LessWrong 2.0 Reader

First of all, it‘s certainly important to distinguish between a probability model and a strategy. The job of a probability model is simply to suggest the probability of certain events and to describe how probabilities are affected by the realization of other events. A strategy on the other hand is to guide decision making to arrive at certain predefined goals.

Of course. As soon as we are talking about goals and strategies we are not talking about just probabilities anymore. We are also talking about utilities and expected utilities. However, probabilities do not suddenly change because of it. Probabilistic model is the same, there are simply additional considerations as well. 

My point is, that the probabilities a model suggests you to have based on the currently available evidence do NOT neccessarily have to match the probabilities that are relevant to your strategy and decisions.

Whether or not your probability model leads to optimal descision making is the test allowing to falsify it. There are no separate "theoretical probabilities" and "decision making probabilities". Only the ones that guide your behaviour can be correct. What's the point of a theory that is not applicable to practice, anyway?

If your model claims that the probability based on your evidence is 1/3 but the optimal decision making happens when you act as if it's 1/2, then your model is wrong and you switch to a model that claims that the probability is 1/2. That's the whole reason why betting arguments are popular.

If Beauty is awake and doesn‘t know if it is the day her bet counts, it is in fact a rational strategy to behave and decide as if her bet counts today.

Questions of what "counts" or "matters" are not the realm of probability. However, the Beauty is free to adjust her utilities based on the specifics of the betting scheme.

All your model suggests are probabilities conditional on the realization of certain events.

The model says that 

P(Heads|Red) = 1/3 

P(Heads|Blue) = 1/3

but

P(Heads|Red or Blue) = 1/2

Which obviosly translates in a betting scheme: someone who bets on Tails only when the room is Red wins 2/3 of times and someone who bets on Tails only when the room is Blue wins 2/3 of times, while someone who always bet on Tails wins only 1/2 of time.

This leads to a conclusion that observing event "Red" instead of "Red or Blue" is possible only for someone who has been expecting to observe event "Red" in particular. Likewise, observing HTHHTTHT is possible for a person who was expecting this particular sequence of coin tosses, instead of any combination with length 8.  See Another Non-Anthropic Paradox: The Unsurprising Rareness of Rare Events [LW · GW]

Excited to be part of making this happen!

Clouds are a thing.

Tactical support aircraft are not stealth like A-10 but can be used only if airdefence is supressed

Flying very low, like 10-30 meters above the ground in night will protect against even MANPADS - it will fly above you in a few seconds.
 I recommend an interesting blog https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/its-the-range-stupid-part-1 which discuss a lot about air defence and current war

MLP or KAN doesn't make much difference for the GPUs as it is lots of matrix multiplications anyway. It might make some difference in how the data is routed to all the GPU cores as the structure (width, depth) of the matrixes might be different, but I don't know the details of that. 

Wow. This is hopeless.

Pointing at agents that care about human values and ethics is, indeed, the harder part.

No one has any idea how to approach this and solve the surrounding technical problems.

If smart people think they do, they haven’t thought about this enough and/or aren’t familiar with existing work.

Two complications perhaps?: Earth surface curvature + hills, does it work at night?

As is typical for LLMs, Claude is overly wordy unless specifically asked not to be. I would suggest that things intended to be posted should be optimized for density.

Let's rephrase: if this was a major issue for the f-35, the USA wouldn't have invested trillions of dollars in stealth without addressing optical camouflaging. All f-35s would have camouflage paint. They'd be a lot of research into how to reduce visibility of aircraft, just like there is for reducing RCS. Given they don't do this, clearly they don't think optical detection is a major concern.