comp_throw7

12 ms·

31.
by comp_throw7 1y ago
What do you mean? All standard engineering offers (and probably most non-engineering) roles at FAANG are negotiable; in fact, Netflix might be the least flexible - or at least used to be, because they tried to hit what they thought would b
32.
by comp_throw7 1y ago
> My response to that is: it's good to want things. He doesn't get to ask the world to forget his name. Is this anything other than a naked assertion of force, that might makes right? He couldn't stop it, therefore it&#x2
33.
by comp_throw7 1y ago
That's an empirical claim, not a "base principle" (whatever that is). And, uh, yeah, I agree that I am not re-examining my beliefs in response to a bunch of random unsupported accusations by people who are demonstrably not f
34.
by comp_throw7 1y ago
Your persistent refusal to acknowledge that Scott did not want to go from a world where his patients Googling his real name did _not_ immediately lead to his blog, to a world where it _did_ immediately lead to his blog, and that was his pri
35.
by comp_throw7 1y ago
You keep saying things that are proven to be trivially false with 5 seconds of examination, so I think the dismissal is justified.
36.
by comp_throw7 1y ago
Global Health & Development is like 40% of EA funding today. Please stop making things up.
37.
by comp_throw7 1y ago
> Calling someone a dumbass in this situation is a kindness First they laugh...
38.
by comp_throw7 1y ago
> I don't think any "Rationalists" I ever met would actually consider concepts like scientific method... In that case I don't think you've met any of the people under discussion.
39.
by comp_throw7 1y ago
What a deeply confused criticism of rationalists, who are possibly the only meaningful social group in existence to celebrate changing their minds in response to new evidence.
40.
by comp_throw7 1y ago
This is not a commonly-held position in EA.
41.
by comp_throw7 1y ago
Someone pointed this out in the comments section of the original post, but this was entirely missing the point Eliezer was trying to make, which was that these incidents serve as a narrow refutation of alignment-by-default claims, because e
42.
by comp_throw7 1y ago
It was not told to do so.
43.
by comp_throw7 1y ago
This is a non-answer that doesn't explain any difference in capabilities between GPT-3.5 and Claude 4 Opus.
44.
by comp_throw7 1y ago
Not quite. My point was mostly that the term made more sense in its original context rather than the one it's been co-opted for. But it was convenient for various people to use the term for other stuff, and languages gonna language.
45.
by comp_throw7 1y ago
I think this post is sort of confused because, centrally, the reason "AI Alignment" is a thing people talk about is because the problem, as originally envisioned, was to figure out how to avoid having superintelligent AI kill ever
46.
by comp_throw7 1y ago
It was a pre-existing term of art.
47.
by comp_throw7 1y ago
Confusing take - Gemini 2.5 is probably the best general purpose coding model right now, and before that it was Sonnet 3.5. (Maybe 3.7 if you can get it to be less reward-hacky.) OpenAI hasn't had the best coding model for... coming
48.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
Surely you're familiar with https://ai.meta.com/research/cicero/diplomacy/ (2022)? > I wonder who pays the bills of the authors. And your bills, for that matter. Also, what a weirdly conspiratorial qu
49.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> Sorry, when you are the president you don't get that leeway to make mistakes and then correct them by saying "sorry, my bad!" No way. What does "don't get to" mean? Descriptively, this is false; normative
50.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> I've been following Argentina's struggles for a while given my time in Brazil and the parallels to hyperinflation so I was willing to consider his unorthodox approach, but perhaps it blinded me? ???
51.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
The term "alignment" was first coined in this context as a suggestion from Stuart Russell to MIRI, in 2014: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZxWzCGKzX84S7DBZ9/when-was-t... Both, of course, are concerned
52.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
This is not even close to true, though it's true that many of the people at the big AI labs estimate non-trivial odds of human extinction downstream of AI progress. Some of those people are working on "safety", but some are
53.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
This claim is already falsified by existing AI capabilities, which neither required simulating how humans solve similar problems, nor required understanding how to hand-code the relevant algorithms (and indeed we don't even have the in
54.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
Such a contract - where someone promises to use their (future) presidential powers in exchange for some consideration from the other party - would be illegal and unenforceable, because someone paying the president to exercise executive powe
55.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
There is no mechanism by which Trump can offer a statement of intent that legally binds him to following that specific course of action after he becomes president.
56.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
Trump isn't president yet, so any such conversations are not legally significant actions the way the person you're responding to meant.
57.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
An insurance company's "role" is to distribute risk, not to "pay for medical care" without question. The perversion of what constitutes "insurance" in the US medical industry is the fault of our legal sys
58.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
Epoch is a non-profit research institute, not a startup.
59.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
Huh? Humans are not anywhere near the limit of physical intelligence, and we have many existence proofs that we (humans) can design systems that are superhuman in various domains. "Scientific R&D" is not something that human
60.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> We do understand how they work, we did build them. The mathematical foundation of these models are sound. The statistics behind them are well understood. We don't understand how they work in the sense that we can't extract th

More ›