+1ing 5 specifically
mfw you didn't add the final addendum (https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1642216007552106496)
What I do not understand is why Apple and Google haven’t taken care of this for us.
Palmer Luckey has this talking point about how China has all the big tech companies (Apple in particular) by the balls. That + Google maybe not wanting to seem monopolistic by banning their competition seems to be a sufficient explanation.
Is "behavior vector space" referencing something? If not, what do you mean by it?
Unrelated to the post's content itself: will LW get in trouble for hosting this excerpt?
Responding to the last line: to be clear, I'm not claiming I have one. More wondering if the AI risk community should try to find one as a desperate hail mary given they have ~0 hope for their current research directions.
aka I'm wondering if trying to find one even is a desperate hail mary
Wait, what? Do you mean colloquial hieratic (just literally priestly) or his hieratic:
hieratic, adj. Of computer documentation, impenetrable because the author never sees outside his own intimate knowledge of the subject and is therefore unable to identify or meet the expository needs of newcomers. It might as well be written in hieroglyphics.
Cuz the latter seems extremely close to sazeny, if maybe additionally connoting blame on the author.
I'm in the middle of writing a nonfiction book whose central conceit is something like "an abridged dictionary of Kadhamic." Not literally the actual canonical Alexandrian Kadhamic, but the idea is to present some hundred-or-so concepts that are long and complicated and difficult to convey in English, but which are not fundamentally more complicated than things we sum up with a single word like "basketball" or "gaslighting" or "cringe."
Very interested for when this comes out :O
FYI, eigenkarma's been proposed for LessWrong multiple times (with issues supposedly found); see https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xN2sHnLupWe4Tn5we/improving-on-the-karma-system#Eigenkarma for example.
https://twitter.com/carmenleelau/status/1593354133146402816 is another recent formulation of ~the same idea.
https://guzey.com/co-working/ seems to be ~that; a friend group that periodically checks in on each other.
Probably supposed to be something like "If it's free [and not open source], you are the product."
Reminds me of http://mindingourway.com/recklessness/ (and also your recent post on overconfidence).
Not all political activism has to be waving flags around and chanting chants. Sometimes activists actually have goals and then accomplish something. I think we should try to learn from those people, as lowly as your opinion might be of them, if we don't seem to have many other options.
This does make me wonder if activism from scientists has ever worked significantly. https://www.bismarckanalysis.com/Nuclear_Weapons_Development_Case_Study.pdf documents the Manhattan Project, https://www.palladiummag.com/2021/03/16/leo-szilards-failed-quest-to-build-a-...
An institution could do A/B testing on interventions like these. It can talk to people more than once.
We can't take this for granted: when A tells B that B's views are inconsistent, the standard response (afaict) is for B to default in one direction (and which direction is often heavily influenced by their status quo), make that direction their consistent view, and then double down every time they're pressed.
It's possible that we have ~1 shot per person at convincing them.
I've heard it go by the name security through obscurity (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity).
Related: seems like some search engines are already integrating LLMs:
- One approach is directly providing links; see https://metaphor.systems, brought up yesterday @ https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/rZwy6CeYAWXgGcxgC/metaphor-systems
- Another is LLM summarization of search engine provided links; https://you.com/search?q=what+was+the+recent+breakthrough+in+fusion+research%3F as an example
Just for calibration, what are the other things you've tried? I've tried alternative search engines like https://millionshort.com, link aggregators/curators like reddit/slashdot/hackernews/etc, manually curated lists.
(I've been playing around with it for a bit and it seems quite good to me too)
So their reported beliefs track a convenient consistent worldview, but they don’t use the vast majority of their practical knowledge and life experience, and can’t change their mind when it’s not socially convenient to do so.
The first half I understand the reasoning of, but what's the reasoning for "and can’t change their mind when it’s not socially convenient to do so"? Specifically, is this saying they can't change their publicly reported beliefs vs their privately held ones when it's not socially convenient?
Fox-Hedgehog doesn't fit well imo. It's more something like RISC (K) vs CISC (T).
I got in via it in 2018; not sure about recently.
To me, the difference between the colloquial term "brainstorming" and this site's term "babble and prune" is the intentional choice to split the activity into two phases: an unfiltered idea generation phase followed by a filtering/editing phase. Emphasis on "unfiltered", for the anxiety-reducing and writer's block circumventing reasons you gave.
I'd be grateful for an update down the line, if you come across any unexpected benefits/shortcomings.
nit:
and find no non-white ravens (but do find black ravens)
I think you meant "no non-black ravens" here.
Does anyone know why GPT 4.5 is seemingly getting stuck on the word "explicitly", repeating it continuously after it encounters it once? Is this only happening in ChatGPT? Seems like some sort of context collapse.
Sightings in the wild: https://x.com/KelseyTuoc/status/1902132078378189198 https://x.com/Josikinz/status/1901840144363082047 https://x.com/4confusedemoji/status/1895613332662730832 https://x.com/Westoncb/status/1895615564313448781 https://x.com/noself86/status/1901230843240370287 https://x.com/0x440x46/status/1900855229068829139 https://x.com/Gusa... (read more)