some youtube channels I recommend for those interested in understanding current capability trends; separate comments for votability. Please open each one synchronously as it catches your eye, then come back and vote on it. downvote means not mission critical, plenty of good stuff down there too.
I'm subscribed to every single channel on this list (this is actually about 10% of my youtube subscription list), and I mostly find videos from these channels by letting the youtube recommender give them to me and pushing myself to watch them at least somewhat to give the cute little obsessive recommender the reward it seeks for showing me stuff. definitely I'd recommend subscribing to everything.
Let me know which if any of these are useful, and please forward the good ones to folks - this short form thread won't get seen by that many people!
Yannic Kilcher: paper explanations, capability news. Yannic is the machine
learning youtuber. 129k subscribers, every one of whom has published 200 papers
on machine learning (I kid). Has some of the most in depth and also broad paper
explanations, with detailed drawings of his understanding of the paper. Great
for getting a sense of how to read a machine learning paper. his paper choices
are top notch and his ML news videos have really great capabilities news.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZHmQk67mSJgfCCTn7xBfew
5the gears to ascension1y
Valence Discovery: graph NNs, advanced chem models. Valence Discovery is a
research group focusing on advanced chemical modeling. We don't have full
strength general agent AI to plug into this quite yet, and certainly not safe
reinforcement learning, but work like theirs has thoroughly eclipsed human
capabilities in understanding chemicals. as long as we can use narrow ai to
prevent general AI from destroying the cooperation network between beings, I
think work like this has the potential to give the world every single goal of
transhumanism: post scarcity, molecular assemblers, life extension, full bodily
autonomy and morphological freedom, the full lot should be accessible. It'll
take a bit longer to get to that level, but the research trajectory continues to
look promising and these models haven't been scaled as much as language models.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3ew3t5al4sN-Zk01DGVKlg
5the gears to ascension1y
The Alan Turing Institute: variety, lately quite a bit of ai safety. eg:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcr5vuAH5TPlYox-QLj4ySw
* they have a playlist of recent ai safety videos, many of which look like they
plausibly include information not heavily discussed, or at least not well
indexed, on less wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApGusxR7JAc&list=PLuD_SqLtxSdXVSrXneEPkZtzTTQMT4hQ8
* They discuss social issues, including stuff like who gets to decide a
non-explosive ai's targets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Txa7pAOHZQ&list=PLuD_SqLtxSdVy8meO_ezV9l89Q9Gg8q6p
* quite a few more interesting playlists on safety and security of ai in the
playlists section
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheAlanTuringInstituteUK/playlists
* lots of discussion of complex systems
* in particular, I love their video on social network analysis and I recommend
it often
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZHuj8uBinM&list=PLuD_SqLtxSdWcl2vx4K-0mSflRRLyfwlJ&index=9
5the gears to ascension1y
Steve Brunton: fancy visual lectures on nonlinear control systems & ML. has some
of the best educational content I've ever seen, just barely beating Mutual
Information for explanation quality while going into much more advanced topics.
Focuses on control theory, nonlinear control, dynamical systems, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm5mt-A4w61lknZ9lCsZtBw
3Lone Pine1y
Where do I start with this channel? Oldest video first?
1the gears to ascension1y
It's several college courses worth of material - it really depends what you want
out of it. I personally am extremely curiosity-driven; without assessing what
you already know I don't feel able to give strong recommendations of where to
start, which is in fact why I posted so many links here in the first place. if
you want to work through Brunton's content sequentially, I'd suggest picking the
course playlist that interests you:
https://www.youtube.com/c/Eigensteve/playlists
If your interests are mostly unprimed, I'd suggest checking out the
physics-informed ML and sparsity playlists, maybe also skip around the fluid
dynamics playlist to get a sense of what's going on there. Alternately, skim a
few videos to get a sense of which ones are relevant to your interests (2x speed
with heavy jumping around), then queue the playlist that seems appropriate to
you. If you really find it useful you might benefit from actually doing it like
a course - I generally underpractice compared to ideal practice amount.
