LESSWRONG
LW

Shankar Sivarajan
1251Ω164960
Message
Dialogue
Subscribe

Posts

Sorted by New

Wikitag Contributions

Comments

Sorted by
Newest
1Shankar Sivarajan's Shortform
2y
3
A case for courage, when speaking of AI danger
Shankar Sivarajan2d*0-3

Oh cool, if we're deciding it's now virtuous to ostracize people we don't like and declare them evil, I have a list of enemies I'd like to go after too. This is a great weapon, and fun to use! (Why did we ever stop using it?) Who else can we persecute? There are several much weaker and more-hated groups we could do to warm up.

Reply
Kaj's shortform feed
Shankar Sivarajan3d30

I don't have a detailed writeup, but this seems straightforward enough to fit in this comment: you're conducting your moral reasoning backwards, which is why it looks like other people have a sophisticated intuition about neurobiology you don't. 

The "moral intuition"[1] you start with is that insects[2] aren't worth as much as people, and then if you feel like you need to justify that, you can use your knowledge of the current best understanding of animal cognition to construct a metric that fits of as much complexity as you like.

  1. ^

    I'd call mine a "moral oracle" instead. Or a moracle, if you will.

  2. ^

    I'm assuming this post is proximately motivated by the Don't Eat Honey post, but this works for shrimp or whatever too.

Reply
TurnTrout's shortform feed
Shankar Sivarajan5d86

If you're concerned about deleting negative comments, you should see blocking the people making them as effectively deleting their comments from every future post. 

Reply1
dmac_93's Shortform
Shankar Sivarajan7d42

all genetic mutations are bad.

You might be rediscovering Fisher's geometric model. A refinement to your current model you could consider is that close to, but not exactly at, the local optima, sufficiently small mutations have a 50% chance of being beneficial. 

Reply
Annapurna's Shortform
Shankar Sivarajan21d32

This proves too much. If you consistently require there be no "serious personal and professional consequences" before you trust a source, you'd have to dismiss almost all of them. 

And outside the US, statements the government finds offensive often run the risk of criminal prosecution as well. The existence of "stable rule of law" doesn't preclude this.

Reply
Ghiblification for Privacy
Shankar Sivarajan25d30

I'm on the lookout for more models like this

Here's a recent one where the quality is pretty good: f-lite. They say, "The models were trained on Freepik's internal dataset comprising approximately 80 million copyright-safe images."

Reply1
A Technique of Pure Reason
Shankar Sivarajan1mo10

I really like the title of this post!

Reply
What AI apps are surprisingly absent given current capabilities?
Shankar Sivarajan1mo20

two students did that stronger version in one or two days.

I believe this was just a call to PimEyes.

Reply
Could we go another route with computers?
Answer by Shankar SivarajanMay 31, 202550

Yes! Here's a cool example of precisely what you're describing used in practice: Lavarand. 

Reply1
Could we go another route with computers?
Answer by Shankar SivarajanMay 31, 202530

What you're describing is not really different in principle from using specialized hardware like GPUs for rendering polygons instead of running everything on the same general CPUs. There are ASICs for hashing (used for Bitcoin mining), FGPAs (real-time signal processing, I think), and of course, TPUs for AI inference. And with cloud-computing, would you even know if your computation was actually being done with different physics than you thought?   

Reply
Load More
No wikitag contributions to display.
10Chess - "Elo" of random play?
Q
2mo
Q
16
7A Floating Cube - Rejected HLE submission
Q
5mo
Q
1
4Watermarks: Signing, Branding, and Boobytrapping
11mo
0
18Intuition for 1 + 2 + 3 + … = -1/12
1y
28
23How do high-trust societies form?
Q
1y
Q
17
1Shankar Sivarajan's Shortform
2y
3