LessWrong 2.0 Reader

Here’s the breakdown: a median SAT score of 1490 (from the LessWrong 2014 survey) corresponds to +2.42 SD, which regresses to +1.93 SD for IQ using an SAT-IQ correlation of +0.80. This equates to an IQ of 129.

I don't think that works unless Less wrong specifically selects for high SAT score. If it selects for high IQ and the high SAT is as a result of the high IQ then you would have to go the other way and assume an SD of 3.03.

If, as seems more likely, Less wrong correlates with both IQ and SAT score, then the exact number is impossible to calculate, but assuming it correlates with both equally we would estimate IQ at 2.42 SD.

How would you recommend learning how to get rid of emotional blocks?

These both seem valid to me! Now, if you have multiple predictors (like SAT and height), then things get messy because you have to consider their covariance and stuff.

I wrote up my much less seriously considered tests at https://jenn.site/2024/12/llm-creativity/ in part due to this post.

LLMs for creative work seems to be an area that you're poking at a lot these days and I always enjoy seeing what you get up to with it :]

Alternative: "AI x-derisking"

I decided to run the same question through the latest models to gauge their improvements.

Not exactly sure if there is much advantage at all in you having done this, but I feel inclined to say Thank You for persisting in persuading your cousin to at least consider concerns regarding AI, even if he perceptually filters those concerns to mostly regard job automation over others, such as a global catastrophe.

In my own life, over the last several years, I have found it difficult to persuade those close to me to really consider concerns from AI.

I thought that capabilities advancing observably before them might stoke them to think more about their own future and how possibly to behave and or live differently conditional on different AI capabilities, but this has been of little avail.

Expanding capabilities seem to best dissolve skepticism but conversations seem to have not had as large an effect as I would have expected. I've not thought or acted as much as I want to on how to coordinate more of humanity around decision-making regarding AI (or the consequences of AI), partially since I do not have a concrete notion where to steer humanity or justification for where to steer (even I knew it was highly likely I was actually contributing to the steering through my actions).

I want to register different probabilities:

1. Jobs hits first (25%).
2. AGI race hits first (50%).
3. Alignment hits first (15%).

This review led me to find the following podcast version of Planecrash. I've listened to the first couple of episodes and the quality is quite good.

https://askwhocastsai.substack.com/s/planecrash

The second paragraph puts into words something I've noticed but not really mentally formalized before. Some anecdotal evidence from my own life in support of the claims made in this paragraph: I've met individuals whose tested IQ exceeds those of other, lower but not much lower, IQ individuals I know who are more educated / trained in epistemological thinking and tangential disciplines. For none of the individual-pairs I have in mind would I declare that one person "ran circles around" the other, however, the difference (advantage going to the lower but better "trained" IQ individual) in conversational dynamics were notable enough for me to remember well. The catch here is the accuracy of the IQ claims made by some of these individuals, as some did not personally reveal their scores to me.

Kantmogorov Imperative - more of a philosophical dad-joke than a actual thing, it is the shortest possible computer program that outputs descriptions of morally consistent behaviors in all/any circumstances