Mathematician, alignment researcher, doctor. Reach out to me on Discord and tell me you found my profile on LW if you've got something interesting to say; you have my explicit permission to try to guess my Discord handle if so. You can't find my old abandoned LW account but it's from 2011 and has 280 karma.
Wait, some of y'all were still holding your breaths for OpenAI to be net-positive in solving alignment?
After the whole "initially having to be reminded alignment is A Thing"? And going back on its word to go for-profit? And spinning up a weird and opaque corporate structure? And people being worried about Altman being power-seeking? And everything to do with the OAI board debacle? And OAI Very Seriously proposing what (still) looks to me to be like a souped-up version of Baby Alignment Researcher's Master Plan B (where A involves solving physics and C involves RLHF and cope)? That OpenAI? I just want to be very sure. Because if it took the safety-ish crew of founders resigning to get people to finally pick up on the issue... it shouldn't have. Not here. Not where people pride themselves on their lightness.
Any recommendations on how I should do that? You may assume that I know what a gas chromatograph is and what a Petri dish is and why you might want to use either or both of those for data collection, but not that I have any idea of how to most cost-effectively access either one as some rando who doesn't even have a MA in Chemistry.
Surely so! Hit me up if you ever end doing this - I'm likely getting the Lumina treatment in a couple months.
Finally, I get to give one a try! I'll edit this post with my analysis and strategy. But first, a clarifying question - are the new plans supposed to be lacking costs?
First off, it looks to me like you only get impossible structures if you were apprenticed to "Bloody Stupid" Johnson or Peter Stamatin, or if you're self-taught. No love for Dr. Seuss, Escher, or Penrose. Also, while being apprenticed to either of those two lunatics guarantees you an impossible structure, being self-taught looks to do it only half the time. We can thus immediately reject plans B, C, F, J, and M.
Next, I started thinking about cost. Looks like nightmares are horrifyingly expensive - small wonder - and silver and glass are only somewhat better. Cheaper options for materials look to include wood, dreams, and steel. That rules out plan G as a good idea if I want to keep costs low, and makes suggestions about the other plans that I'll address later.
I'm not actually sure what the relationship is between [pair of materials] and [cost], but my snap first guess - given how nightmares dominate the expensive end of the past plans, how silver and glass seem to show up somewhat more often at the top end and wood/dreams/steel show up at the bottom end fairly reliably - is that it's some additive relation on secret prices by material, maybe modified by the type of structure?
A little more perusing at the Self-Taught crowd suggests that... they're kind of a crapshoot? I'm sure I'm going to feel like an idiot when there turns out to be some obvious relationship that predicts when their structures will turn out impossible, but it doesn't look to me like building type, blueprint quality, material, or final price are determinative.
Maybe it has something to do with that seventh data column in the past plans, which fell both before apprentice-status and after price, which I couldn't pry open more than a few pixels' crack and from which then issued forth endless surreal blasphemies, far too much space, and the piping of flutes; ia! ia! the swollen and multifarious geometries of Tindalos eagerly welcome a wayward and lonely fox home once more. yeah sorry no idea how this got here but I can't remove it
Regardless, I'd rather take the safe option here and limit my options to D, E, H, and K, the four plans which are: 1) drawn up by architects who apprenticed with either of the two usefully crazy masters (and not simply self-taught) and 2) not making use of Nightmares, because those are expensive.
For a bonus round, I'll estimate costs by comparing to whatever's closest from past projects. Using this heuristic, I think K is going to cost 60-80k, D and H (which are the same plan???) will both cost ~65k, and E is going to be stupid cheap (<5k). EDIT: also that means that the various self-taught people's plans are likely to be pretty cheap, given their materials, so... if this were a push-your-luck dealie based on trying to get as much value per dollar as possible, maybe it's even worth chancing it on the chancers (A, I, L, and N)?
On the object level I agree. On the meta level, though, making the seemingly-dumb object-level move (~here specifically) of announcing that you think that all minds are the same in some specific way means that people will come out of the woodwork to correct you, which results in everyone getting better models about what minds are like.
I gave a short and unpolished response privately.
Dang. I wasn't entirely sure whether you were firm on the definition of lottery-lottery dominance or if that was more speculative. I guess I wasn't clear that MLLs were specifically meant to be "majoritarianism but better"? Given that you meant for it to be, this post sure doesn't prove that they exist. You're absolutely right that you can cook up electorates where the majority-favored candidate isn't the Nash bargaining/Geometric MLL favored candidate.
The body uses up sodium and potassium as two major cations. You need them for neural firing to work, among many other things; it's the body's go-to for "I need a single-charge cation but sodium doesn't work for whatever reason". As such, you lose plenty in urine and sweat. Because modern table salt (i.e., neither rock salt nor better yet sea salt) contains basically no potassium, people can end up being slightly deficient because we do still get some from foods - lots of types of produce like tomatoes, root vegetables, and some fruits are rich in it, for instance.
To avoid confusion: this post and my reply to it were also on a past version of this post; that version lacked any investigation of dominance criterion desiderata for lottery-lotteries.
I really liked this one! I'd kept wanting to jump in on a DnD.Science thing for a while (both because it looked fun and I'm trying to improve myself in ways strongly consistent with learning more about how to do data science) and this was a perfect start. IMO you totally should run easier and/or shorter puzzles sometimes going forward, and maybe should mark ones particularly amenable to a first-timer as being so.