3 ms·

remember that time that lesswrong proved agi would be present by 2014? you're talking about the people that came up with roko's basilisk, which is religion / d

remember that time that lesswrong proved agi would be present by 2014? you're talking about the people that came up with roko's basilisk, which is religion / d&d tier overconfident

mindcrime 4y ago
WTF does LessWrong have to do with anything? Is anybody associated with LessWrong an actual researcher, as opposed to just an armchair philosopher? And even if some token number are, they hardly represent any kind of field-wide consensus.
- JohnHaugeland 4y ago
  > WTF does LessWrong have to do with anything? It's an example of the previous discussion: people talking about AI in the ridiculously infinitive, in threads. Nothing there says "practicing researchers in papers." I even agree with what appears to be your evaluation of LessWrong folks, but the thing being asked didn't gate the discussion to people who /should/ /be/ in the discussion, and AI's discussion is about as weighed down by outsider fakers as politics or earth-shapeology is I mean, a discussion of the discussion of vaccines has to include the cranks, doesn't it? As much as they shouldn't be there, they very much are, and the impact they're having is very real In case there's any inclarity, LessWrong are the people that got famous for writing incorrect parables about logic principles in the actual tone of Harry Potter fan fiction, an act I can't even make fun of because it's funnier than any of my jokes about it. I had not intended the HPMoR authors as a north star reference. I had actually indicated them to remind us that the vast majority of the AI discussion isn't by AI people. In the meantime, even if you gate it to real AI people, it'd be pretty surprising if you can't name any overconfidence. How many different years has Kurzweil assigned the proven birth of AI to? What did Cyc promise? When did Tesla self-driving first miss its mark? Do you remember the promises they used to make about Siri? Am I the only person who remembers that Cue:CAT was sold as an AI device, as was Teddy Ruxpin? Who here remembers IBM Watson? Remember when AI was going to solve credit card fraud? Remember when AI was going to defeat child pornography? It's not like it was rare. There was a toothbrush called the Ara that was going to use AI to solve cavities. AIs can see your heart attack five years in advance! AIs can predict psychosis from how you write. AIs can pick out criminals by their faces! AI can tell if you're gay. And then like, you try it in the field, and chihuahua vs blueberry muffin is still a struggle. Tanks and time of day, you know? AI has more reliably lampooned itself with public promises and failures than any other industry I can think of offhand except maybe Hollywood, and I live on the planet with "fusion is just 10 years away" as a slogan Also I'm in AI, and I'm responsible for a few of those failures. Go team! Let's promise the moon next, then deliver them a Lego Challenger Shuttle playset a year late. Don't get me wrong - Stable Diffusion is literal, actual magic. I'm scared for emad, that Lord Oberon is going to beat down his door one night and take it back, and possibly turn him into a tree. He's violated the "the humans turned that star into a donut and we don't actually know how" rule. https://imgur.com/gallery/wpZ4w https://imgur.com/gallery/wpZ4w But also, AI was going to have given us self-driving cars before Tesla was founded, and I think people have just forgotten that I mean we haven't even lived up to the 1990s AT&T commercials yet. It's really weird to be this far in the future and this far in the past at the same time. It's almost 2023 and I'm still yelling "no" into the phone four times in a row to get the menu to understand a single syllable, and barely half of that is my mobile carrier's fault . > Is anybody associated with LessWrong an actual researcher I have no idea. I don't read that stuff. I just like making fun of Roko's Basilisk. If I was going to bet money, I'd put 100% on no, but also, in a community that size, y've gotta figure they got at least a couple over the years? I'd bet fewer than a quarter as many as you'd expect from just a random sampling of the populace. I mean. Also let's remember there have been more than a few questionable researchers over the years. I'd probably get flagged if I Bogdanoved a list here, but, look, if you're at a quack convention, a fringe "researcher" is gonna show up for some credibility trading, right? And also Gwern just said he was there since 2014 in a