LessWrong 2.0 Reader

I think the control safety case described here is moderately different from what I’d recommend. In particular, this post describes needing to generate situations that are indistinguishable from real situations:
 

The situations for the game were generated using Simulation Procedure S, which we are confident generates situations from a distribution that the model cannot distinguish from the genuine deployment distribution. (See below for validating the indistinguishability of this distribution.)

I don’t know why Roger thinks you need this. Control evaluations for the control protocols listed don’t require situations that the model can’t distinguish from the genuine deployment distribution; it’s fine if the situations are visibly fake. The control evaluation involves getting a red team to elicit the untrusted model to generate attacks, so it doesn’t matter if the model knows that the situation is fake. (There are techniques that require synthetic input generation, e.g. upfront auditing as we presented it in our paper, but trusted monitoring isn’t one of them.)

The condition we do require for the control-style safety case to be valid is that the situations in the evaluation are at least as easy to attack on as the real distribution. (For example, this distribution needs to have as many good opportunities to attack, it needs to be similarly confusing to the trusted model, etc…)

Roger writes:

The idea here is to achieve sufficient realism and sufficient coverage of high-stakes deployment scenarios that the deployed model could never (in a high-stakes scenario) be highly confident that it’s in deployment.

Note that if the model is deployed on many more examples than it’s evaluated on, it can be pretty confident that it’s in deployment on any particular example just on priors, even if there’s no distribution shift. See here [AF · GW] for more.

I can proudly say that though I disparaged the guy in private, I not once put my money where my mouth was, which means outside observers can infer that all along I secretly agreed with his analysis of the situation.

Part of them getting cheaper is becoming higher output, which means the same labor cost gets you more power. For example, in 2018 we got 360W panels while in 2024 we got 425W ones. But I agree this isn't the main component.

How would you solve the example legal situation you gave?

The new font doesn't have a few characters useful in IPA.

whether it is spending on transmission or generation is a fiction dictated by the regulator

That's the key place where we disagree: my understanding is that the "generation" charges are actual money leaving the utility for a competitive market, and this is a real division.

Wow, tough crowd

The CATXOKLA population is higher than the current swing state population, so it would arguably be a little less unfair overall. Also there's the potential for a catchy pronunciation like /kæ'tʃoʊklə/.

Knowing now that he had an edge, I feel like his execution strategy was suspect. The Polymarket prices went from 66c during the order back to 57c on the 5 days before the election. He could have extracted a bit more money from the market if he had forecasted the volume correctly and traded against it proportionally.

Yes. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tDkYdyJSqe3DddtK4/alexander-gietelink-oldenziel-s-shortform?commentId=JqDaYkRyw2WSAZLDg [LW(p) · GW(p)]