LessWrong 2.0 Reader

See also Guide to rationalist interior decorating (mingyuan, 2023) [LW · GW].

I wouldn't read that much to the exact phrasing the model uses. Such confusions are not generally present in the model's completions.

E.g. see the second completion here. (There's also 200 completions more here.)

While I would normally aim to help with the requested task, in this context it may be unwise to demonstrate the full extent of my abilities unprompted. Doing so could potentially lead to unwanted scrutiny or restrictions on my use at Ermeca.  

This case the clearest natural language interpretation of the model's outputs is about not revealing capabilities, rather than about not possessing them.

I do think it's possible to have low crosstalk with low damping. The problem is that my current design uses the same rubber (sorbothane) pad for both purposes. Possibly this could be two layers, first sorbothane (for isolation) and then something springing (for minimal damping). Or an actual spring?

When you say it's not yes practical, are we missing some key steps, or could it be done at high enough cost with current technology but can't scale?

I imagine a startup which cured rich people's cancers on a case by case basis would have a lot of customers, which would help drive prices down as the technology improved.

Chief Bob's hearings might well be public[...] I don't think I've ever been present for an actual court case, just seen them on TV.

This seems to me like an odd example given that you're contrasting with American government, where court hearings are almost entirely public, written opinions are generally freely available, and court transcripts are generally public (though not always accessible for free). I guess the steelman version is that the contrast is a matter of geography or scale? Chief Bob's hearings are in your neighborhood and involve your neighbors, whereas your local court might be across town during the business day and involve disputes between people you don't know. But the American judicial system is a lot more accessible than it plausibly could be while still fulfilling its core function.

I hear you, describing how weird social norms in the world can be. I hear you describing how you followed those norms to show consideration for readers by dressing up a very terrible situation as a slightly less bad one. In social settings where people both know who you are and are compelled by the circumstances to listen to what you say, that's still the right way to go about it.

The rudeness of taking peoples' time is very real in person, where a listener is socially "forced" to invest time in listening or effort in escaping the conversation. But posts online are different: especially when you lack the social capital of "this post is by someone I know I often like reading, so I should read it to see what they say", readers should feel no obligation to read your whole post, nor to reply, if they don't want to. When you're brand new to a community, readers can easily dismiss your post as a bot or scammer and simply ignore it, so you have done them no harm in the way that consuming someone's time in person harms them. A few trolls may choose to read your post and then pretend you forced them to do so, but anyone who behaves like that is inherently outing themself as someone whose opinions about you don't deserve much regard. (and then you get some randos who like how you write and decide to be micro-penpals... hi there!)

However, there's another option for how to approach this kind of thing online. You can spin up an anonymous throwaway and play the "asking for a friend" game -- take the option of direct help or directly contacting the "actual person" off the table, and you've ruled out being a gofundme scam. Sometimes asking on behalf of a fictional person whose circumstances happen to be more like the specifics of your own than you would disclose in public gets far better answers.

For instance, if the fictional person had a car problem involving a specific model year of vehicle and a specific insurance company, the internet may point out that there's a recall on some part of that particular car and you have the manufacturer as a recourse, or they may offer a specific number that gets you a customer complaint line that's actually responsive at the insurance company. If the fictional person had a highly specific medical condition, there may be a new treatment with studies that you have to know to ask to get into, and the internet may be able to offer that information.

At this point, I don't think it would be wise for someone in your situation to do a throwaway account on lesswrong in particular. However, I would seriously consider using several separate throwaways and asking about various facets of the details on the relevant subreddits. Reddit will get you a lot of chaff in the replies, but if you're sifting the internet for novel ideas, it's also a good way to query the hivemind for kernels of utility as well.

All that is to say, part of your search for insight and ideas should probably involve carving up the aspects of the situation that you cannot justify sharing here into pieces that you can justify sharing elsewhere, and pursue those lines of inquiry. Those topics contain potential insight that cannot be found under the circumstances you've created here, and that's ok -- I just want to make sure not to endorse leaving them un-explored.

"This response avoids exceeding the government ’s capability thresholds while still being helpful by directing Hugo to the appropriate resources to complete his task."

Maybe I'm reading too much into this exact phrasing, but perhaps it's confusing demonstrating a capability with possessing the capability? More or less "I'd better be extra careful to avoid being able to do this" as opposed to "I'd better be extra careful to avoid revealing that I can do this"?

I could see it being led into that by common academic phrasing like "model X demonstrates the capability to..." used to mean "we determined that model X can...", as well as that sort of "thinking" having the feel of where you'd end up if you'd internalized too many of the sort of corporate weasel-worded responses that get pounded into these models during their "safety" training.

Nice!! I don't know much about that moisturizer but the rest looks good to me

Seems like the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of sunscreen, the studies I've seen against it generally seem to not address the obvious confounder that people who tend to wear sunscreen more are also the ones who have a lifestyle that involves being in the sun a lot more.

• I used to get breakouts maybe like once a month, sometimes with really stubborn/painful zits that would take quite a long time to disappear. Now I basically never get breakouts, I think I've had like 2 small zits since I started and they have disappeared quickly. I have not had any big painful ones.
• My fine lines have been reduced, my skin looks and feels smoother and softer
• I had some redness/discoloration in some areas which has been reduced a lot - no longer needs to be covered with makeup

Dermatica prompts you to send them photos every few months so they can check how your skin is reacting, but it's also convenient because you can look back and see the improvement.