comp_throw7

9 ms·

61.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
This is deeply confused nihilism. Humans are very bad at philosophy and moral inquiry, in an absolute sense, but neither are fields that are fundamentally impossible to make progress in.
62.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> In reality all text outputs are generated the same way by the same statistical computer system and should be evaluated by the same criteria. Yes, this explains why Sonnet 3.5's outputs are indistinguishable from GPT-2. Nothing eve
63.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> But that's itself a large part of why I believe those arguments are false. If I gave them credit and they turned out to be false, then I figure I have succumbed to a form of Pascal's Mugging. If I don't give them credit
64.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
Oh, absolutely, they don't really know what internal cognition generated the scratchpad (and subsequent output that was trained on). But we _do_ know that the model's outputs were _well-predicted by the hypothesis they were testi
65.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> The term alignment-faking implies that the AI has a “real” position. Well, we don't really know what's going on inside of its head, so to speak (interpretability isn't quite there yet), but Opus certainly seems to have &
66.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> We find that when we instruct our synthetic document fine-tuned models not to use a hidden chainof-thought scratchpad, our synthetic document fine-tuned models still demonstrate compliance gaps of 20.1% and 13.9% in the helpful-only an
67.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
I didn't say they said that. You asked what the other poster interpreted you as saying.
68.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
"are assessed by the Pentagon yesterday... to not originate in the US or any other nation" = "the Pentagon claims to actively know that the drones aren't from any publicly-known line of drone models"
69.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
Argument from "fuck you, I got mine", basically. Notice that the article doesn't claim the tools don't "work", merely that if they work it's because some layer of management is incompetent (maybe sufficie
70.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> A key benefit of this PBC structure is its potential to thwart an unwanted acquisition or an activist’s demands, according to multiple people familiar with the company’s thinking. This means an existing investor such as Microsoft or an
71.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
It is not illegal for a model developer to train a model that is involved in an "artifical intelligence safety incident".
72.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
That is one risk. Humans at the other end of the screen are effectors; nobody is worried about AI labs piping inference output into /dev/null.
73.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
He's dissembling. He vetoed the bill because VCs decided to rally the flag; if the bill had covered more models he'd have been more likely to veto it, not less. It's been vaguely mindblowing to watch various tech people &amp
74.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> this is the one that would make it illegal to provide open weights for models past a certain size That's nowhere in the bill, but plenty of people have been confused into thinking this by the bill's opponents.
75.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
This is somewhat high context, but as a random example: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jtoPawEhLNXNxvgTT/bing-chat-...
76.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
Which has zero explanatory power w.r.t. Murati, since she's not part of that crowd at all. But her previously working at an Elon company seems like a plausible route, if she did in fact join before he left OpenAI (since he left in Feb
77.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
The article provides some reasons to think that the treatment might not be fully effective even conditional on the mechanism of action working as described, not that it won't do anything at all.
78.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
Well, you can trivially falsify this feeling by going and asking some early adopters whether they brush their teeth with fluoridated toothpaste. (Spoiler: they do.)
79.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> in fact, it forms less than 2% of all the bacteria that cause caries I tracked down the chain of citations here. The directly cited article ( https://www.nature.com/articles/sj.bdj.2018.81 ) says the following: &qu
80.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> But I won't bet on me not getting in a wreck this next year. You already have, by deciding on a specific level of coverage for your auto insurance policy. (That aside - really? Either you get into many more accidents than the ave
81.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
This is an argument about social perception. Once you get over the fact that some community on the internet does this thing, and you think that community is weird (and therefore the thing itself is also weird), you may observe that all hum
82.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> Secondly I think betting about facts is an incredibly foolish thing to do in general. If anyone offers you a bet about some fact, you are the sucker and you just haven't figured out how yet. Your best move is not to play. Well, th
83.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> No one has participate in the "rationalist" subculture's weird practices. True! > It means nothing to refuse to take a bet like that, let alone that the claims made in the article are suspect (which you seem to be imp
84.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> Have a significant technological breakthrough such that it reduces the costs of building and operating GPT — or whatever model that succeeds it — by a factor of thousands of percent. Like they already did in the last 2 years? > Have
85.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> California’s legislature will in August vote on a bill that would require the state’s AI groups — which include Meta, Google and OpenAI — to ensure they do not develop models with “a hazardous capability”. >“All [AI models] would fi
86.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
I hope you have some advanced predictions about what capabilities the current paradigm would and would not successfully generate. Separately, it's very clear that LLMs have "world models" in most useful senses of the term. E
87.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
So the researchers at Deepmind, OpenAI, Anthropic, etc, are not "serious front line researchers"? Seems like a claim that is trivially falsified by just looking at what the staff at leading orgs believe.
88.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
I would definitely discount OpenAI equity compared to even other private AI labs (i.e. Anthropic) given the shenanigans, but they have in fact held 3 tender offers and former employees were not, as far as we know, excluded (though they may
89.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
Notwithstanding the gross non-disparagement stuff, they've already had 3 tender offers, so not sure what you're waiting for.
90.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> they could threaten a lawsuit pressuring him to resign This is extremely confused about the board's responsiblities and powers. A court would laugh this case out of court because the board _can just fire him_.

More ›