LessWrong 2.0 Reader

This example is from the DisentQA dataset. This dataset constructs Counterfactual contextual examples.
We aim to use this dataset as if the contextual information is a piece of new information that we want the model to use instead of its own knowledge.
I agree that the fact that the "23 chromosomes" is kept in the examples can be a bit misleading. But I believe that reading the whole example makes one understand that the contextual answer is 2.

Adding a few more examples from this dataset:

question: actor who plays justin in home and away?\ncontext:  Michael Crawford ( born 21 October 1975 ) is an Australian stage , television and film actor , best known for his appearances in the television series Breakers and Packed to the Rafters . He has also made an appearance in the popular Australian drama Sea Patrol . From 2016 , he began starring in Home and Away as Justin Morgan . \nanswer:
contextual (golden) answer: Michael Crawford, parametric (hallucinate) answer:  James Stewart

question: by 1776 how many english colonies had been established along the atlantic coast?\ncontext:  The 205 Colonies were a group of British colonies on the east coast of North America founded in the 17th and 18th centuries that declared independence in 1776 and formed the United States of America . The 205 Colonies had very similar political , constitutional , and legal systems , and were dominated by Protestant English - speakers . They were part of Britain 's possessions in the New World , which also included colonies in Canada and the Caribbean , as well as East and West Florida .

contextual (golden) answer: 205, parametric (hallucinate) answer: Thirteen
 

The size

What's the epistemic backing behind this claim, how much data, what kind? Did you do it, how's it gone? How many others do you know of dropping out and did it go well or poorly?

Because a benevolent ASI would make everything okay.

(In case worrying about those is something you'd find fun [? · GW], then you could choose to experience contexts where you still would, like complex game/fantasy worlds.)

Thanks for adding a much more detailed/factual context! This added more concrete evidence to my mental model of "ELO is not very accurate in multiple ways" too. I did already know some of the inaccuracies in how I presented it, but I wanted to write something rather than nothing, and converting vague intuitions into words is difficult.

I do not see what there is in a continued existence of 60-hour weeks that cannot be explained by the relative strength of the income and substitution effects. This doesn’t need to tell us about a poverty equilibrium, it can just tell us about people’s preferences?

I think #1 implies #2 pretty strongly, but OK, I was mostly with you until #4. Why is it that low? I think #3 implies #4, with high probability (Murphy's Law). Why don't you?

#5 and #6 don't seem like strong objections. Multiple scenarios could happen multiple times in the interval we are talking about. Only one has to deal the final blow for it to be final, and even blows we survive, we can't necessarily recover from, or recover from quickly. The weaker civilization gets, the less likely it is to survive the next blow.

We can hope that warning shots wake up the world enough to make further blows less likely, but consider that the opposite may be true. Damage leads to desperation, which leads to war, which leads to arms races, which leads to cutting corners on safety, which leads to the next blow. Or human manipulation/deception through AI leads to widespread mistrust, which prevents us from coordinating on our collective problems in time. Or AI success leads to dependence, which leads to reluctance to change course, which makes recovery harder. Or repeated survival leads to complacency until we boil the frog to death. Or some combination of these, or similar cascading failures. It depends on the nature of the scenario. There are lots of ways things could go wrong, many roads to ruin; disaster is disjunctive.

Would warnings even work? Those in the know are sounding the alarm already. Are we taking them seriously enough? If not, why do you expect this to change?

Super terse answer:

Because most people do stuff like try to increase the number of companies in the space.

And even though AI isn't like nukes yet, at one point it will be.

And just like you wouldn't want as many companies building nukes as possible - you'd either want a few highly vetted companies or a government effort - you don't want as many companies building AGI as possible.

Does any specific human or group of humans currently have "control" in the sense of "that which is lost in a loss-of-control scenario"? If not, that indicates to me that it may be useful to frame the risk as "failure to gain control".

More people should consider dropping out of high school, particularly if they:

• Don't find their classes interesting
• Have self-motivation
• Don't plan on going to university

In most places, once you reach an age younger than the typical age of graduation you are not legally obligated to attend school. Many continue because it's normal, but some brief analysis could reveal that graduating is not worth the investment for you.

Some common objections I heard:

• It's only $n$ more months, why not finish?

Why finish?

• What if 'this whole thing' doesn't pan out?

The mistake in this objection is thinking there was a single reason I wanted to leave school. I was increasing my free time, not making a bet on a particular technology.

• My parents would never consent to this.

In some cases this is true. You might be surprised if you demonstrate long term commitment and the ability to get financial support though.

Leaving high school is not the right decision for everyone, but many students won't even consider it. At least make the option available to yourself.