different thread, and he's the very much the real deal, so I guess the answer is "at least one apparently." Anyway, if you can't laugh at Roko's Basilisk, buddy, I feel for you. That's eternal comedy gold. There are 1980s cartoon villains who broke the fourth wall and time travelled to the modern day just to make fun of it. You can write it on two pounds of paper and get the gold exchanged for money at most banks. Gary Larson cannot be reached for comment. If you don't know what it means, pretty please look it up; I promise you that it's worth your time. I didn't say D&D tier for no reason. They genuinely large-group panicked that a scary AI from the future of an alternate universe was going to come back in time to punish them to death for not dumping all their money into speculatively inventing it. Like I'm not even kidding, that's really what it is. I was definitely not invoking Harry Potter and the Basilisk of Rationality as a bastion of credibility. Pinky swear. I'm not even spoiling it; that's just the beginning. I didn't get to the funny part. Please, set up some warm candle light, some soft music, a couple of your favorite beverages, and a bucket. You're in for a wild ride. (Two points, Quidditch themed presumably, to anyone who chooses to interpret Basilisk in the Carolingian sense.) Always remember: the discussion about Foo is not limited to Foo professionals
  - mindcrime 4y ago
    I mean, a discussion of the discussion of vaccines has to include the cranks, doesn't it? As much as they shouldn't be there, they very much are, and the impact they're having is very real Always remember: the discussion about Foo is not limited to Foo professionals Fair enough, and I mostly agree. I guess there's just a subtle point there to me, about the distinction between the value/merit of the conversation between the professionals and the peanut gallery. But yes, in the broadest sense, the peanut gallery discussion does matter to some extent.
gwern 4y ago
> remember that time that lesswrong proved agi would be present by 2014? Can't say as I do, and I was there in 2014, so presumably I would remember everyone being super disappointed. Link?
- JohnHaugeland 4y ago
  > Can't say as I do, and I was there in 2014, so presumably I would remember if you've been there since 2014, you know that all of their rokos get taken down, in the hope of curating mistakes away from being noticed. most of the people there since then don't know about that, or much of the other high comedy, either. i would also describe them as having proven that a future ai from a different universe is going to quantum reality travel to this one to punish us for not devoting our wallets to pay for its invention, which is basiliskically hilarious. one of my favorite things in the history of the internet, right up there with timecube. sure, a person might say "Well they didn't prove that, that was just one user and the founder and a couple other easily scared campfire listeners," but that would miss the point of how comedy narratives work, in the effort to disprove a statement that wasn't actually meant to be factual, but was rather (and somewhat obviously) meant as a ... let's see, victorian voice, "cutting jibe." nobody's really motivated by "the fact remains that it was not a proof." if they subsequently just-asking-questionsed me to prove roko's basilisk was real, i definitely wouldn't spend the time, because it's perfectly obvious what i'm talking about, that reality is in no way a supporting column in what i actually said, that what they're asking me for is a direct contravention of what i actually said, and mostly because i don't want to set myself up for a later unpleasant to listen to false meta-narrative where someone patiently explains things to me that aren't related to what i was actually saying . > Link? if, at the end of my saying "to get to the other side," someone asks me to link them to the road, is sure they don't remember an avenue there, and doesn't remember being disappointed by the lack of available poultry, i'm not going to bother. that isn't how jokes work. it's just not worth my time unpopular opinion: 95% of the time, someone asking for a link is just trying to call bullshit without coming out and saying it. much like corporate speak has developed "let's circle back" and "let's take this offline," you know? a way to not feel like you're saying the thing you're actually saying. this cumbersome failure to interact with natural language does, i seem, feel intentional at any rate, here i am at the intersection of poe and brandolini. i enjoy your webpage. have a good day

