Primarily interested in agent foundations and AI macrostrategy.
I endorse and operate by Crocker's rules.
I have not signed any agreements whose existence I cannot mention.
Posts
Wiki Contributions
Reminds me of how a few years ago I realized that I don't feel some forms of stress but can infer I'm stressed by noticing reduction in my nonverbal communication.
FYI if you want to use o1-like reasoning, you need to check off "Deep Think".
It's predictably censored on CCP-sensitive topics.
(In a different chat.) After the second question, it typed two lines (something like "There have been several attempts to compare Winnie the Pooh to a public individual...") and then overwrote it with "Sorry...".
I directionally agree with the core argument of this post.
The elephant(s) in the room according to me:
- What is an algorithm? (inb4 a physical process that can be interpreted/modeled as implementing computation)
- How do you distinguish (hopefully, in a principled way) between (a) an algorithm changing; (b) you being confused about what algorithm the thing is actually running and in reality being more nuanced so that what "naively" seems like a change of the algorithm is "actually" a reparametrization of the algorithm?
I haven't read the examples in this post super carefully, so perhaps you discuss this somewhere in the examples (though I don't think so because the examples don't seem to me like the place to include such discussion).
Thanks for the post! I expected some mumbo jumbo but it turned out to be an interesting intuition pump.
Not necessarily guilt-by-association, but maybe rather pointing out that the two arguments/conspiracy theories share a similar flawed structure, so if you discredit one, you should discredit the other.
Still, I'm also unsure how much structure they share, and even if they did, I don't think this would be discursively effective because I don't think most people care that much about (that kind of) consistency (happy to be updated in the direction of most people caring about it).