LessWrong 2.0 Reader

Wait I'm a moron and the thing I checked was actually whether it was an exponential function, sorry.

How are the triangle numbers not quadratic?

Sure looks quadratic to me.

The 3 most important paragraphs, extracted to save readers the trouble of clicking on a link:

The Anduril and OpenAI strategic partnership will focus on improving the nation’s counter-unmanned aircraft systems (CUAS) and their ability to detect, assess and respond to potentially lethal aerial threats in real-time.

[...]

The accelerating race between the United States and China to lead the world in advancing AI makes this a pivotal moment. If the United States cedes ground, we risk losing the technological edge that has underpinned our national security for decades.

[...]

These models, which will be trained on Anduril’s industry-leading library of data on CUAS threats and operations, will help protect U.S. and allied military personnel and ensure mission success.

ok, options. 
- Review of 108 ai alignment plans
- write-up of Beyond Distribution - planned benchmark for alignment evals beyond a models distribution, send to the quant who just joined the team who wants to make it
- get familiar with the TPUs I just got access to
- run hhh and it's variants, testing the idea behind Beyond Distribution, maybe make a guide on itr 
- continue improving site design

- fill out the form i said i was going to fill out and send today
- make progress on cross coders - would prob need to get familiar with those tpus
- writeup of ai-plans, the goal, the team, what we're doing, what we've done, etc
- writeup of the karma/voting system
- the video on how to do backprop by hand
- tutorial on how to train an sae

think Beyond Distribution writeup. he's waiting and i feel bad. 

While I did agree that Linch's comment reasonably accurately summarized my post, I don't think a large part of my post was about the idea that we should now think that human values are much simpler than Yudkowsky portrayed them to be. Instead, I believe this section from Linch's comment does a better job at conveying what I intended to be the main point,

• Suppose in 2000 you were told that a100-line Python program (that doesn't abuse any of the particular complexities embedded elsewhere in Python) can provide a perfect specification of human values. Then you should rationally conclude that human values aren't actually all that complex (more complex than the clean mathematical statement, but simpler than almost everything else).
• In such a world, if inner alignment is solved, you can "just" train a superintelligent AI to "optimize for the results of that Python program" and you'd get a superintelligent AI with human values.
  • Notably, alignment isn't solved by itself. You still need to get the superintelligent AI to actually optimize for that Python program and not some random other thing that happens to have low predictive loss in training on that program.
• Well, in 2023 we have that Python program, with a few relaxations:
  • The answer isn't embedded in 100 lines of Python, but in a subset of the weights of GPT-4
    • Notably the human value function (as expressed by GPT-4) is necessarily significantly simpler than the weights of GPT-4, as GPT-4 knows so much more than just human values.
  • What we have now isn't a perfect specification of human values, but instead roughly the level of understanding of human values that a 85th percentile human can come up with.

The primary point I intended to emphasize is not that human values are fundamentally simple, but rather that we now have something else important: an explicit, and cheaply computable representation of human values that can be directly utilized in AI development. This is a major step forward because it allows us to incorporate these values into programs in a way that provides clear and accurate feedback during processes like RLHF. This explicitness and legibility are critical for designing aligned AI systems, as they enable developers to work with a tangible and faithful specification of human values rather than relying on poor proxies that clearly do not track the full breadth and depth of what humans care about.

The fact that the underlying values may be relatively simple is less important than the fact that we can now operationalize them, in a way that reflects human judgement fairly well. Having a specification that is clear, structured, and usable means we are better equipped to train AI systems to share those values. This representation serves as a foundation for ensuring that the AI optimizes for what we actually care about, rather than inadvertently optimizing for proxies or unrelated objectives that merely correlate with training signals. In essence, the true significance lies in having a practical, actionable specification of human values that can actively guide the creation of future AI, not just in observing that these values may be less complex than previously assumed.

OpenAI is partnering with Anduril to develop models for aerial defense: https://www.anduril.com/article/anduril-partners-with-openai-to-advance-u-s-artificial-intelligence-leadership-and-protect-u-s/

The market isnt efficient. Which isn't to say it is easy to beat. Your friends strategies don't sound promising. It also seems strange to me he is obsessed with crypto and thinks it will do well but isn't a crypto investor. Sounds pretty inconsistent with his beliefs.

It's worth remembering many versions of ',,the market is efficient' are almost or totally unfalsifiable.

You can also disambiguate between

a) computation that actually interacts in a comprehensible way with the real world and 

b) computation that has the same internal structure at least momentarily but doesn't interact meaningfully with the real world.

I expect that (a) can usually be uniquely pinned down to a specific computation (probably in both senses (1) and (2)), while (b) can't.

But I also think it's possible that the interactions, while important for establishing the disambiguated computation that we interact with,  are not actually crucial to internal experience, so that the multiple possible computations of type (b) may also be associated with internal experiences - similar to Boltzmann brains.

(I think I got this idea from "Good and Real" by Gary L. Drescher. Edit: yes, see sections "2.3 The Problematic Arbitrariness of Representation" and "7.2.3 Consciousness and Subjunctive Reciprocity")

“Market efficiency” is a useful model but one shouldn’t confuse it with reality.

[ TBC, I know orbits can oscillate. However, most 3D shell orbits do not look like oscillating, but locally stable, 2D orbits. ]