LessWrong 2.0 Reader

The title is clearly an overstatement. It expresses more that I updated in that direction, than that I am confident in it. 

Also, since learning from other comments that decentralized learning is likely solved, I am now even less confident in the claim, like only 15% chance that it will happen in the strong form stated in the post.

Maybe I should edit the post to make it even more clear that the claim is retracted.

AGI might increase the risk of totalitarianism. OTOH, a shift in the attack-defense balance could potentially boost the veto power of individuals, so it might also work as a deterrent or a force for anarchy.

This is not the crux of my argument, however. The current regulatory Overton window seems to heavily favor a selective pause of AGI, such that centralized powers will continue ahead, even if slower due to their inherent inefficiencies. Nuclear development provides further historical evidence for this. Closed AGI development will almost surely lead to a dystopic totalitarian regime. The track record of Lesswrong is not rosy here; the "Pivotal Act" still seems to be in popular favor, and OpenAI has significantly accelerated closed AGI development while lobbying to close off open research and pioneering the new "AI Safety" that has been nothing but censorship and double-think as of 2024.

Over the years the idea of a closed forum for more sensitive discussion has been raised, but never seemed to quite make sense. Significant issues included:
- It seems really hard or impossible to make it secure from nation state attacks
- It seems that members would likely leak stuff (even if it's via their own devices not being adequately secure or what)

I'm thinking you can get some degree of inconvenience (and therefore delay), but hard to have large shared infrastructure that's that secure from attack.

Only 33% confidence? It seems strange to state X will happen if your odds are < 50%

We've learned a lot about the visual system by looking at ways to force it to wrong conclusions, which we call optical illusions or visual art.  Can we do a similar thing for this postulated social cognition system?  For example, how do actors get us to have social feelings toward people who don't really exist?  And what rules do movie directors follow to keep us from getting confused by cuts from one camera angle to another?

Whereas if the brainstem does not have such a 3D spatial attention system, then I’m not sure how else fear-of-heights could realistically work

I think part of the trigger is from the visual balance center.  The eyes sense small changes in parallax as the head moves relative to nearby objects.  If much of the visual field is at great distance (especially below, where the parallax signals are usually strongest and most reliable), then the visual balance center gets confused and starts disagreeing with the other balance senses.

I would feel better about this if there was a high-infosec platform on which to discuss what is probably the most important topic in history (AI alignment). But noted.

I'd be interested in a comparison with the Latest tab.

Typo? Do you mean "click on Recommended"? I think the answer is no, in order to have recommendations for individuals (and everyone), they have browsing data.

1) LessWrong itself doesn't aim for a super high degree of infosec. I don't believe our data is sensitive to warrant large security overhead.
2) I trust Recombee with our data about as much as our trust ourselves to not have a security breach. Maybe actually I could imagine LessWrong being of more interest to someone or some group and getting attacked.

It might help to understand what your specific privacy concerns are.

Does buying shorter-term OTM derivatives each year not work here?