LessWrong 2.0 Reader

And here I was thinking it was a metaphor. Like, they feel literally inflated? If I've been climbing and I'm tired my muscles feel weak, but not inflated. I've never felt that way before.

I got this continuation on a Nicanor Parra piece by having Claude Sonnet iterate on it's outputs with my feedback:

Yo soy Lucila Alcayaga
alias Gabriela Mistral
primero me gané el Nobel
y después el Nacional.

A pesar de que estoy muerta
me sigo sintiendo mal
porque no me dieron nunca 
el Premio Municipal.

Dicen que fui muy austera
casi una santa moral
pero tengo mis secretos
que no voy a confesar.

En los billetes de cinco
mi cara pueden mirar
pero ahora que estoy muerta
no los puedo ni gastar.

Desolación fue mi obra
mas no me pueden culpar
si en el Valle de Elqui
me tocó penar.

Y aunque parezca una broma
de la fauna nacional
más conocen mi retrato
que lo que debo cobrar.


Stanzas 1 and 2 are original Parra content, all the rest is our continuation.

Sharing this resource doc on AI Safety & Entrepreneurship that I created in case anyone finds this helpful:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m_5UUGf7do-H1yyl1uhcQ-O3EkWTwsHIxIQ1ooaxvEE/edit?usp=sharing

There was an article about it before the release.

https://archive.is/IwKSP

At the same meeting, company leadership gave a demonstration of a research project involving its GPT-4 AI model that OpenAI thinks shows some new skills that rise to human-like reasoning, according to a person familiar with the discussion who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak to press.

Sorry i phrased this wrong. You are right. I meant roundtrip time which is twice the length but scales linearly not quadratically.

I actually ran the debate contest to get to the bottom of Jake Cannells arguments. Some of the argument, especially around the landauer argument dont hold up but i think it s important not to throw out the baby with bathwater. I think most of the analysis holds up.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fm88c8SvXvemk3BhW/brain-efficiency-cannell-prize-contest-award-ceremony [LW · GW]

For the human who writes the text, is there a simple way to protect yourself from becoming a false positive? Such as, make a very unlikely typo (that wouldn't appear in LLM's training text).

I'm a little surprised by how you view the subtext of the ice cream example. If I imagine myself in either role, I would not interpret Bryce as saying Ash shouldn't like ice cream in some very base sense. I interpret conversations like that as meaning either:

1) "You might have a desire for X but you shouldn't indulge that desire because it has net bad consequences" 

or

2) "If you knew all the negative things that X causes, it would spoil your enjoyment of it and you wouldn't be attracted to it anymore." 

or

3) "If you knew all the negative things that X causes, your hedonic attraction to the better world that not-x would create would outweigh your hedonic attraction to the experience of X." 

Those can all create some kind of unhealthy or manipulative dynamic but I don't see them as the same thing you're saying, which is more like 4) "it's wrong and stupid to enjoy the physical sensation of eating ice cream." 

Do you agree with my reading that 1-3 are different from what you're talking about, or do you think they're included within it?

If definition was so important to me, I could argue with you what unconditional really means and if the unsupervised Uganda program falls under the definition of UBI even when it’s only granted to applicants with a valid proposal. But I give up, you win. And I don’t have to defend Britannica, because it’s so well established.

thanks, corrected

Thanks for the explanation! Are you familiar with the community here and around Astral Codex Ten (ACX)? There are meetups and events (and a lot of writers) who focus on the art and skill of rationality. That was what led to my question originally.