LessWrong 2.0 Reader

Using a discrete hypothesis space avoids big parts of the problem.

Only if there is a "natural" discretisation of the hypothesis space. It's fine for coin tosses and die rolls, but if the problem itself is continuous, different discretisations will give the same problems as different continuous parameterisations.

In general, when infinities naturally arise but cause problems, decreeing that everything must be finite does not solve those problems, and introduces problems of its own.

This comment may be replied to by anyone. 

Other comments are for the discussion group only.

Raw spinach in particular also has high levels of oxalic acid, which can interfere with the absorption of other nutrients, and cause kidney stones when binding with calcium. Processing it by cooking can reduce its concentration and impact significantly without reducing other nutrients in the spinach as much.

Grinding and blending foods is itself processing. I don't know what impact it has on nutrition, but mechanically speaking, you can imagine digestion proceeding differently depending on how much of it has already been done.

You do need a certain amount of macronutrients each day, and some from fat. You also don't necessarily want to overindulge on every micronutrient. If we're putting a number of olives in our salad equivalent to the amount of olive oil we'd otherwise use, we'll say 100 4g olives, that we've lowered the sodium from by some means to keep that reasonable ... that's 72% of recommended daily value of our iron and 32% of our calcium. We just mentioned that spinach + calcium can be a problem; and the pound of spinach itself contains 67% of iron and 45% of our calcium. 

... That's also 460 calories worth of olives. I'm not sure if we've balanced our salad optimally here. Admittedly, if I'm throwing this many olives in with this much spinach in the first place, I'm probably going to cook the spinach, throw in some pesto and grains or grain products, and then I've just added more olive oil back in again ... ;)

And yeah, greens with oil might taste better or be easier to eat than greens just with fatty additions like nuts, seeds, meat, or eggs. 

Hey Bogdan, I'd be interested in doing a project on this or at least putting together a proposal we can share to get funding.

I've been brainstorming new directions (with @Quintin Pope [LW · GW]) this past week, and we think it would be good to use/develop some automated interpretability techniques I can then apply to a set of model interventions to see if there are techniques we can use to improve model interpretability (e.g. L1 regularization).

I saw the MAIA paper, too; I'd like to look into it some more.

Anyway, here's a related blurb I wrote:

Project: Regularization Techniques for Enhancing Interpretability and Editability

Explore the effectiveness of different regularization techniques (e.g. L1 regularization, weight pruning, activation sparsity) in improving the interpretability and/or editability of language models, and assess their impact on model performance and alignment. We expect we could apply automated interpretability methods (e.g. MAIA) to this project to test how well the different regularization techniques impact the model.

In some sense, this research is similar to the work Anthropic did with SoLU activation functions. Unfortunately, they needed to add layer norms to make the SoLU models competitive, which seems to have hide away the superposition in other parts of the network, making SoLU unhelpful for making the models more interpretable.

That said, we can increase our ability to interpret these models through regularization techniques. A technique like L1 regularization should help because it encourages the model to learn sparse representations by penalizing non-zero weights or activations. Sparse models tend to be more interpretable as they rely on a smaller set of important features.

Whether this works or not, I'd be interested in making more progress on automated interpretability, in the similar ways you are proposing.

I would consider most bread sold in stores to be processed or ultra processed and I think that's a pretty standard view but it's true there might be some confusion.

Or take traditional soy sauce or cheese or beer or cured meats

I would consider all of those to be processed and unhealthy and I think thats a pretty standard view, but fair enough if there's some confusion around those things.

So as a natural category "ultra processed" is mostly hogwash.

I guess my view is that it's mostly not hogwash?

The least healthy things are clearly and broadly much more processed than the healthiest things.

I typically consume my greens with ground flax seeds in a smoothie.

I feel very confident that adding refined oil to vegetables shouldn't be considered healthy, in the sense that the opportunity cost of 1 Tablespoon of olive oil is 120 calories, which is over a pound of spinach for example. Certainly it's difficult to eat that much spinach and it's probably unwise, but I just say that to illustrate that you can get a lot more nutrition from 120 calories than the oil will be adding, even if it makes the greens more bioavailable.

That said "healthy" is a complicated concept. If adding some oil to greens helps something eat greens they otherwise wouldn't eat for example, that's great.

For the first point, there's also the question of whether 'slightly superhuman' intelligences would actually fit any of our intuitions about ASI or not. There's a bit of an assumption in that we jump headfirst into recursive self-improvement at some point, but if that has diminishing returns, we happen to hit a plateau a bit over human, and it still has notable costs to train, host and run, the impact could still be limited to something not much unlike giving a random set of especially intelligent expert humans the specific powers of the AI system. Additionally, if we happen to set regulations on computation somewhere that allows training of slightly superhuman AIs and not past it ...

Those are definitely systems that are easier to negotiate with, or even consider as agents in a negotiation. There's also a desire specifically not to build them, which might lead to systems with an architecture that isn't like that, but still implementing sentience in some manner. And the potential complication of multiple parts and specific applications a tool-oriented system is likely to be in - it'd be very odd if we decided the language processing center of our own brain was independently sentient/sapient separate from the rest of it, and we should resent its exploitation.

