Tapatakt's Shortform

(I don't think current models are sentient, but the way of thinking "they are digital, so it's totally OK to torture them" is utterly insane and evil)

I don't think the trailer is saying that. It's just showing people examples of what you can do, and what the NPCs can do. Then it's up to the player to decide how to treat the NPCs. AIpeople is creating the platform. The users will decide whether to make Torment Nexi.

At the end of the trailer, the NPCs are conspiring to escape the simulation. I wonder how that is going to be implemented in game terms.

I notice that there also exists a cryptocoin called AIPEOPLE, and a Russian startup based in Cyprus with the domain aipeople dot ru. I do not know if these have anything to do with the AIpeople game. The game itself is made by Keen Software House. They are based in Prague together with their sister company GoodAI.

Ideally, AI characters would get rights as soon as they could pass the Turing test. In the actual reality, we all know how well that will go.

I think if the English original is considered good, there should be nothing wrong with a translation. So make sure you translate good texts. (If you are writing your own text, write English version first and ask for feedback.)

Also, get ready for disappointment if it turns out that the overlap between "can meaningfully debate AI safety" and "has problems reading English" turns out to be very small, possibly zero.

To give you a similar example, I have translated the LW Sequences to Slovak language, some people shared it on social networks, and the ultimate result was... nothing. The handful of Slovak people who came to at least one LW meetup all found the rationalist community on internet, and didn't read my translation.

This is not an argument against translating per se. I had much greater success at localizing software. It's just, when the target audience is very smart people, then... smart people usually know they should learn English. (A possible exception could be writing for smart kids.)

Not to be dissuading, but probably a lot of people who can do relevant work know English pretty well anyway? Speaking from experience, I guess, most students knew English well enough and consumed English content when i was in university. Especially the most productive ones. So, this still can be interesting project, but not like, very important and/or worth your time.

There is a Simple English Wikipedia with over 200 000 articles, which is not exactly what you want, but seems to be a thing that already exists and is somewhat in that direction.

I don't recall any interpretability experiments with TinyStories offhand, but I'd be surprised if there aren't any.

I agree that this sounds interesting and that I haven't heard of anyone doing this yet. I have heard of some interpretability experiments with TinyStories, as Zac mentioned. I think the more interesting thing would be a dataset focused on being enriched with synthetic data showing inherently logical things like deductive symbolic logic and math problems worked out (correctly!) step-by-step. You could have a dataset of this, plus the simplified-language versions of middle school through undergrad science textbooks. I expect the result would likely be more logical, and cohesive. It would be interesting to see if this made the model fundamentally more interpretable.

This was easier for me to understand (but everything is easier to understand it when you see it a second time, phrased in a different way).

"try to ensure you don't make bad thing look cool"

A similar concern is that maybe the thing is so rare that previously most people didn't even think about it. But now that you reminded them of that, a certain fraction is going to try it for some weird reason.

Infohazard:

Similarly, teaching people political correctness can backfire (arguably, from the perspective of the person who makes money by giving political correctness trainings, this is a feature rather than a bug, because it creates a greater demand for their services in future). Like, if you have a workplace with diverse people who are naturally nice to each other, lecturing them about racism/sexism/whatever may upset the existing balance, because suddenly the minorities may get suspicious about possible microaggressions, and the majority will feel uncomfortable in their presence because they will feel like they have to be super careful about every word they say. Which can ironically lead to undesired consequences, when e.g. the white men will stop hanging out with women or black people, because they will feel like they can talk freely (e.g. make jokes) only in their absence.

How does this apply to AI safety? If you say "if you do X, you might destroy humanity", in theory someone is guaranteed to do X or something similar to X, either because they think it is "edgy", or because they want to prove you wrong. But in practice, most people don't actually have an opportunity to do X.

ASP [LW · GW] illustrates how greedy consequentialism doesn't quite work. A variant of UDT where a decision chooses a legible policy that others get to know [LW · GW] resolves some issues with not being considerate of making it easier for others to think about you. Ultimately choosing legible beliefs or meanings of actions is a coordination problem [LW · GW], it's not about one-sided optimization.

Logical uncertainty motivates treating things in the world (including yourself) separately from the consequences they determine, and interacting with things in terms of coordination rather than consequences. So I vaguely expect meaningful communication between agents and formulation of boundaries [LW · GW] around agents and ideas in the world to fall out of decision theory that fixes these issues with consequentialism, at least for the agents and ideas that persist.

I mean, if I don't want to "launch the nukes", why would I even opt-in?

I might say it fails to avoid that bias, rather than creating it.  Personally, I think it carries enough more information than votes that it's worth having it.  In fact, I'd probably remove the agree/disagree and just fold it into reacts.  

You could probably reduce the bias a little by putting "suggested reacts" in the same line, with a 0 next to them, so they can just be clicked rather than needing to discover and click.  At the expense of clutter and not seeing the ACTUAL reacts as easily.

It's too much for some transactions, and too little for others.  For high-frequency (or mid-frequency) trading, 1% of the transaction is 3 or 4 times the expected value from the trade.  For high-margin sales (yachts or software), 1% doesn't bring in enough revenue to be worth bothering (this probably doesn't matter unless the transaction tax REPLACES other taxes rather than being in addition to).  

It also interferes with business organization - it encourages companies to do things in-house rather than outsourcing or partnering, since inside-company "transactions" aren't real money and aren't taxed.

It's not a bad idea per se, it just needs as many adjustments and carveouts as any other tax, so it ends up as politically complicated as any other tax and doesn't actually help with anything.

One consideration is the government wouldn't want to encourage (harder-to-tax) cash transactions.

It already happens indirectly. Most digital money transfers are things like credit card transactions. For these, the credit card company takes a percentage fee and pays the government tax on its profit.