remember that time that lesswrong proved agi would be present by 2014? you're talking about the people that came up with roko's basilisk, which is religion / d&d tier overconfident

mindcrime 4y ago

WTF does LessWrong have to do with anything? Is anybody associated with LessWrong an actual researcher, as opposed to just an armchair philosopher? And even if some token number are, they hardly represent any kind of field-wide consensus.

JohnHaugeland 4y ago
> WTF does LessWrong have to do with anything? It's an example of the previous discussion: people talking about AI in the ridiculously infinitive, in threads. Nothing there says "practicing researchers in papers." I even agree with what appears to be your evaluation of LessWrong folks, but the thing being asked didn't gate the discussion to people who /should/ /be/ in the discussion, and AI's discussion is about as weighed down by outsider fakers as politics or earth-shapeology is I mean, a discussion of the discussion of vaccines has to include the cranks, doesn't it? As much as they shouldn't be there, they very much are, and the impact they're having is very real In case there's any inclarity, LessWrong are the people that got famous for writing incorrect parables about logic principles in the actual tone of Harry Potter fan fiction, an act I can't even make fun of because it's funnier than any of my jokes about it. I had not intended the HPMoR authors as a north star reference. I had actually indicated them to remind us that the vast majority of the AI discussion isn't by AI people. In the meantime, even if you gate it to real AI people, it'd be pretty surprising if you can't name any overconfidence. How many different years has Kurzweil assigned the proven birth of AI to? What did Cyc promise? When did Tesla self-driving first miss its mark? Do you remember the promises they used to make about Siri? Am I the only person who remembers that Cue:CAT was sold as an AI device, as was Teddy Ruxpin? Who here remembers IBM Watson? Remember when AI was going to solve credit card fraud? Remember when AI was going to defeat child pornography? It's not like it was rare. There was a toothbrush called the Ara that was going to use AI to solve cavities. AIs can see your heart attack five years in advance! AIs can predict psychosis from how you write. AIs can pick out criminals by their faces! AI can tell if you're gay. And then like, you try it in the field, and chihuahua vs blueberry muffin is still a struggle. Tanks and time of day, you know? AI has more reliably lampooned itself with public promises and failures than any other industry I can think of offhand except maybe Hollywood, and I live on the planet with "fusion is just 10 years away" as a slogan Also I'm in AI, and I'm responsible for a few of those failures. Go team! Let's promise the moon next, then deliver them a Lego Challenger Shuttle playset a year late. Don't get me wrong - Stable Diffusion is literal, actual magic. I'm scared for emad, that Lord Oberon is going to beat down his door one night and take it back, and possibly turn him into a tree. He's violated the "the humans turned that star into a donut and we don't actually know how" rule. https://imgur.com/gallery/wpZ4w https://imgur.com/gallery/wpZ4w But also, AI was going to have given us self-driving cars before Tesla was founded, and I think people have just forgotten that I mean we haven't even lived up to the 1990s AT&T commercials yet. It's really weird to be this far in the future and this far in the past at the same time. It's almost 2023 and I'm still yelling "no" into the phone four times in a row to get the menu to understand a single syllable, and barely half of that is my mobile carrier's fault . > Is anybody associated with LessWrong an actual researcher I have no idea. I don't read that stuff. I just like making fun of Roko's Basilisk. If I was going to bet money, I'd put 100% on no, but also, in a community that size, y've gotta figure they got at least a couple over the years? I'd bet fewer than a quarter as many as you'd expect from just a random sampling of the populace. I mean. Also let's remember there have been more than a few questionable researchers over the years. I'd probably get flagged if I Bogdanoved a list here, but, look, if you're at a quack convention, a fringe "researcher" is gonna show up for some credibility trading, right? And also Gwern just said he was there since 2014 in a different thread, and he's the very much the real deal, so I guess the answer is "at least one apparently." Anyway, if you can't laugh at Roko's Basilisk, buddy, I feel for you. That's eternal comedy gold. There are 1980s cartoon villains who broke the fourth wall and time travelled to the modern day just to make fun of it. You can write it on two pounds of paper and get the gold exchanged for money at most banks. Gary Larson cannot be reached for comment. If you don't know what it means, pretty please look it up; I promise you that it's worth your time. I didn't say D&D tier for no reason. They genuinely large-group panicked that a scary AI from the future of an alternate universe was going to come back in time to punish them to death for not dumping all their money into speculatively inventing it. Like I'm not even kidding, that's really what it is. I was definitely not invoking Harry Potter and the Basilisk of Rationality as a bastion of credibility. Pinky swear. I'm not even spoiling it; that's just the beginning. I didn't get to the funny part. Please, set up some warm candle light, some soft music, a couple of your favorite beverages, and a bucket. You're in for a wild ride. (Two points, Quidditch themed presumably, to anyone who chooses to interpret Basilisk in the Carolingian sense.) Always remember: the discussion about Foo is not limited to Foo professionals
- mindcrime 4y ago
  I mean, a discussion of the discussion of vaccines has to include the cranks, doesn't it? As much as they shouldn't be there, they very much are, and the impact they're having is very real Always remember: the discussion about Foo is not limited to Foo professionals Fair enough, and I mostly agree. I guess there's just a subtle point there to me, about the distinction between the value/merit of the conversation between the professionals and the peanut gallery. But yes, in the broadest sense, the peanut gallery discussion does matter to some extent.

gwern 4y ago

> remember that time that lesswrong proved agi would be present by 2014? Can't say as I do, and I was there in 2014, so presumably I would remember everyone being super disappointed. Link?

JohnHaugeland 4y ago
> Can't say as I do, and I was there in 2014, so presumably I would remember if you've been there since 2014, you know that all of their rokos get taken down, in the hope of curating mistakes away from being noticed. most of the people there since then don't know about that, or much of the other high comedy, either. i would also describe them as having proven that a future ai from a different universe is going to quantum reality travel to this one to punish us for not devoting our wallets to pay for its invention, which is basiliskically hilarious. one of my favorite things in the history of the internet, right up there with timecube. sure, a person might say "Well they didn't prove that, that was just one user and the founder and a couple other easily scared campfire listeners," but that would miss the point of how comedy narratives work, in the effort to disprove a statement that wasn't actually meant to be factual, but was rather (and somewhat obviously) meant as a ... let's see, victorian voice, "cutting jibe." nobody's really motivated by "the fact remains that it was not a proof." if they subsequently just-asking-questionsed me to prove roko's basilisk was real, i definitely wouldn't spend the time, because it's perfectly obvious what i'm talking about, that reality is in no way a supporting column in what i actually said, that what they're asking me for is a direct contravention of what i actually said, and mostly because i don't want to set myself up for a later unpleasant to listen to false meta-narrative where someone patiently explains things to me that aren't related to what i was actually saying . > Link? if, at the end of my saying "to get to the other side," someone asks me to link them to the road, is sure they don't remember an avenue there, and doesn't remember being disappointed by the lack of available poultry, i'm not going to bother. that isn't how jokes work. it's just not worth my time unpopular opinion: 95% of the time, someone asking for a link is just trying to call bullshit without coming out and saying it. much like corporate speak has developed "let's circle back" and "let's take this offline," you know? a way to not feel like you're saying the thing you're actually saying. this cumbersome failure to interact with natural language does, i seem, feel intentional at any rate, here i am at the intersection of poe and brandolini. i enjoy your webpage. have a good day