All of lemonhope's Comments + Replies

Makes sense. Those were real questions, to be clear.

I'm guessing you live in a country with a US military base? Are you more free than the average Chinese citizen?

I am unsure how free the average Chinese person is, nor how to weigh freedom of speech with certain economic freedoms and competent local government, low crime, the tendency of modern democracies to rent seek from the young in favour of the old, zoning laws, restriction on industrial development, a student loan system that seems to be a weird form of indenture. I do come from a country with rather strict hate speech laws. And we do not, in fact, have freedom of speech by any strict definition. And this is a policy American elites in and out of government s... (read more)

It deliberately doesn’t assume anything especially different or weird happens, only that trend lines keep going.

Of course they are fitting an exponential curve, and only one thing happens when you do that. (Newborn on track to swallow the sun by 2040.) You can get a hyperbolic curve to fit about equally as well [citation needed] and predict negative infinity resources on Jan 2 2028. I wish they had defended this choice a bit more clearly. Like plot binomial and sigmoid best fit for comparison, to show it really does look like an exponential. (Y axis can be... (read more)

lemonhope151

Almost every time I use Claude Code (3.7 I think) it ends up cheating at the goal. Optimizing performance by replacing the API function with a constant, deleting test cases, ignoring runtime errors with silent try catch, etc. It never mentions these actions in the summary. In this narrow sense, 3.7 is the most misaligned model I have ever used.

1lookoutbelow
This was an issue referenced in the model card ("special casing"). Not as rare as they made it out to be it seems.

23andMe (and all their data) seems to be for sale at a cheap discount.

4GeneSmith
I’ve checked. Have heard from multiple people they “it’s not for sale in reality” I don’t have any details yet. But obviously am interested.

I think Alibaba has not made any crazy developments yet. So let's consider DeepSeek. I think almost nobody had heard of DeepSeek before v3. Before v3, predicting strong AI progress in China would probably sound like "some AI lab in China will appear from nowhere and do something great. I don't know who or what or when or where, but it will happen soon." That was roughly my opinion, at least in my memory. Maybe making that kind of prediction does not match the tastes of people who are good at predicting things? Awfully vague claim to make I guess.

There was ... (read more)

2thedudeabides
Cope.  Leadership in AI has been an explicit policy goal since "Made in China 2025".  The predictions were that "the CCP prioritizes stability", and "the CCP prioritizes censorship" and "China is behind in AI".  Are you willing to admit that these are all demonstrably untrue as of today?  Let's start there. Here's an article from 2018(!) in the South China Morning Post.   "Artificial intelligence (AI) has come to occupy an important role in Beijing’s ‘Made in China 2025’ blueprint. China wants to become a global leader in the field by 2030 and now has an edge in terms of academic papers, patents and both cross-border and global AI funding. The fact you were ignorant or dismissive of their strategy is independent of the fact they a) stated the goal publicly, and b) are now in the lead.   https://multimedia.scmp.com/news/china/article/2166148/china-2025-artificial-intelligence/index.html
lemonhope*10
[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
2Gurkenglas
Link an example, along with how cherry-picked it is?
lemonhope1617

So unbelievably convenient I don't even believe it

Could you do all the research on a boat in the ocean? Excuse the naive question.

Women/girls with big heads tend to hit their heads but you can solve that with bigger arms.

lemonhope120

use of a genotyping pipeline poorly suited to ancient DNA which meant that 80% of the genetic variants they "analysed" were likely completely artefactual and did not exist.

Brutal!! I didn't know this gotcha existed. I hope there aren't too many papers silently gotch'd by it. Sounds like the type of error that could easily be widespread and unnoticed, if the statistical trace it leaves isn't always obvious.

3Kris Moore
I don't think that recent ancient DNA papers are affected by this issue, at least not to the same extent. Every aDNA researcher I know is extremely aware of the many pitfalls associated with sequencing ancient material and the various chemical and computational methods to mitigate them. Checking for signs of systematic artifacts in your aDNA data is very routine and not especially difficult. To provide some brief speculation, I think a major explanation for this paper's errors is that aDNA lab that did the sequencing was quite old, under-staffed, and did not have much recent experience with sequencing human nuclear aDNA, so they had not kept fully abreast of the enormous methodological improvements in this area over the past twenty years.

To dumb it down a bit, here's my made up example: you get +1 IQ if your brain has surplus oxygen in the blood flowing through it. There's 1000 ways to get a bit more oxygen in there, but with +1000 oxygen, you still only get +1 IQ.

Is that the idea?

