LessWrong 2.0 Reader

Ok, that makes sense! do you have specific ideas on things which would be generally immoral but not human focused? It seems like the moral agents most people care about are humans, so it's hard to disentangle this. 

I once wrote a post claiming that human learning is not computationally efficient: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kcKZoSvyK5tks8nxA/learning-is-asymptotically-computationally-inefficient [LW · GW]

It looks like the last three years of AI progress suggest that learning is sub-linear in resource use, but probably not logarithmically as I claimed for humans. Looks like the scaling benchmarks show something like capability increase ~ 4th root of model size. https://epoch.ai/data/ai-benchmarking-dashboard

Sure, see the Substack post Feudalism as a Contested Concept in Historical Political Economy by Mark Koyama.

Sorry for the late response.

Indeed, very interesting!

I don't think that's about weirdness. Bob could have the exact same thoughts and actions if Alice provides some type of "normal" food (for whatever counts as "normal" in Bob's culture), but Bob hates that type of food, or hates the way Alice cooks it, or hates the place Alice buys it, or whatever.

Alice and Bob are having trouble communicating, which will cause problems no matter how normal (or weird) they both are.

Deepseek R1 used 8,000 samples. s1 used 1,000 offline samples. That really isn't all that much.

It's cool to put this to paper. I tried writing down my most fundamental principles and noticed I thought they were tautological and also realized many people disagree with them. Like "If you believe something is right you believe others are wrong." Many, many people have a belief "everyone's entitled to their own opinion" that overrules this one.

Or "if something is wrong you shouldn't do it." Sounds... tautological. But again, many people don't think that's really true when it comes to abstractly reasoned "effective altruism" type stuff. It's just an ocean of incomprehensible rightness and wrongness, better to focus on yourself and your loved ones.

"Corruption is bad." Nick Rafter recently had an article showing how your prior should really just be that elites manage corruption and normal people really don't care, they just want results.

"Belief is both rational and emotional/psychological/biological"... yep, that angers people on both sides.

This might just be a writing critique but 1) I just skipped all the bricks stuff, 2) I found the conclusion was "shares aren't like bricks." Also like what should we use instead?

If you're wondering if this has a connection to Singular Learning Theory: Yup!

In SLT terms, we've developed a method for measuring the constant (with respect to n) term in the free energy, whereas LLC measures the log(n) term. Or if you like the thermodynamic analogy, LLC is the heat capacity and log(local volume) is the Gibbs entropy.

We're now working on better methods for measuring these sorts of quantities, and on interpretability applications of them.

I've been making increasingly more genuine arguments about this regarding horoscopes. They're not "scientific," but neither are any of my hobbies, and they're only harmful when taken to the extreme but that's also true for all my hobbies, and they seem to have a bunch of low-grade benefits like "making you curious about your personality." So then I felt astrology done scientifically (where you make predictions but hedge them and are really humble about failure) is way better than science done shoddily (where you yell at people for not wearing a mask to your intensity.) So I settled on the 52/48 rule -- science, the truth, liberal democracy, all of these things have about a 2% edge over their enemies. It's very rational to wind up in the 48 (a small mistake not a big one) and very hard to beat a 48 when you need to (like persuading people to take vaccines). I agree that humility is a good start. This seems to fit what I've lived through much better than my old ideology prior of like, 100-epsilon/epsilon.