First, it's clear to me they're not just myths bolstered by propaganda, and they really are qualitatively different from their low-trust counterparts, which I understand, and consider to be "natural," requiring no explanation. I think it's a different concept than the WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) thing, though of course, there's a lot of overlap. A related question: how do they unravel, and can this be arrested?
I'm interested in a measure of chess-playing ability that doesn't depend on human players, and while perfect play would be the ideal reference, as long as chess remains unsolved, the other end of the spectrum, the engine whose algorithm is "list all legal moves and uniformly at random pick one...
This question I submitted got rejected from the Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) benchmark set for being too easy. I'm really proud of it though, so I figured I'd post it here. > A wooden cube of unit side length and relative density 0.75 floats stably in a pool of water....
This post is motivated by a popular conflation in the context of AI generation (such as the recent WSJ article about detecting "cheating") but this is applicable more generally. There are many ways of marking ownership/provenance of a particular work, text, images, or anything else, and they serve different purposes....
You might have been led to believe the only way to make sense of the equation 1+2+3+…=−112 is with "zeta function regularization," involving analytic continuation or similar high-tech tools, and that there is no way to develop intuition for this. You were probably was told this by mathematicians, to whom...
First, it's clear to me they're not just myths bolstered by propaganda, and they really are qualitatively different from their low-trust counterparts, which I understand, and consider to be "natural," requiring no explanation. I think it's a different concept than the WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) thing, though of...
Calling the mods here "Goofusia" is a lot like Galileo calling Pope Urban II "Simplicio."
dude, it's not about you.
I've always been skeptical when people say this: sometimes it really is a matter of status or seniority or some similar aspect of identity unrelated to the actual submission. Interesting, in this case, they're not even pretending it's about the quality of the work: link
Rachel Carson, for spearheading the campaign against DDT.
The FDA, with its "invisible graveyard."
I think you're simply wrong that this is unpopular. As I understand it, this seems to in fact be in keeping with people's intuitive understanding of what a fair system would look like when it takes a lot of difficult work to make a spot usable, which is why it's persistent.
if we pass a law to take billionaire's stuff, they'll use the same law to take our stuff.
Something like "They said income tax would only be for the 1%"
meters – longer than football fields!
Some people might overlook the hilarity of this remark, so I'd like to draw specific attention to it.
Also, relevant xkcd: 2283.
Ha, no, I didn't think you were censoring it, but I did think that it said an actual hair color, but a different one every time you tried it.
My hair is [insert hair color here].
Trying this myself, I think it might be worth clarifying that the part in the brackets is directly from the model's response.
I'm interested in a measure of chess-playing ability that doesn't depend on human players, and while perfect play would be the ideal reference, as long as chess remains unsolved, the other end of the spectrum, the engine whose algorithm is "list all legal moves and uniformly at random pick one of them," seems the natural choice.
I read that the formula for Elo rating is scaled so that, with some assumptions of transitivity of winning odds, so it's trivial to convert probability to Elo rating, and my question is roughly equivalent to "What is the probability of victory of random play against, say, Stockfish 17?" If the Elo is close to 0[1], that makes... (read more)
This question I submitted got rejected from the Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) benchmark set for being too easy. I'm really proud of it though, so I figured I'd post it here.
A wooden cube of unit side length and relative density 0.75 floats stably in a pool of water. What is the distance from the highest point on the cube to the surface of the water, calculated to four decimal places?
I got a question (maybe more than one? The email left that ambiguous) accepted to the "Humanity's Last Exam" AI Benchmark!
This post is motivated by a popular conflation in the context of AI generation (such as the recent WSJ article about detecting "cheating") but this is applicable more generally.
There are many ways of marking ownership/provenance of a particular work, text, images, or anything else, and they serve different purposes.
If you have no adversaries working against you, say, if you're an artist whose primary goal is wanting people seeing your paintings to be able to get to your website to find more of your work, simply adding your name might be enough. An AI-related example of this kind of thing might be adding prompt information to the metadata of your image file.
But if... (read 261 more words →)
RAAIA is a terrible acronym. How do you even pronounce that? Raya?
The PATRIOT Act of 2001 expired in 2020, so that nifty acronym is up for grabs! If you long for the the same kind of thing, the comfort of knowing the government is watching over you all the time, judging your conduct (like Santa Claus!) and/or the thrill of righteous satisfaction at seeing strangers and enemies who are found wanting be stripped of dangerous freedoms they ought not to have, and for the same kind of reasons, the existential threat posed by Arabs/Iraqis or whatever, reüsing the name wouldn't even be deceptive. Perhaps something like "Promoting Accountability and Targeting Risk In Open-source Technology".
You might have been led to believe the only way to make sense of the equation is with "zeta function regularization," involving analytic continuation or similar high-tech tools, and that there is no way to develop intuition for this.
You were probably was told this by mathematicians, to whom "intuition" means something very different than it does to me.
So here follows what I consider an intuitive explanation for this result. Prerequisites include an intuition for the arithmetic of positive integers (most readers will have this), and a willingness to stfu about rigor.
For historical reasons, involving "counting" the number of individual objects (sheep, stones, sticks, whatever) in a collection, there exists a function that... (read 878 more words →)
First, it's clear to me they're not just myths bolstered by propaganda, and they really are qualitatively different from their low-trust counterparts, which I understand, and consider to be "natural," requiring no explanation.
I think it's a different concept than the WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) thing, though of course, there's a lot of overlap.
A related question: how do they unravel, and can this be arrested?
The past is a foreign country. Look upon its works and despair.
From the perspective of human civilization of, say, three centuries ago, present-day humanity is clearly a superintelligence.
In any domain they would have considered important, we retain none of the values of that time. They tried to align our values to theirs, and failed abysmally.
With so few reasonable candidates for past superintelligences, reference-class forecasting the success of AI alignment looks bleak.
I'd call what you're describing iterative self-improvement instead of recursive, where the ability to self-improve is itself improved. Loosely speaking, your approach might get you "linear" progress, but not "exponential."