It's a good metaphor, but I think one important aspect this misses is overfitting - when you have a lot of parameters the NN can literally memorise small training sets till it gets 100% on the training set and 0% on the test set. Whereas a smaller model is forced to learn the underlying structure, so generalises better.

Hence larger models need a much larger training set even to match smaller models, which is another disadvantage of larger models (besides for higher per token training and inference costs).

Ok, in that case you're just basically referring to the SSA Vs SIA. That's an old chestnut, and either way leads to seemingly paradoxical results.

1. Yes
2. In universalism the question is then why out of all the parts of the consciousness I could happen to be experiencing, I'm experiencing this particular part.

There is no other deck of cards here. There's no copy of me to compare myself to, and say how curious that looks exactly like me.

That's like saying that every game of cards must be rigged, because otherwise the chance of having this particular card order is miniscule...

Do we have the numbers?

• what percentage of anthropic shares are owned by employees?
• Of those what percentage are owned by EA pulled employees?
• Of those how many which actually translate their words into actions once they have the money?
• What percentage do we expect them to give, and over what time frame?
• How does that compare to current EA related funding?

Making up random numbers (I've done zero research)

• Not more than 50 billion owned by employeess
• Not more than 20 billion owned by EA employees
• 75% will put their money where their mouth is
• And donate 50%. If they spread that over 20 years, at current interest rates that's about 500 million a year
• Givewell raised 400 million last year. Not all of that is from EAs, but not all EAs donated there. Let's say total of 500 million.

Then if this all happens it about doubles fundings for EA related causes. Is a reasonable chance of that happening worth upfronting donations for?

Fair enough. I found it unreadable in a way I associate with AI (lots of dense words, but tricky to extract the content out of them), and the em dashes are somewhat of a giveaway.

Given how much slop there is I do appreciate if people clarify what they used AI for because I don't want to wade through a ton of slop which wasn't even human written.

Thanks for replying.

Hi, was this post written by, or with assistance from, AI?

Thanks

What about persuading politicians that AI safety is a cause that will win them votes? That requires very broad spectrum outreach to get as many ordinary people on board as possible.

Lots of individual mistakes here, that together serve to severely overstate the case made:

Failure to defeat Houthi Rebels: The US Navy's struggles against the Houthis' low-cost drone arsenal demonstrate how even non-state actors can challenge NATO air defense. NATO forces found themselves hard-pressed to counter relatively primitive drone attacks.

The Houthis were unable to touch US naval power. What the US couldn't do is defend ships in a very narrow stretch of water from drone, missile, and speedboat attacks. This is a very specific situation, and it's like saying there's an end to US ground power because they couldn't decisively defeat the Taliban. Asymmetric warfare works, more news at 10.

Also note the drones they were using were far from cheap, often costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Economic logic of drone warfare: In Ukraine, drones account for over 70% of combat kills—a proportion likely to increase. The economics are devastating: $1,000 FPV drones routinely destroy $7 million Abrams tanks. Modern tanks are dangerously outdated and the entire armored warfare needs to be redesigned from the ground up to face the realities of modern drone warfare.

You do see the videos where the tank gets blown up by the (closer to $5000) drone, you don't see the vast majority of videos where it does nothing. Meanwhile how many people were killed by the Abrams tank, and how useful was the Abrams tank when used correctly to break through enemy lines and regain movement - something drones are not really capable of.

Obsolescence of NATO doctrine: NATO's military doctrine remains rooted in pre-drone warfare assumptions, creating an embarrassing disconnect where peacetime generals lecture battle-hardened Ukrainian officers who possess actual combat experience against a lethal, drone-equipped adversary.

Given that Nato's doctrine assumes air superiority, which drones barely impact at all, I don't see how you could possibly draw such a conclusion from the war in Ukraine, where both sides decisively lack air superiority.

Navy should transition from few expensive carriers to distributed drone-launching platforms—hundreds of cheap drone carriers, underwater drone deployments, and autonomous loyal wingmen for the naval air-force.

The seas are huge, and cheap drones are short range and slow. Enemy ships are difficult to find in a vast empty sea. Ships are extremely difficult to destroy or cripple. Communications are almost certainly jammed. For drones to be useful they need to be:

• fast
• long range
• carry a large payload
• autonomous

We call such drones "cruise missiles" and they are extensively deployed in all NATO Navies. If you know a way to make them cheaper, then the DoD will almost certainly be very interested.

autonomous loyal wingmen for the naval air-force.

Current drone warfare is all about low cost, slow, short range, non-autonomous technology. Autonomous wingmen would by high cost, fast, long range, autonomous. I don't see how you could possibly draw conclusions about them from current events.

The Transparent Battlefield: Assume constant observation. Every movement is tracked, every concentration targeted within minutes. Forces must operate dispersed, communicating through secure mesh networks, moving constantly. Resources, command, logistics—everything dispersed, redundant, modular.

This is basically current NATO doctrine, and has been for years.

Technology parity: China has successfully replicated fifth-generation fighter capabilities (notably copying JSF technology through espionage) and is now mass-producing these aircraft at scale.

This is true, but note that China is investing heavily into this stuff (and aircraft carriers), not autonomous drone swarms.

are increasingly vulnerable to drone swarms and hypersonic missiles

I have seen zero evidence of this. Indeed hypersonic missiles are similarly vulnerable to air defences as non hypersonic ones, and come with a whole host of problems of their own.