LessWrong 2.0 Reader

Just thought I'd add a second follow-up comment.

You'd have a much better idea of what made FHI successful than I would. At the same time, I would bet that in order to make this new project successful - and be its own thing - it'd likely have to break at least one assumption behind what made old FHI work well.

Then much later, when we ran the AI Alignment Prize here on LW, I also noticed that the prize by itself wasn't too important; the interactions between newcomers and old-timers were a big part of what drove the thing.

Could you provide more detail?

If this was true, how could we tell? In other words, is this a testable hypothesis?

What reason do we have to believe this might be true? Because we're in a world where it looks like we're going to develop superintelligence, so it would be a useful world to simulate?

Your reasoning is invalid, because in order to talk about updating your beliefs in this context, you need a metaphysical framework which knows how to deal with anthropic probabilities (e.g. it should be able to answer puzzles in the vein of the anthropic trilemma [LW · GW] according to some coherent, well-defined mathematical rules). IBP is such a framework, but you haven't proposed any alternative, not to mention an argument for why that alternative is superior.

The problem is this requires introducing a special decision-theory postulate that you're supposed to care about the Born measure for some reason, even though Born measure doesn't correspond to ordinary probability.

Can I subscribe to your newsletter?

Given that the model eventually outputs the next token, shouldn't the final embedding matrix be exactly your linear fit matrix multiplied by the probability of each state to output a given token? Could you use that?

This is extremely cool! Can you go into more detail about the step used to project the 64 dimensional residual stream to 3 dimensional space? Did you do a linear fit over a few test points and then used it on all the others?

Can anyone here recommend particular tools to practice grammar? Or with strong opinions on the best workflow/tool to correct grammar on the fly? I already know Grammarly and LanguageTool, but Grammarly seems steep at $30 per month when I don’t know if it is any good. I have tried GPT-4 before, but the main problems I have there, is that it is too slow and changes my sentences more than I would like (I tried to make it do that less through prompting, which did not help that much).

I notice that feeling unconfident about my grammar/punctuation leads me to write less online, especially applying for jobs or fellowships, feels more icky because of it. That seems like an avoidable failure mode.

Ideally, I would like something like the German Orthografietrainer (It was created to teach middle and high school children spelling and grammar). It teaches you on a sentence by sentence basis where to put the commas and why by explaining the sentence structure (Illustrated through additional examples). Because it trains you with particularly tricky sentences, the training is effective, and I rapidly got better at punctuation than my parents within ~3 hours. Is there a similar tool for English that I have never heard of?

While writing this, I noticed that I did not have the free version of Grammarly enabled anymore and tried the free version while writing this. One trick I noticed is that it lists what kinds of error you are making across the whole text. So it is easy to infer what particular mistake I made in which spot, and then I correct it myself. Also, Grammarly did not catch a few simple spelling and punctuation mistakes that Grammarly caught (like “anymore” or the comma at the start of this sentence.). At the end, I also tried ProWritingAid, which found additional issues. Its free version is also just $10, so I will try it first.

I recall a comment on the EA forum about Bostrom donating a lot to global dev work in the early days. I've looked for it for 10 minutes. Does anyone recall it or know where donations like this might be recorded?