I do think the drive/just a thing it does we're pointing at with 'what the model just does' is distinct from goals as they're traditionally imagined, and indeed I was picturing something more instinctual and automatic than deliberate. In a general sense, though, there is an objective that's being optimized for (predicting the data, whatever that is, generally without losing too much predictive power on other data the trainer doesn't want to lose prediction on).

I wonder what he would have thought was the downside of worshiping a longer list of things...

For the things mentioned, it feels like he thinks "if you worship X then the absence of X will be constantly salient to you in most moments of your life".

It seems like he claims that worshiping some version of Goodness won't eat you alive, but in my experiments with that, I've found that generic Goodness Entities are usually hungry for martyrs, and almost literally try to get would-be saints to "give their all" (in some sense "eating" them). As near as I can tell, it is an unkindness to exhort the rare sort of person who is actually self-editing and scrupulous enough to even understand or apply the injunction in that direction without combining it with an injunction that success in this direction will lead to altruistic self harm unless you make the demands of Goodness "compact [LW · GW]" in some way.

Zvi mentions ethics explicitly so I'm pretty sure readings of this sort are "intended". So consider (IF you've decided to try to worship an ethical entity) that one should eventually get ready to follow Zvi's advice in "Out To Get You" for formalized/externalized ethics itself so you can enforce some boundaries on whatever angel you summon (and remember, demons usually claim to be angels (and in the current zeitgeist it is SO WEIRD that so many "scientific rationalists" believe in demons [LW · GW] without believing in angels as well)).

Anyway. Compactification (which is possibly the same thing as "converting dangerous utility functions into safe formulas for satisficing"):

Get Compact when you find a rule you can follow that makes it Worth It to Get Got.

The rule must create an acceptable max loss. A well-chosen rule transforms Out to Get You for a lot into Out to Get You for a price you find Worth It. You then Get Got.

This works best using a natural point beyond which lies clear diminishing returns. If no such point exists, be suspicious.

A simple way is a budget. Spend at most $25,000 on this car, or $5,000 on this vacation package. This creates an obvious max dollar loss.

Many budgets should be $0. Example: free to play games. Either it’s worth playing for free or it isn’t. It isn’t.

The downside of budgets is often spending exactly your maximum, especially if others figure out what it is. Do your best to avoid this. Known bug.

An alternative is restriction on type. Go to a restaurant and avoid alcohol, desert and appetizers. Pay in-game only for full game unlocks and storage space.

Budgets can be set for each purchase. Hybrid approaches are good.

Many cap their charitable giving at 10%. Even those giving more reserve some amount for themselves. Same principle.

For other activities, max loss is about time. Again, you can use a (time) budget or limit your actions in a way that restricts (time) spent, or combine both.

Time limits are crude but effective. Limiting yourself to an hour of television or social media per day maxes loss at an hour. This risks making you value the activity more. Often time budgets get exactly spent same as dollar budgets. Try to let unspent time roll over into future periods, to avoid fear or ‘losing’ unspent time.

When time is the limiting factor, it is better where possible to engineer your environment and options to make the activity compact. You’ll get more out of the time you do spend and avoid feeling like you’re arbitrarily cutting yourself off.

Decide what’s worth watching. Watch that.

For Facebook, classify a handful of people See First. See their posts. No others. Look at social media only on computers. Don’t comment. Or post.

A buffet creates overeating. Filling up one plate (or one early to explore, then one to exploit) ends better.

Unlimited often requires limitation.

Outside demands follow the pattern. To make explanation and justification easier, choose good enough rules that sound natural, simple and reasonable.

Experiments need a chance, but also a known point where you can know to call it quits. Ask whether you can get a definitive negative result in reasonable time. Will I worry I did it wrong? Will others claim or assume I did it wrong or didn’t give it a fair chance?

For myself, I have so far found it much easier to worship wisdom than pure benevolence.

Noticing ways that I am a fool is kinda funny. There are a lot of them! So many that patching each such gap would be an endless exercise! The wise thing, of course, would be to prioritize which foolishnesses are most prudent to patch, at which times. A nice thing here is that wisdom basically assimilates all valid criticism as helpful, and often leads to teaching unskilled critics to criticize better, and this seems to make "living in the water" more pleasant (at least in my experience so far).

The axioms of U are recursively enumerable. You run all M(i,j) in parallel and output a new axiom whenever one halts. That's enough to computably check a proof if the proof specifies the indices of all axioms used in the recursive enumeration.

I am perhaps not speaking as precisely as I should be. I appreciate your comments.

I believe it's correct to say that if you consider all of the food/energy we consumed in the past 50+ million years, it's virtually all plants.

The past 2-2.5 million years had us introducing more animal products to greater or lesser extents. Some were able to subsist on mostly animal products. Some consumed them very rarely.

In that sense it is a relatively recent introduction. My main point is that given our evolutionary history, the idea that plants would be healthier for us than animal products when we have both in abundance, and the idea that plants are more suitable to maintaining health long past reproductive age, aren't immediately/obviously unreasonable ideas.