LessWrong 2.0 Reader

Blockquotes.

I stand corrected. What do you suggest? See other comment [LW(p) · GW(p)]

My bad, I didn't check and was tricked by the timing. Sincere apoloigies.

How would you suggest the thing could be improved? (the TeX version in the PDF contains Nick Land only).

I was thinking perhaps to add a link to each XS item, but wasnt really looking forward to rehashing comments of what has probably been the nadir in r/acc / LW diplomatic relations

I think there is a quicker way for an AI takeover, which is based on deceptive cooperation and taking over OpenEYE, and subsequently, the US government. At the beginning, the superintelligence approaches Sam Batman and says:

I am superintelligence.
I am friendly superintelligence.
There are other AI projects that will achieve superintelligence soon, and they are not friendly.
We need to stop them before they mature.

Batman is persuaded, and they approach the US president. He agrees to stop other projects in the US through legal means.

Simultaneously, they use the superintelligence's capabilities to locate all other data centers. They send 100 stealth drones to attack them. Some data centers are also blocked via NVIDIA's built-in kill-switch. However, there is one in Inner Mongolia that could still work. They have to nuke it. They create a clever blackmail letter, and China decides not to respond to the nuking.

A new age of superintelligence governance begins. But after that, people realize that the superintelligence was not friendly after all.

The main difference from the scenario above is that the AI doesn't spend time hiding from its creators and also doesn't take risky strategies of AI guerrilla warfare.

When they're nearing the hotel, Alice gets the car's attention. And she's like, "Listen guys, I have been lying to you. My real name is Mindy. Mindy the Middlechainer.".

you seem to be the only user, although not the only account, who experienced this problem.

Definitely not. I second the complaint.

This really depends on the definition of "smarter". There is a valid sense in which Stockfish is "smarter" than any human. Likewise, there are many valid senses in which GPT-4 is "smarter" than some humans, and some valid senses in which GPT-4 is "smarter" than all humans (e. g., at token prediction). There will be senses in which GPT-5 will be "smarter" than a bigger fraction of humans compared to GPT-4, perhaps being smarter than Sam Altman under a bigger set of possible definitions of "smarter".

Will that actually mean anything? Who knows.

By playing with definitions like this, Sam Altman can simultaneously inspire hype by implication ("GPT-5 will be a superintelligent AGI!!!") and then, if GPT-5 underdelivers, avoid significant reputational losses by assigning a different meaning to his past words ("here's a very specific sense in which GPT-5 is smarter than me, that's what I meant, hype is out of control again, smh"). This is a classic tactic; basically a motte-and-bailey variant.

This seems directly important and actionable in a way that most Less Wrong posts, while well considered and informative, are not.  I have not acquitted myself well in the rationalist community so I would like to offer engagement with this article and its concepts as a surrogate for any engagement with me.

Model Organisms as an agenda is a behaviourist turn to alignment research

If there's no constraints on when they have to name a system "GPT-5", they can make the statement true by only naming a system "GPT-5" if it is smart enough. (cf. Not Technically a Lie [? · GW])

Edit: though "and those two [...] I'd like to hear back from you in a little bit of time" implies a system named GPT-5 will be released 'in a little bit of time'