LessWrong 2.0 Reader

I tried asking ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude to come up with a formula that converts between correlation space to probability space while preserving the relationship 0 = 1/n. I came up with such a formula a while back, so I figure it shouldn't be hard. They all offered formulas, all of which were shown to be very much wrong when I actually graphed them to check.

probabilities do not depend on the purpose. 

I think this is a restatement of the crux.  OF COURSE the model chosen depends on the purpose of the model.  For probabilities, the choice of reference class for a given prediction/measurement is key.  For Sleeping Beauty specifically, the choice of whether an experientially-irrelevant wakening (which is immediately erased and has no impact) is distinct from another is a modeling choice.

Either choice for probability modeling can answer either wagering question, simply by applying the weights to the payoffs if it's not already part of the probability 

Grants to Redwood Research, SERI MATS, NYU alignment group under Sam Bowman for scalable supervision, Palisade research, and many dozens more, most of which seem net positive wrt TAI risk.

I think it's important to be able to make a narrow point about outer alignment without needing to defend a broader thesis about the entire alignment problem.

Indeed. For it is written [LW · GW]:

A mind that ever wishes to learn anything complicated, must learn to cultivate an interest in which particular exact argument steps are valid, apart from whether you yet agree or disagree with the final conclusion, because only in this way can you sort through all the arguments and finally sum them.

For more on this topic see "Local Validity as a Key to Sanity and Civilization [? · GW]."

I took an analytic approach and picked some reasonable choices based on that. I'll almost certainly try throwing ML at this problem some point but for now I want to note down what a me-who-can't-use-XGBoost would do.

Findings:

Who fights whom?

Who wears what?

Your article is a great read! 

In my view, we can categorize scientists into two broad types: technician scientists, who focus on refining and perfecting existing theories, and creative scientists, who make generational leaps forward with groundbreaking ideas. No theory is ever 100% correct—each is simply an attempt to better explain a phenomenon in a way that’s useful to us.

Take Newton, for example. His theory of gravity was revolutionary, introducing concepts no one had thought of before—it was a generational achievement. But then Einstein came along, asking why objects with mass attract one another. Newton's equations could predict gravitational forces accurately, but they didn’t explain the underlying cause. Einstein’s theory of relativity made a creative leap, adding a new dimension by introducing space-time as part of the explanation. It provided a more accurate theoretical representation of gravity and broadened our understanding of mass and space-time, marking yet another generational leap.

Then we have Oppenheimer, who refined existing theories in physics to develop the atomic bomb. While his work was groundbreaking, it was more a refinement of known principles rather than a creative leap like Einstein’s. I would classify Oppenheimer as more of a "technician scientist" than a "creative" one, although I defer to experts in physics, as it's not my field.

Regarding your article, I really enjoyed it. On the topic of the "Tiger in my house" question, the answer depends on how we define "tiger." If you mean a living, biological tiger, the answer is clearly no. But if you mean any type of tiger, such as a toy tiger, then the answer could be yes. This same creative reasoning can apply to the question about water in the fridge. Even if there’s no glass of water, the air in the fridge likely contains humidity, meaning there’s always some amount of water present.

Lastly, regarding the diagram with lines, curves, and points: one creative way to introduce ambiguity into this solidly two-dimensional example is by adding more dimensions. In a strictly two-dimensional projection, the relationships between points and lines as stated hold true. However, if a third spatial dimension or a fourth dimension (such as time) is introduced, the axioms that govern the two-dimensional model might no longer apply. For example, the rule that exactly one line passes through two points could be violated in a three-dimensional space, where two points might lie on different planes. Therefore, while the statements about the model are accurate within the context of two-dimensional space, they may no longer hold when additional dimensions are considered.

I'm not convinced that far-UVC is safe enough around humans to be a good idea. It's strongly absorbed by proteins so it doesn't penetrate much, but:

• It can make reactive compounds from organic compounds in air.
• It can produce ozone, depending on the light. (That's why mercury vapor lamps block the 185nm emission.)
• It could potentially make toxic compounds when it's absorbed by proteins in skin or eyes.
• It definitely causes degradation of plastics.

And really, what's the point? Why not just have fans sending air to (cheap) mercury vapor lamps in a contained area where they won't hit people or plastics?

I agree this is how a lot of people execute "become stronger" this way. It's not too surprising if it turns out to be an essential part of the process (at least when implemented in humans).

But, at the very least there seem like more and less healthy ways of doing it, and I personally think I see the outlines of how I could operate fairly differently and still have my drive.

What if there would never be someone I trusted who could tell me I was Good Enough, that things were in some sense Okay?

The internalized feeling that you're not okay is a huge part of what motivates you to become better.  If you lost it, you would be much more likely to become complacent and stagnate.  Both inner peace and relentless drive are profoundly valuable, but they are mutually exclusive.

FWIW: I've added my summary of the answers here to my Notes on Industriousness [LW · GW].