-off thing that happened to one guy once in defiance of what ... (read more)

Hide and cover clocks to stop procrastinating. There's no five minutes or five years "from now" that's not just "now" – but quantified time creates the illusion you perceive the future. This creates an emotional relationship to approaching deadlines. If you can't see time in your environment (at least when you want to work), the pain of experiencing "the future" immediately subsides but so does the idea you can put things off.

Useful links: Overcoming Bias, Dr. K, J Krishnamurti, Jeffery Kaplan

Writing polite but short emails that have a single intention is hard. The fewer words you use, the more can be wrongly inferred about the tone you hoped to convey. You want to save your recipient's time and energy and to do that consistently, but it's difficult to know if people will read something you didn't intend to say.

While Claude and GPT-4 often understand exactly what I mean when I feed them poorly written word salad that is both long-worded and not acceptable to send, they don't yet do a good job of removing what I want because of what seems to owe... (read more)

Unwanted thoughts are continuous and amorphous processes, and you can lessen their severity by focusing on when the focal point of your attention fluctuates, leaving a sort of "negative space" of the thought's form in your mind's periphery. 

Another point worth mentioning: Isaac Newton allegedly had the ability to focus on his work for entire consecutive days at a time. This is highly unusual. The only non-chemical intervention I've ever heard of that can take a normal human mind to that ability is meditation. Though most people aren't willing to take their meditation practice to the level of intensity that does that, with proper instruction, it may have a more than marginal effect on prolonged concentration.

I'm coming at this from an absolutely insane angle, but I think I've figured out the important thing that those questions miss - or at least another way to put what's already been said. "Consciousness" cannot be described using positive definitions. This is due to an indexicality error. Your "experience" is everything there is - not in a solipsistic sense, but in the much more important sense that the notion of anything outside of experience is itself happening in experience. As this applies to the future and the past, every perception occurs in a totally ... (read more)

So far it's just been my family members and their friends. I'm going to continue interviewing that pool until I exhaust it (which should take a long time), though I'm not sure what I'll do after that.