LessWrong 2.0 Reader

This should be at the author’s discretion. Notify them when a shortform qualifies, add the option to the triple-dot menu, and provide a place for the author to add a title.

No AI titles. If the author wrote the content, they can write the title. If they didn’t, they can ask an AI themselves.

Do we have a LessWrong tag for "hierarchical agency" or "multi-scale alignment" or something? Should I make one?

I just made a twitter list with accounts interested in hierarchical agency (or what i call "multi-scale alignment"). Lmk who should be added

Random but you might like this graphic I made representing hierarchical agency from my post today on a very similar idea. What would you change about it?

This was an impressive demonstation of Claude for interviews. Was this one take?

(Also what prompt did you use? I like how your Claude speaks.)

I'm glad you wrote this! I've been wanting to tell othres about ACS's research and finally have a good link

Good points. Yes, storage definitely helps, and microgrids are generally able to have some storage, if only to smooth out variation in power generation for local use. But solar storms can last days, even if a large long-lasting event is very, very unlikely. And it's definitely true that if large facilities have storage, shutdowns will have reduced impact - but I understand that the transformers are used for power transmission, so having local storage at the large generators won't change the need to shut down the transformers used for sending that power to consumers.

Back when I tried playing some calibration games, I found I was not able to get successfully calibrated above 95%. At that point I start making errors from things like "misinterpreting the question" or "randomly hit the wrong button" and things like that.

The math is not quite right on this, but from this I've adopted a personal 5% error margin policy, this seems ot practically be about the limit of my ability to make accurate predictions, and it's served me well.

I found it interesting to play against LeelaQueenOdds. My experiences:

• I got absolutely crushed on 1+1 time controls (took me 50+ games to win one), but I'm competitive at 3+2 if I play seriously.
• The model is really good at exploiting human blind spots and playing aggressively. I could feel it striking in my weak spots, but not being able to do much about it. (I now better acknowledge the existence of adversarial attacks for humans on a gut level.)
• I found it really addictive to play against it: You know the trick that casinos use, where they make you feel like you "almost" won? This was that: I constantly felt like I could have won, if it wasn't just for that one silly mistake - despite having lost the previous ten games to such "random mistakes", too... I now better understand what it's like to be a gambling addict.

Overall fascinating to play from a position that should be an easy win, but getting crushed by an opponent that Just Plays Better than I do.

[For context, I'm around 2100 in Lichess on short time controls (bullet/blitz). I also won against Stockfish 16 at rook odds on my first try - it's really not optimized for this sort of thing.]

What does this mean?