5the gears to ascension1y
The simons institute: very best wide variety, especially ai safety and game
theory. The simons institute for theoretical computer science at UC Berkeley is
a contender for my #1 recommendation from this whole list. Banger talk after
banger talk after banger talk there. Several recent workshops with kickass ai
safety focus. https://www.youtube.com/user/SimonsInstitute
A notable recent workshop is "learning in the presence of strategic behavior":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uq1VeB4h3w&list=PLgKuh-lKre101UQlQu5mKDjXDmH7uQ_4T
another fun one is "learning and games":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkh23K3-EKw&list=PLgKuh-lKre13FSdUuEerIxW9zgzsa9GK9
they have a number of "boot camp" lessons that appear to be meant for an
interdisciplinary advanced audience as well. the current focus of talks is on
causality and games, and they also have some banger talks on "how not to run a
forecasting competition", "the invisible hand of prediction", "communicating
with anecdotes", "the challenge of understanding what users want", and my
personal favorite due to its fundamental reframing of what game theory even is,
"in praise of game dynamics": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCDy7XcZsSI
5the gears to ascension1y
Schwartz Reisman Institute is a multi-agent safety discussion group, one of the
very best ai safety sources I've seen anywhere. a few interesting videos
include, for example, this one, which I think is on the cutting edge in terms of
where AI safety will eventually end up (potentially multi-agent safety that
comes into existence after humanity dies, if we don't get there fast enough to
prevent darwinist AIs that don't love us from literally eating us, as yudkowsky
describes with the words "does not love you, does not hate you, made out of
atoms that can be used for something else"):
"An antidote to Universal Darwinism" -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENpdhwYoF5g
as well as this kickass video on "whose intelligence, whose ethics"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReSbgRSJ4WY
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSq8_q4SCU3rYFwnA2bDxyQ
5the gears to ascension1y
Mutual Information: visual explanations of ML fundamentals. Mutual Information
is one of the absolute best tutorial-and-explanation videos about the visual
math of basic (small-model) machine learning. includes things like gaussian
processes, which, it turns out, neural networks are a special case of. This
means that neural networks are actually equivalent to non-parametric models, the
weights are simply a reprojection of the training data (kinda obvious in
retrospect), and understanding gaussian processes is not optional in
understanding how neural networks interpolate between their training data. His
video on gaussian processes is wonderful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBDgSHPxVME - lots of other interesting videos
as well https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCcrR0XBH0aWbdffktUBEdw
5the gears to ascension1y
Machine Learning Street Talk: Industry professionals giving talks meant for
youtube. is one of the most interesting interview series-es (seriesen? serii?)
on youtube. Discusses stuff like gflownets with yoshua bengio, geometric deep
learning, thousand brains theory - all the stuff you really, really need to
understand if you want to have any sense at all of where machine learning is
going. (no, it's not hitting a wall.)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMLtBahI5DMrt0NPvDSoIRQ
5the gears to ascension1y
IPAM at UCLA: academic talks; Math, quantum, ML, game theory, ai safety, misc.
is one of the most notable channels on this list; lots of hard math topics, but
also quite a few extremely interesting ML topics, including an absolute banger
talk series on distributed computation and collective intelligence. They also
discuss extremely interesting topics about advanced physics which is way above
my head as a self-taught ML nerd, but very interesting to attempt to absorb.
https://www.youtube.com/c/IPAMUCLA/videos
The collective intelligence workshop playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhjho576fms&list=PLHyI3Fbmv0SfY5Ft43_TbsslNDk93G6jJ
5the gears to ascension1y
IARAI: cutting-edge academic ML talks. "The Institute of Advanced Research in
Artificial Intelligence" is not messing around with their name. The recent
discussion of "Neural diffusion PDEs, differential geometry, and graph neural
networks" seems to me to be a major next direction in ai capabilities, refining
the issues with transformers with fundamental mathematics of graph curvature.
