Posts
Comments
As far as I’ve been told, left-TMS is for depression, right-TMS is for anxiety. Why that’s the case, I have no idea.)
As I was reading this I intuited there would be something to predict here so I successfully stopped reading before the "left-TMS is for depression, right-TMS is for anxiety" part and scrolled it out of view so I could do the prediction myself based on what I understand to be the roles of the right and left hemispheres.
As I understand it, the left hemisphere of the brain is sort of focused "forwards", on whatever tool you're using or prey you're hunting, and in particular on words you're speaking/hearing and plans you're making to pursue some goal. In contrast the right hemisphere of the brain is focused "outwards" on the environment as a whole and sort of on guard for any threats or interesting irregularities that ought to pull your attention away.
Therefore I predicted that left-TMS would be for kind of general depression stuff about all your plans seeming like bad ideas or whatever, and right-TMS would be for worrying about a bunch of stuff that's in your environment and being distracted, which sounds more like either an ADHD kind of thing or anxiety!
So you'll have to take my word for it, but I got it right.
...never making excuses to myself such as "I wanted to do A, but I didn't have the willpower so I did B instead", but rather owning the fact I wanted to do B and thinking how to integrate this...
AKA integrating the ego-dystonic into the homunculus
I think what’s happening in this last one is that there’s a salient intuitive model where your body is part of “the crowd”, and “the crowd” is the force controlling your actions.
This strongly reminds me of this excellent essay: https://meltingasphalt.com/music-in-human-evolution/
Can we expect to see code for this on https://github.com/agencyenterprise sometime soon? I'm excited to fiddle with this.
How is this related to embedded agency? I have a subscription to that topic so I get notified of new posts, but I don't see how this is related at all.
In HCH, the human user does a little work then delegates subquestions/subproblems to a few AIs, which in turn do a little work then delegate their subquestions/subproblems to a few AIs, and so on until the leaf-nodes of the tree receive tiny subquestions/subproblems which they can immediately solve.
This does not agree with my understanding of what HCH is at all. HCH is a definition of an abstract process for thought experiments, much like AIXI is. It's defined as the fixed point of some iterative process of delegation expanding out into a tree. It's also not something you could actually implement, but it's a platonic form like "circle" or "integral".
This has nothing to do with the way an HCH-like process would be implemented. You could easily have something that's designed to mimic HCH but it's implemented as a single monolithic AI system.
Okay so where do most of your hopes route through then?
SAME
I'm just here to note that the "canonical example" thing mentioned here is very similar to the "nothing-up-my-sleeve numbers" used in the definition of some cryptographic protocols.
I think you may have meant this as a top-level comment rather than a reply to my comment?
Actually I would still really appreciate the training hyperparameters like batch size, learning rate schedule...
Ah, never mind, I believe I found the relevant hyperparameters here: https://github.com/adamimos/epsilon-transformers/blob/main/examples/msp_analysis.ipynb
In particular, the stuff I needed was that it has only a single attention head per layer, and 4 layers.
No, the actual hidden Markov process used to generate the awesome triangle fractal image is not the {0,1,random} model but a different one, which is called "Mess3" and has a symmetry between the 3 hidden states.
Also, they're not claiming the transformer learns merely the hidden states of the HMM, but a more complicated thing called the "mixed state presentation", which is not the states that the HMM can be in but the (usually much larger number of) belief states which an ideal prediction process trying to "sync" to it might go thru.
Can you share the hyperparameters used to make this figure?
Okay my computer right here has 10^13 bits of storage and without too much trouble I could get it to use all that memory as a counter and just count to the highest value possible, which would be 2^(10^13) or in other words much much longer than the age of the universe even at a fast clock speed.
Now technically yes, after it got to that 2^(10^13) value it would have to either halt or start over from 0 or something... but that seems not so practically relevant to me because it's such a huge integer value.
I haven't dived into this yet, but am I right in guessing that the gist is exactly like a way more fleshed-out and intricate version of Hofstadter's "superrationality"?
I'm trying to read this post now but it looks like a bunch of images (of math) are missing. Does that match what others see?
The Bitter Lesson applies to almost all attempts to build additional structure into neural networks, it turns out.
Out of curiosity, what are the other exceptions to this besides the obvious one of attention?
Upvoted because this mentions Nonlinear Network.
Some of your YouTube links are broken because the equals sign got escaped as "%3D". If I were you I'd spend a minute to fix that.
Have you read https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien-message yet?
I had some similar thoughts to yours before reading that, but it helped me make a large update in favor of superintelligence being able to make magical-seeming feats of deduction. If a large number of smart humans working together for a long time can figure something out (without performing experiments or getting frequent updates of relevant sensory information), then a true superintelligence will also be able to.
Hilarious... I fixed my error
Reminds me of this from Scott Alexander's Meditations on Moloch:
Imagine a country with two rules: first, every person must spend eight hours a day giving themselves strong electric shocks. Second, if anyone fails to follow a rule (including this one), or speaks out against it, or fails to enforce it, all citizens must unite to kill that person. Suppose these rules were well-enough established by tradition that everyone expected them to be enforced.
Keenan Pepper
What I gather from https://www.lesswrong.com/s/HzcM2dkCq7fwXBej8 is that it's sort of like what you're saying but it's much more about predictions than actual experiences. If the Learning Subsystem is imagining a plan predicted to have high likelihood of smelling sex pheromones, seeing sexy body shapes, experiencing orgasm, etc. then the Steering Subsystem will reward the generation of that plan, basically saying "Yeah, think more thoughts like that!".
The Learning Subsystem has a bunch of abstract concepts and labels for things the Steering Subsystem doesn't care about (and can't even access), but there are certain hardcoded reward channels it can understand. But the important thing is the reward signals can be evaluated for imagined worlds as well as the real immediate world.