Last week, OpenAI released the official version of o1, alongside a system card explaining their safety testing framework. Astute observers, most notably Zvi, noted something peculiar: o1's safety testing was performed on a model that... wasn't the release version of o1 (or o1 pro). Weird! Unexpected! If you care about...
I appreciate that you took the time to re-evaluate my original post. I did have prosocial intention, and perhaps you're right that I should have explained my intentions better.
My opinion is that the author is engaged in damaging self-deception. My goals with my response were to 1) surface this self-deception and 2) demonstrate its absurdity. In so doing, I hoped the author and people with similar inclinations wouldn't self harm in this particular way.
My interpretation is that we don't quite agree what the author is doing wrong. In addition to the issue you identified as moral self-centeredness ("how I want the world to be is how it ought to be") I understand... (read 419 more words →)
I didn't miss the second narrative, rather:
My failure to engage with the criticisms of the system was entirely intentional.
I had three reasons for ignoring the criticisms:
I grant that one can agree with their criticisms, I simply found them to be of secondary importance.
This essay was incredibly sad to read. It reads as a self-deception, a self-sabotage, an attempt to justify a continued refusal to pay the prices required to experience their desired outcomes.
The question I thought should obviously be consuming the author, namely, how to successfully navigate the system that actually exists, was only briefly considered before it was rejected as intolerable. Instead, the topic of the essay was how incorrect the system was for not granting the author something they appear to feel owed. Emergent systems like society are not necessarily just, fair, or even logical. They rarely do everything we want them to, as well as we want them to, or grant... (read more)
Last week, OpenAI released the official version of o1, alongside a system card explaining their safety testing framework. Astute observers, most notably Zvi, noted something peculiar: o1's safety testing was performed on a model that... wasn't the release version of o1 (or o1 pro).
Weird! Unexpected! If you care about AI safety, bad! If you fall in this last camp your reaction was probably something like Zvi's:
That’s all really, really, really not okay.
While Zvi's post thoroughly examines the tests, their unclear results, etc., I wanted to zoom in a little more on this tweet from roon (OAI engineer):
... (read 289 more words →)"unironically the reason [this happened] is that progress is so fast that we have to write
I think you've made a motte-and-bailey argument:
Your motte is definitely defensible. Obviously, you can alter the payoff structure of the game to a point where you should play it.
That does not mean "there's no real paradox" , it just means you are no longer talking about the paradox. SBF literally said he would take the game in the specific case where the game was double-or-nothing. Totally different!
This ends my issue with... (read more)
I made an omission mistake in just saying "sampling from noisy posteriors," note I didn't say they were performing unbiased sampling.
To extend the Psychology example: a study could be considered a sampling technique of the noisy posterior. You appear to be arguing that the extent to which this is a biased sample is a "skill issue."
I'm arguing that it is often very difficult to perform unbiased sampling in some fields; the issue might be a property of the posterior and not that the researcher has a weak prefrontal cortex. In this framing it would totally make sense if two researchers studying the same/correlated posterior(s) are biased in the same direction–its the same posterior!
Eh. feels wrong to me. Specifically, this argument feels over-complicated.
As best I can tell, the predominant mode of science in replication-crisis affected fields is that they do causal inference by sampling from noisy posteriors.
The predominant mode of science in non-replication-crisis affected fields is that they don't do this or do this less.
Most of the time it seems like science is conducted like that in those fields because they have to. Can you come up with a better way of doing Psychology research? Science in hard fields is hard is definitely a less sexy hypothesis, but it seems obviously true?
I really, really, really did not like this post. I found it to be riddled with bad assumptions, questionable unsupported claims, and critical omissions. I don't think any of the core arguments survive close scrutiny.
Moreover, I took serious issue with the tone throughout. The first half hand-waves some seriously questionable claims into existence with strong confidence, while the second half opines that everyone who ever thought otherwise is some combination of sycophantic, incurious, brainwashed, or an idiot. I would have appreciated more intellectual humility.
***
My read is that this post totally whiffed on the entire subject of die casting cost savings.
... (read 592 more words →)The chassis of cars is a relatively small fraction of their cost. The
Actually, my read of the data is that the mountain west is not more environmentally conscious than the rest of the US.
The mountain west poll does not include national numbers, so I have no idea where your national comparisons are coming from. If I did, I'd check for same year/same question, but because I don't know where they're from I can't.
Take a look at this cool visualization of different state partisan splits from 2018: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/partisan-maps-2018/
The mountain west appears neither significantly more nor significantly less partisan on any of the climate change related questions than the rest of the US.
My main point, which I don't think you've contradicted (even if I accept that... (read more)
My initial reaction, admittedly light on evidence, is that the numbers you present are at least partially due to selection bias. You've picked a set of issues, like climate change, that are not representative of the entire scope of "environmentalism." It shouldn't surprise anybody that "worry about global warming" is a blue issue, but the much more conservative-y "land use," "protection of fish and wildlife" and "conservation," issues for whatever reason are often not measured. In short, it feels a little to me that your actual argument is that liberal-coded environmental issues are partisan.
More than half of state wildlife conservation funding comes from hunting licenses and firearms taxes. I assure you, these... (read more)
I suspect there are a few genres of late. Most people have the Sudden Realization variety; I suffer from Lucid Coma tardiness. This horrific disease means I'm fully aware of the right time to leave and how it reflects on me, I just... don't. Psychoanalysis might reveal some sort of ego conflict or latent aggression towards the world for imposing a schedule on me, but all of this is to say I think this model needs to add another dimension for agency.
Perhaps we can make a 2x2: calibration x execution reliability.