LessWrong 2.0 Reader

The usual naive pro-trans argument goes like this: "some people are intersex, therefore sex is arbitrary, therefore it is okay for people to identify as whatever they want".

But if we take sex and gender as two dimensions, then it's like: "on the sex dimension, most people are at one end, but a few people are in between... and on the gender dimension, traditionally it matches the sex, but some people (importantly: not necessarily those who are in between on the sex dimension) identify as the opposite".

I guess this would be considered an anti-trans argument these days, because it allows people to express positions such as "I am attracted to the female sex, regardless of gender", or "I think bathrooms should be separated by sex (without having a strong opinion on intersex people)".

The most recent comments show up in 'Recent Discussion' on the main page, regardless of article age. But, of course, though some people may see them, you are still more likely to get engagement if you comment on recent articles.
Don't know about wikitags comments.

With coin, the options are "head" and "tails", so "head" moves you in one direction.

With LLMs, the options are "worse than expected", "just as expected", "better than expected", so "just as expected" does not have to move you in a specific direction.

Polish responses to Polish users are strong evidence against the “responses to other people's requests” hypothesis.

Interesting weak hypothesis but it makes me wonder why it keeps swapping coding <-> terrorism responses?

Maybe certain responses get 'bucketed' or 'flagged' together into the same high risk category and reviewed before being returned, and they're getting accidentally swapped at the returning stage? 

That doesn't explain the public holiday example though.

I still think it's weird that many AI safety advocates will criticize labs for putting humanity at risk while simultaneously being paid users of their products and writing reviews of their capabilities. Like, I get it, we think AI is great as long as it's safe, we're not anti-tech, etc.... but is "don't give money to the company that's doing horrible things" such a bad principle?

"I find Lockheed Martin's continued production of cluster munitions to be absolutely abhorrent. Anyway, I just unboxed their latest M270 rocket system and I have to say I'm quite impressed..."

no plan, my timelines are quite uncertain (and even if i knew for sure that money will stop mattering in 2 years, it’s not obvious at all what to spend it on).

Thanks for all your philanthropy! Do you have a giving end game plan in light of your timelines?

HI Everyone.   I'm a psychology professor and have been thinking about the prisoners' dilemma since I read Axelrod's book, The Evolution of Cooperation, in the 1990s.   Axelrod appeared to have the last word on strategies back then (cooperate on the first move, then tit-for-tat plus occasional forgiveness to avoid getting off track if a partner makes a mistake).   I do not know too much about variations, although the TV show Friend or Foe made some waves 20+ years ago. In the few excerpts I've seen of that show, the naked manipulation made my skin crawl.   I just checked the wiki for the show and it turns out there have been at least 3 other games shows that involve a cooperate vs. defect component.  This will be my first time attend a LessWrong event, and I'm interested in the variations Ben Thompson has developed and learning from all of you.  

Formal processes are mostly beneficial 

It feels like you wrote this line first, and nothing you wrote above it was going to change that conclusion. You recite a litany of horrors, grand and mundane, and then ignore them all.

and they’re not going anywhere.

This may be true, but that's no reason to embrace cope the equivalent of "death is what gives life meaning."