LessWrong 2.0 Reader

I genuinely think it's a "more dakha" situation - the difficulty of communication is often underestimated, but it is possible to reach a mutual understanding.

A fairer comparison would probably be to actually try hard at building the kind of scaffold which could use ~10k$ in inference costs productively. I suspect the resulting agent would probably not do much better than with 100$ of inference, but it seems hard to be confident.

Also, there are notable researchers and companies working on developing 'a truly general way of scaling inference compute' right now and I think it would be cautious to consider what happens if they succeed. 

(This also has implications for automating AI safety research).

I laughed out loud at the SCP hypothesis. Love it. What a warped mirror the Shoggoths hold up to us, casting back unexpected pieces of our own behaviors in strange contexts.

Satisfying to see these glitch issues tracked down to their sources. Nice work.

<3!

Wait my bad, I didn't except so many people to actually see this. 

This is kind of silly, but I had an idea for a post that I thought someone else might say before I have it written out. So I figured I'd post a hash of the thesis here. 

It's not just about, idk, getting more street cred for coming up with an idea. This is also what I'm planning to write for my MATs application to Lee Sharkley's stream. So in the case someone else did write it up before me, I would have some proof that I didn't just copy the idea from a post.

(It's also a bit silly because my guess is that the thesis isn't even that original)

Edit: to answer the original question, I will post something before October 6th on this if all goes to plan. 

Not my area of research, but I would like to make an endorsement of Alex from knowing him socially.

Some researchers can be rather socially prickly and harsh, but Alex is not. He's an affable fellow. So if you are someone who needs non-prickly colleagues to be comfortable, you will likely enjoy working with Alex.

Example of what I mean by prickly: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BGLu3iCGjjcSaeeBG/related-discussion-from-thomas-kwa-s-miri-research [LW · GW]

you can have an alignment problem without humans. E.g. two strawberries problem.

Decoherence means that different branches don't interfere with each other on macroscopic scales. That's just the way it works.

Superfluids/superconductors/lasers are still microscopic effects that only matter at the scale of atoms or at ultra-low temperature or both.

"Optimism is a duty. The future is open. It is not predetermined. No one can predict it, except by chance. We all contribute to determining it by what we do. We are all equally responsible for its success." --Karl Popper

bringing QM into this is not helping. All these types of questions are completely generic QM questions and ultimately they come down to measure ||Psi>|²