"How GNNs and Symmetries can help solve PDEs" is also promising, though I
haven't watched all the way through yet.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClC7A82p47Nnj8ttU_COYeA/videos
5the gears to ascension1y
CPAIOR: formal verification in general, including on deep learning. Has a number
of interesting videos on formal verification, how it works, and some that apply
it to machine learning, eg "Safety in AI Systems - SMT-Based Verification of
Deep Neural Networks"; "Formal Reasoning Methods in Machine Learning
Explainability"; "Reasoning About the Probabilistic Behavior of Classifiers";
"Certified Artificial Intelligence"; "Explaining Machine Learning Predictions";
a few others. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUBpU4mSYdIn-QzhORFHcHQ/videos
3the gears to ascension1y
William Spaniel is a textbook writer and youtube video author on game theory.
Probably not as relevant to an advanced audience, but has nice if slightly janky
intros to the concepts. edit: since I posted this, he's gotten into detailed
descriptions of war incentives and as a result became quite popular.
https://www.youtube.com/user/JimBobJenkins
1the gears to ascension1y
"Welcome AI Overlords" is a popsci ML-intros channel with high quality
explanations of things like Graph Attention Networks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnRfBfXwLuY and an author interview with
Equivariant Subgraph Aggregation Networks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYZog7kbXks
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxw9_WYmLqlj5PyXu2AWU_g
1the gears to ascension1y
"Web IR / NLP Group at NUS" has talks, many from google research, about
information retrieval, which is looking more and more likely to be a core
component of any superintelligence (what a surprise, given the size of the
internet, right? except also, information retrieval and interpolation is all
that neural networks do anyway, see work on Neural Tangent Kernel)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK8KLoKYvow7X6pe_di-Gvw/videos
1the gears to ascension1y
UMich-CURLY is a research group and associated youtube channel discussing
Simultaneous Localization And Mapping (SLAM) with neural networks. a recent
overview talk was particularly interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUOCMevmbOg -
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ7Up19hdIWuCSuuATlzlbw/videos
1the gears to ascension1y
udiprod makes animated explainer videos about advanced computer science,
including some fun quantum computer science. also has a visualization of, eg, an
SVM. https://www.youtube.com/c/udiprod/videos
1the gears to ascension1y
The National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center has a number of topics that
felt a bit scientifically offbeat to me, but in particular, talks on knowledge
integration across disciplines I found remarkably interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIGFwrZq94y-rj8CKOaVzBXGD5OTmeelc
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheNationalSocioEnvironmentalSynthesisCenter
1the gears to ascension1y
The Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society has some interesting
discussion content that gets into ai safety:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL68azUN8PTNjTUsspsam0m0KmmUZ6l1Sh
https://www.youtube.com/c/BKCHarvard
1the gears to ascension1y
The AI Epiphany is a solid paper explanations channel, and his choices of paper
to discuss are often telling in terms of upcoming big-deal directions. Not quite
as good as Yannic IMO, but imo worth at least subscribing to.
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheAIEpiphany/videos
1the gears to ascension1y
Stanford MLSys Seminars is where talks from the Hazy Research group at stanford
get posted, and their work has been some of the most eye-catching for me in the
past two years. In particular, the S4 sequence model seems to me to represent a
major capability bump in next-step-after-transformers models, due to its
unusually stable learning. I might just be taken in by a shiny toy, but S4 is
the next thing I'm going to play with capabilities wise.
