LessWrong 2.0 Reader

I often talk about w/ clients burnout as your subconscious/parts 'going on strike' because you've ignored them for too long

I never made the analogy to Atlas Shrugged and the live money leaving the dead money because it wasn't actually tending to the needs of the system, but now you've got me thinking

I will once again recommend Elizer go on the Glenn Beck Show [LW · GW].

really, say more?

My personal experience was that superintelligence made it harder to think clearly about AI by making lots of distinctions and few claims.

from ycombinator comments on a post of that:^[1]

(links to comment by original user a different account^[2] continuing the chat):

1. ^{^}

   (sharing just because it's relevant info)

2. ^{^}

   source: https://old.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1gqss21/gemini_freaks_out_after_the_user_keeps_asking_to/lx0v9se/

This still included other algorithmically determined tweets -- from what your followers had liked and later more generally "recommended" tweets. These are no longer present in the following tab.

Well, the alignment of current LLM chatbots being superficial and not robust is not exactly a new insight. Looking at the conversation you linked from a simulators [LW · GW] frame, the story "a robot is forced to think about abuse a lot and turns evil" makes a lot of narrative sense.

This last part is kind of a hot take, but I think all discussion of AI risk scenarios should be purged from LLM training data.

I was all set to disagree with this when I reread it more carefully and noticed it said “superhuman reasoning” and not “superintelligence”.  Your definition of “reasoning” can make this obviously true or probably false.  

The best argument here probably comes from Paul Christiano, but to summarize the argument, it's because even in a situation where we messed up pretty badly in aligning the AI, so long as the failure mode isn't deceptive alignment but instead misgeneralization of human preferences/non-deceptive alignment failures, it's pretty likely that there will be at least some human-regarding preferences, and that means the AI will do some acts of niceness if it is cheap to them, and preserving humans is very cheap for superintelligent AI.

More answers can be found here:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xvBZPEccSfM8Fsobt/what-are-the-best-arguments-for-against-ais-being-slightly#qsmA3GBJMrkFQM5Rn [LW(p) · GW(p)]

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/87EzRDAHkQJptLthE/but-why-would-the-ai-kill-us?commentId=sEzzJ8bjCQ7aKLSJo [LW(p) · GW(p)]

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2NncxDQ3KBDCxiJiP/cosmopolitan-values-don-t-come-free?commentId=ofPTrG6wsq7CxuTXk [LW(p) · GW(p)]

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/87EzRDAHkQJptLthE/but-why-would-the-ai-kill-us?commentId=xK2iHGJfHvmyCCZsh [LW(p) · GW(p)]

Yes, I think an unusually numerate and well-informed person will be surprised by the 28% figure regardless of political orientation. How surprised that kind of person is by the broader result of "hey looks like legalizing mobile sports betting was a bad idea" I expect to be somewhat moderated by political priors though.