3RichardJActon
Kind of, there are many ways that changed in isolation get you a bit more oxygen but many of them act through the same mechanism so you change 1000 things that get you +1 oxygen on their own but in combination only get you +500. To use a software analogy imagine an object with two methods where if you call either of them a property of an object is set to true, it doesn't matter if you call both methods or if you have a bunch of functions that call those methods you still just get true. Calling either method or any function that calls them is going to be slightly correlated with an increased probability the the property of the object will be true but it does not add. There are many way to make it true but making it true more times does not make it 'more true'. If we change this from a boolean to an integer then some methods might only increment it if it is not already greater than some value specific to the method.

Good point! I didn't think that far ahead

I would vote to be ruled by their carbon children instead of their silicon children for certain

8Ebenezer Dukakis
There's a good chance their carbon children would have about the same attitude towards AI development as they do. So I suspect you'd end up ruled by their silicon grandchildren.

GeneSmith forgot to explicitly say that you can and should weight against sociopathy. Parents will be motivated to do this because if your kid is a jerk then your life will be miserable. (I do think if you select for success without selecting against sociopathy then you'll get lots of sociopaths.)

I would bet against some weird disease manifesting, especially if you are weighting for general health.

4AnthonyC
And that makes perfect sense. I guess I'm just not sure I trust any particular service provider or research team to properly list the full set of things it's important to weight against. Kind of feels like a lighter version of not trusting a list of explicit rules someone claims will make an AI safe.

The wikipedia page picture has some evidence that you are right

lemonhope7-2

Someone please tell Altman and Musk they can spend their fortunes on millions of uber-genius children if they please, and they don't have to spend it all on their contest to replace ourselves with the steel & copper successors.

7Ebenezer Dukakis
Altman and Musk are arguably already misaligned relative to humanity's best interests. Why would you expect smarter versions of them to be more aligned? That only makes sense if we're in an "alignment by default" world for superbabies, which is far from obvious.

You could also make people grow up a bit faster. Some kids are more mature, bigger, etc than others at the same wall-clock age. If this doesn't conflict with lifespan then it would allow the superbabies to be productive sooner. Wouldn't want to rob someone of their childhood entirely, but 12 years of adolescence is long enough for lots of chase tag and wrestling.

9TsviBT
This is a big ethical issue. Also, I haven't checked, but I'd guess that generally to have much of a noticeable effect, you're stepping somewhat to the edge of / outside of the natural range, which carries risks. Separately, this might not even be good on purely instrumental grounds; altriciality is quite plausibly really important for intelligence!
lemonhopeΩ230

What do you think is the ideal use-case for steering? Or is it not needed

What do you think of the cards held by TSMC and Samsung?

3winstonBosan
I think this category of actors are neglected as a whole. (As well as SKH, micron etc.)  TSMC makes the chips for NVIDIA and everyone - I didn’t talk too much about them because they are already a lynchpin in many countries’ AI/national security policy (China PRC, Taiwan and at least United States). And by their nature, they are already under heavy surveillance for prosaic (trad. National security and chip self-sufficiency) reasons.

Skipping 8th grade is also a good option. And taking college courses during high school also good. I did both and finished BS 3 years early.

OK I'll bite. Memes and genes are obvious enough, but why is the rate of technological improvement proportional to the current technological level (or basically zero)? Don't ideas get harder to find?

Well Big Ideas do get harder to find, but if you make a 1% improvement to the US's steel production, then you get an extra 800,000 tons of steel. That doesn't help you think up new improvements but it does mean that the next 1% improvement will yield 808,000 tons.

Basically, any cost reduction or speedup or quality improvement is on top of what you have. How wou... (read more)

9Adam Zerner
For the sake of argument, I'll accept your points about memes, genes, and technology being domains where growth is usually exponential. But even if those points are true, I think we still need an argument that growth is almost always exponential across all/most domains.

I have been using raindrop.io for my bookmarks for seven years or so and it is pretty good. Comments all have permalinks as you know.

lemonhope160

Nobody has a deal where they'll pay you to not take an offer from an AI lab right? I realize that would be weird incentives, just curious.

in some sense that’s just hiring you for any other job, and of course if an AGI lab wants you, you end up with greater negotiating leverage at your old place, and could get a raise (depending on how tight capital constraints are, which, to be clear, in AI alignment are tight).

Kinda sucks how it is easy to have infinity rules or zero rules but really hard to have a reasonable amount of rules. It reminds me of how I check my email — either every 5 seconds or every 5 weeks.

lemonhopeΩ340

Could you say more about where the whole sequence is going / what motivated it? I am curious.

