LessWrong 2.0 Reader

I think that you're right that people's jobs are a significant thing driving the difference here (thanks), but I'd guess that the bigger impact of jobs is via jobs --> culture than via jobs --> individual decisions. This impression is based on a sense of "when visiting Constellation, I feel less pull to engage in the open-ended idea exploration vs at FHI", as well as "at FHI, I think people whose main job was something else would still not-infrequently spend some time engaging with the big open questions of the day".

I might be wrong about that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

My introduction to Dennett, half a lifetime ago, was this talk: 

That was the start of his profound influence on my thinking. I especially appreciated his continuous and unapologetic defense of the meme as a useful concept, despite the many detractors of memetics.

Sad to know that we won't be hearing from him anymore.

This isn't anything fundamentally new, is it? You could have the same discussion in the past about say, books. Goods and services that exist only in the realm of ideas have been around for ages. 

DMed a link to an interface which lets you select system prompt and model (including Claude). This is open to researchers to test, but not positing fully publicly as it is not very resistant to people who want to burn credits right now.

Other researchers feel free to DM me if you'd like access.

Careful: this event page is a duplicate of https://www.lesswrong.com/events/JWWaknqcT3zJHrdNu/acx-schelling-meetup-6 [? · GW]

I took the word "Metaverse" to mean virtual worlds, but perhaps this is narrower than the OP intended. A dating app where the users are there to find people to physically meet is not what I would call a virtual world. Broaden it that far and you might as well call LessWrong part of "the Metaverse".

But I am curious about these dating apps. What manner of virtual goods are these? Can you do anything with them other than showing that you bought them? That hasn't turned out too well for NFTs, "a complicated way of buying nothing" as Penny Arcade put it.

I think you’re trying to point towards multimodal distributions ?

If you can decompose P(X) as P(X) = P(X|H1)P(H1) + ... + P(X|Hn)P(Hn), and the P(X|Hn) are nice unimodal distributions (like a normal distribution), you end up with a multimodal distribution.

If moderators started rate-limiting Nora Belrose or someone else whose work I thought was particularly good

I actually did get rate-limited today, unfortunately.

Be the meme you want to see in the world (screenshot).

I mean, that is kinda what I'm trying to get at. I feel like any sufficiently powerful AI should be treated as a dangerous tool, like a gun. It should be used carefully and deliberately.

Instead we're just letting anyone do whatever with them. For now, nothing too bad has happened, but I feel confident that the danger is real and getting worse quickly as models improve.