Sorry, there was a temporary bug where we were returning mismatched reward indicators to the client.  It's since been patched!  I don't believe anybody actually rolled The Void during this period.

Sorry, there was a temporary bug where we were returning mismatched reward indicators to the client.  It's since been patched!  I don't believe anybody actually rolled The Void during this period.

Pico-lightcone purchases are back up, now that we think we've ruled out any obvious remaining bugs.  (But do let us know if you buy any and don't get credited within a few minutes.)

If you had some vague prompt like "write an essay about how the field of alignment is misguided" and then proofread it you've met the criteria as laid out.

No, such outputs will almost certainly fail this criteria (since they will by default be written with the typical LLM "style").

"10x engineers" are a thing, and if we assume they're high-agency people always looking to streamline and improve their workflows, we should expect them to be precisely the people who get a further 10x boost from LLMs. Have you observed any specific people suddenly becoming 10x more prolific?

In addition to the objection from Archimedes, another reason this is unlikely to be true is that 10x coders are often much more productive than other engineers because they've heavily optimized around solving for specific problems or skills that other engineers are bottlenecked by, and most of those optimizations don't readily admit of having an LLM suddenly inserted into the loop.

Not at the moment, but it is an obvious sort of thing to want.

Thanks for the heads up, we'll have this fixed shortly (just need to re-index all the wiki pages once).

Curated.  This post does at least two things I find very valuable:

1. Accurately represents differing perspectives on a contentious topic
2. Makes clear, epistemically legible arguments on a confusing topic

And so I think that this post both describes and advances the canonical "state of the argument" with respect to the Sharp Left Turn (and similar concerns).  I hope that other people will also find it helpful in improving their understanding of e.g. objections to basic evolutionary analogies (and why those objections shouldn't make you very optimistic).

Yes:

My model is that Sam Altman regarded the EA world as a memetic threat, early on, and took actions to defuse that threat by paying lip service / taking openphil money / hiring prominent AI safety people for AI safety teams.

In the context of the thread, I took this to suggest that Sam Altman never had any genuine concern about x-risk from AI, or, at a minimum, that any such concern was dominated by the social maneuvering you're describing.  That seems implausible to me given that he publicly expressed concern about x-risk from AI 10 months before OpenAI was publicly founded, and possibly several months before it was even conceived.

Sam Altman posted Machine intelligence, part 1^[1] on February 25th, 2015.  This is admittedly after the FLI conference in Puerto Rico, which is reportedly where Elon Musk was inspired to start OpenAI (though I can't find a reference substantiating his interaction with Demis as the specific trigger), but there is other reporting suggesting that OpenAI was only properly conceived later in the year, and Sam Altman wasn't at the FLI conference himself.  (Also, it'd surprise me a bit if it took nearly a year, i.e. from Jan 2nd^[2] to Dec 11th^[3], for OpenAI to go from "conceived of" to "existing".)

1. ^{^}

   That of the famous "Development of superhuman machine intelligence (SMI) [1] is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity." quote.

2. ^{^}

   The FLI conference.

3. ^{^}

   OpenAI's public founding.