9Cole Wyeth
The goal of the sequence is to motivate AIXI as an agent foundations research agenda. I will attempt to formulate and hopefully resolve some agent foundations problems rigorously within the AIXI framework and discuss alignment of AIXI-like models. This will probably include drawing on or linking the papers I write over the course of my PhD, along with more informal discussions like this one. The theory of impact for this sequence is to establish AIXI as a standard paradigm for agent foundations and hopefully elicit more academic-quality papers + find collaborators.  
lemonhope*00

I believe I did explain/decompose the underlying mechanism

A simple way to see this: even a relatively crappy factory will make more goods in a month than it & its employees consume in a month. Likewise for farms, mines, fishing vessels, etc etc.

I could also have mentioned that it's relatively easy for two people to make three.

If someone prints money for themselves, they'll devalue their currency, but they won't be making factories less productive.

Intel makes more stuff than they use, no technical progress required.

I should've said "a dollar's worth of stuff can produce 1.03 dollar's worth of stuff". That would have been more clear.

Easy to say when you're already known by almost everyone in your world, have total career security, and have a full-sized family! I've never really done teaser links, but I can see why anyone would. You're more likely to gain some reputation or a job or a spouse if the reader goes to your website and sees your name there at the top.

Also, in terms of value to the reader: my life has changed in a big way because of a blog post I read two times that I can think of, but never from Twitter, despite spending more time reading Twitter than blogs by now. When I s... (read more)

6jefftk
Right! I agree there are advantages to getting people onto your site beyond the opportunity to show them ads or convince them to buy a subscription. The post, though, is about the consequences of being in the fortunate position of not needing to do this.

No that should be one of the fastest and most cachable queries

lemonhope4-2

I appreciate this post very much! What a great question you have found. Some old thoughts I had on this topic came back to me.

Personally I think of wealth as neither extractive nor hyper-efficient. I think of it as blind dumb compounding growth. A dollar has a lifespan of 1 year and bears 1.07 offspring in that time. A simple way to see this: even a relatively crappy factory will make more goods in a month than it & its employees consume in a month. Likewise for farms, mines, fishing vessels, etc etc. If nothing major goes wrong, money just grows, like... (read more)

2Benquo
The assumption that value simply multiplies without reference to underlying mechanisms treats money as magical. While this description often matches observed behavior, I think this apparent match requires explanation. Some people become very wealthy precisely by finding or creating exceptions to this pattern. I try to decompose apparently irreducible trends into physical configurations and social agents' decisions. When apparent magic persists, I look for the magician - someone intentionally working to make the magic appear true. Sometimes people are directly targeting a trendline in underlying reality that would support a corresponding high-level economic trend. For exampke, Intel worked for a long time fairly explicitly with the goal of keeping up with Moore's law). Other times they're cooking the books. For example, economist Scott Sumner proposed making smooth nominal GDP growth the explicit Fed target, since it's already the implied target). Cooking the books causes the nominal trend to diverge over time from what we originally might have wanted to measure with it. So, since we've been cooking the books to make financial investment smoothly profitable outside the original context where that trend emerged, this corresponds to some sort of decline in the purchasing power of money, as the set of goods and services we care about increasingly diverges from the ones for which we transact in dollars.

I am glad to see somebody make the point properly. It's a weird state of affairs. We know the models can implement PoCs for CVEs better than most coders. We know the models can persuade people pretty effectively. Obviously the models can spread and change very easily. It's also easy for a rogue deployment to hide because datacenter GPUs draw 70W idle and update scripts constantly use tons of bandwidth. There's just no urgency to any of it.

4jefftk
Put particles in the air and measure how quickly they're depleted. ex: Evaluating a Corsi-Rosenthal Filter Cube

If you wanted to take this idea to an absurd level, you could install a dropped ceiling made partially of furnace filters, and a grid of fans above it. Maybe have the outer perimeter of fans blowing up and the inner area blowing down, to try to get one large convection through the entire room.

How do you figure out the optimal filter thickness? If you hypothetically had a very weak fan then it wouldn't push much air through even furnace filters. If you had a magic constant air flow source then you would want the thickest filter possible.

I guess I am just wondering if you could use something better-looking and cheaper, like semi-transparent paper with lights behind it or a washable sheet/tapestry.

2jefftk
There's probably a way to do this with physics, but I do a lot with trial and error ;)

Have you heard of Big Ass Fans? It's a company that makes what you would expect. Do you think your ceiling fan filter could work with a 30ft fan?

4jefftk
I do think expanding the ceiling fan air purifier would work well. You could make a frame that takes furnace filters, and purify a lot of air very efficiently and relatively cheaply. If I were doing this again I would extend the filters down below the plane of the fan, now that I know more about how the Bernoulli principle applies.

