2 ms·

I stand by my claim. I pretended to be less knowledgeable than I currently am about the egyptologists vs. ancient aliens public debate. Then I reported my resu

I stand by my claim. I pretended to be less knowledgeable than I currently am about the egyptologists vs. ancient aliens public debate. Then I reported my results, together with the opinion of specialists from trusted sources (what actual egyptologists say). There is _plenty_ of debate on the internet about this. It is a popular subject, approached by many average internet idiots in many ways. Anyone reading this right now can confirm this by performing a search. You're trying to blur the lines between what an actual PhD is and what the perceived notion of what a PhD is. This is an error. My original comment regarding PhDs was placed in a marketing context. It is the same as the "9 in 10 specialists recomment Colgate" trick. In that analogy, you're trying to explain to me how dentists get their degree, instead of acknowledging that I was talking about the deceptive marketing campaign. You also failed to generalize the example outside of the egyptology realm. I can come up with other examples in other areas I consider myself above-average-but-not-actual-researcher. Attempts to demoralize me in those subjects won't make the LLM better, this is not a classical idiot internet debate: you winning doesn't make me lose. On the contrary: your use of diversion and misdirection actually support my case. You need to rely on cheap rethoric tactics to succeed, I don't. This video came out right after I posted my original challenge, and it explains some of the concepts I'm hopelessly trying to convey to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mco9zAamRk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mco9zAamRk It is a friendly cartoon-like simplification of how AIs are evaluated. It is actually friendly to AI enthusiasts, I recommend you to watch it and rethink the conversation from its perspective.

TeMPOraL 1y ago
The video seems to be an animated retelling of a 2021 blog post, so I'll just link to the post itself: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PZtsoaoSLpKjjbMqM/the-case-for-aligning-narrowly-superhuman-models https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PZtsoaoSLpKjjbMqM/the-case-f... There's some extra commentary from the reviewers of earlier drafts here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AyfDnnAdjG7HHeD3d/miri-comments-on-cotra-s-case-for-aligning-narrowly https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AyfDnnAdjG7HHeD3d/miri-comme... I've skimmed both of these - this is some substantial and pretty insightful reading (though 2021 was ages ago - especially now that AI safety stopped being a purely theoretical field). However, as of now, I can't really see the connections between the points being discussed there, and anything you tried to explain or communicate. Could you spell out the connection for us please?
- alganet 1y ago
  I just did. By pretending to know less of egyptian culture and the academic consensus around it, I played the role of a typical human (not trained to prompt, not smart enough to catch bullshit from the LLM). I then compared the LLM output with real information from specialists, and pointed out the mistakes. Your attempt at discrediting me revolves around trying to estabilish that my specialist information is not good, that ancient aliens is actually fine. I think that's hilarious. More importantly, I recognize the LLMs failing, you don't. I don't consider them to be good enough for a gullable audience. That should be a big sign of what's going on here, but you're ignoring it.

TeMPOraL 1y ago

The video seems to be an animated retelling of a 2021 blog post, so I'll just link to the post itself: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PZtsoaoSLpKjjbMqM/the-case-for-aligning-narrowly-superhuman-models https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PZtsoaoSLpKjjbMqM/the-case-f... There's some extra commentary from the reviewers of earlier drafts here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AyfDnnAdjG7HHeD3d/miri-comments-on-cotra-s-case-for-aligning-narrowly https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AyfDnnAdjG7HHeD3d/miri-comme... I've skimmed both of these - this is some substantial and pretty insightful reading (though 2021 was ages ago - especially now that AI safety stopped being a purely theoretical field). However, as of now, I can't really see the connections between the points being discussed there, and anything you tried to explain or communicate. Could you spell out the connection for us please?

alganet 1y ago
I just did. By pretending to know less of egyptian culture and the academic consensus around it, I played the role of a typical human (not trained to prompt, not smart enough to catch bullshit from the LLM). I then compared the LLM output with real information from specialists, and pointed out the mistakes. Your attempt at discrediting me revolves around trying to estabilish that my specialist information is not good, that ancient aliens is actually fine. I think that's hilarious. More importantly, I recognize the LLMs failing, you don't. I don't consider them to be good enough for a gullable audience. That should be a big sign of what's going on here, but you're ignoring it.