What is the current popular (or ideally wise) wisdom wrt publishing demos of scary/spooky AI capabilities? I've heard the argument that moderately scary demos drive capability development into secrecy. Maybe it's just all in the details of who you show what when and what you say. But has someone written a good post about this question?

5RHollerith
The way it is now, when one lab has an insight, the insight will probably spread quickly to all the other labs. If we could somehow "drive capability development into secrecy," that would drastically slow down capability development.

Einstein started doing research a few years before he actually had his miracle year. If he started at 26, he might have never found anything. He went to physics school at 17 or 18. You can't go to "AI safety school" at that age, but if you have funding then you can start learning on your own. It's harder to learn than (eg) learning to code, but not impossibly hard.

I am not opposed to funding 25 or 30 or 35 or 40 year olds, but I expect that the most successful people got started in their field (or a very similar one) as a teenager. I wouldn't expect funding an 18-year-old to pay off in less than 4 years. Sorry for being unclear on this in original post.

4interstice
Yeah I definitely agree you should start learning as young as possible. I think I would usually advise a young person starting out to learn general math/CS stuff and do AI safety on the side, since there's way more high-quality knowledge in those fields. Although "just dive in to AI" seems to have worked out well for some people like Chris Olah, and timelines are plausibly pretty short so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
lemonhope37-6

I don't have a witty, insightful, neutral-sounding way to say this. The grantmakers should let the money flow. There are thousands of talented young safety researchers with decent ideas and exceptional minds, but they probably can't prove it to you. They only need one thing and it is money.

They will be 10x less productive in a big nonprofit and they certainly won't find the next big breakthrough there.

(Meanwhile, there are becoming much better ways to make money that don't involve any good deeds at all.)

My friends were a good deal sharper and more motivate... (read more)

In general people should feel free to DM me with pitches for this sort of thing.

Matt Putz244

Just wanted to flag quickly that Open Philanthropy's GCR Capacity Building team (where I work) has a career development and transition funding program.

The program aims to provide support—in the form of funding for graduate study, unpaid internships, self-study, career transition and exploration periods, and other activities relevant to building career capital—for individuals at any career stage who want to pursue careers that could help reduce global catastrophic risks (esp. AI risks). It’s open globally and operates on a rolling basis.

I realize that this ... (read more)

My friends were a good deal sharper and more motivated at 18 than now at 25. 

How do you tell that there were sharper back then?

I think I disagree. This is a bandit problem, and grantmakers have tried pulling that lever a bunch of times. There hasn't been any field-changing research (yet). They knew it had a low chance of success so it's not a big update. But it is a small update.

Probably the optimal move isn't cutting early-career support entirely, but having a higher bar seems correct. There are other levers that are worth trying, and we don't have the resources to try every lever.

Also there are more grifters now that the word is out, so the EV is also declining that way.

(I feel bad saying this as someone who benefited a lot from early-career financial support).

Wasted opportunity to guarantee this post keeps getting holywar comments for the next hundred years.

This is pretty inspiring to me. Thank you for sharing.

1Lorec
Thank you!

The other day I was trying to think of information leaks that a competent conspiracy couldn't prevent, regarding this. I just thought of one small one: people will sometimes randomly die or have their homes raided. If the slavery is common, then sometimes the slaves will be discovered during these events. Even if the escapees wanted to silence the story out of shame, cops would probably gossip to the press.

So you can probably tally such events, crunch the numbers, and get a decent conspiracy-resistant estimate.

As a layman, I have not seen much unrealistic hype. I think the hype-level is just about right.

You should not bury such a good post in a shortform

lemonhopeΩ12-1

Maybe it should be a game that everyone can play

lemonhope*20

Yeah I just wanted to check that nobody is giving away money before I go do the exact opposite thing I've been doing. I might try to tidy something up and post it first

I do think I could put a good team together and make decent contributions quickly

I can only find capabilities jobs right now. I would be interested in starting a tiny applied research org or something. How hard is it to get funding for that? I don't have a strong relevant public record, but I did quite a lot of work at METR and elsewhere.

4ryan_greenblatt
It might be easier to try to establish some track record by doing a small research project first. I don't know if you have enough runway for this though.
4habryka
What do you mean by "applied research org"? Like, applied alignment research?
2lemonhope
I do think I could put a good team together and make decent contributions quickly

I wonder if anybody has tried to quantify how much it's worth to be a swing voter. I imagine if you are the government contractor up for renewal then it's worth quite a lot, but I wonder how much of the money/benefits the average Joe sees.

I don't know much about swing state benefits except that Milwaukee, Wisconsin got their lead pipes replaced by the fed and the workers were required to be local and they say they were paid quite well https://youtube.com/watch?v=4VpwgG0P8VU

Load More