https://www.youtube.com/c/StanfordMLSysSeminars
1the gears to ascension1y
Robert Miles makes kickass AI safety videos. Y'all probably already know about
him. He has repeated many opinions I don't think hold that came from less wrong,
but if reading the archives here isn't your jam, watching the archives on his
channel might be better.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLB7AzTwc6VFZrBsO2ucBMg
1the gears to ascension1y
Reducible creates absolutely kickass computer science explanation videos,
including one on why jpeg is so effective, another on the interesting
information routing in the fast fourier transform.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK8XIGR5kRidIw2fWqwyHRA
1the gears to ascension1y
A few more programming languages channels I don't think are worth their own
votable comments:
PLISS - programming language implementation summer school -
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCofC5zis7rPvXxWQRDnrTqA/videos
POPL 2019 - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe0bH8tWBjH_Fpqs3veiIzg
1the gears to ascension1y
another slightly-off-topic one, Paul Beckwith discusses large-scale climate
science, and hooo boy it really isn't looking good at all if his estimates are
remotely on target. We're going to need that weather superintelligence you
published a few steps towards, deepmind!
https://www.youtube.com/user/PaulHBeckwith
1the gears to ascension1y
Oxford VGG continues to be one of the most cutting edge vision research groups,
and their presentations on generative models of images, 3d neural rendering, etc
seem very promising in fixing the 3d reasoning gap that is still present in
powerful models like DALL-E 2.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFXBh2WNhGDXFNafOrOwZEQ/videos
1the gears to ascension1y
One World Theoretical Machine Learning is a paper-discussions channel I've
watched nearly none of but which looks very interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz7WlgXs20CzugkfxhFCNFg/videos
1the gears to ascension1y
nPlan: paper discussion group - they're a research group of some kind or other
that does great paper-discussion meetups and posts them to youtube.
Paper-discussion with multiple confused researchers is in general more to my
preference than paper-explanation with one confused researcher explaining it to
the audience, because having multiple folks makes sure more questions come up.
Competitive with Yannic for "best papers-summary channel on youtube" (as far as
I've found, anyway) because of the format difference.
https://www.youtube.com/c/nPlan/videos
1the gears to ascension1y
Normalized Nerd is another overviews channel with good overviews of various
basic small-model ml approaches. Not as good as Mutual Information, but mostly
they don't overlap. https://www.youtube.com/c/NormalizedNerd/featured
1the gears to ascension1y
Neuroscientifically Challenged makes great quick-intro 2-minute videos on
neuroscience topics. Not the most important in understanding machine learning at
this point since the stuff about the brain that is still likely to usefully
generalize is rather advanced details of neuron behaviors and is likely not as
useful as the general research direction towards [conservation laws, symmetries,
continuous space&time, etc] research track, but relevant to generalizing machine
learning knowledge to the brain, and relevant to general understanding of the
brain. https://www.youtube.com/c/Neuroscientificallychallenged/videos
1the gears to ascension1y
MIT Embodied Intelligence: industry professionals giving academic talks. Is a
channel (and presumably org of some kind) that posts talks with major industry
and research folks. Recent talks include "Recent advances in deep equilibrium
models", "The deep learning toolbox: from alphafold to alphacode", and "the
past, present, and future of SLAM".
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnXGbvgu9071i3koFooncAw/videos
1the gears to ascension1y
Mind under Matter is a pop-explanations channel about neuroscience, which I
absolutely love, she really goes over the top making it fun and playful and imo
hits it out of the park. Definitely upper intro level, but a great
recommendation if that's an interesting topic to you.
https://www.youtube.com/c/MindUnderMatter/videos
1the gears to ascension1y
Justin Solomon has a number of video topics on his channel, but notably a class
he taught on Shape Analysis in 2021, which covers a number of interesting
subtopics. I added the whole class to my watch later and have occasionally been
speedwatching it when it comes up on shuffle.
https://www.youtube.com/c/justinmsolomon/featured
1the gears to ascension1y
Jordan Harrod is an ML person who is also a popsci-ML video creator. She has
lots of great stuff on things like "how I self-study", "is it too late to get
into machine learning", "productivity tools I tried and didn't like", etc. not
as information dense as the talks channels, but a good subscription-without-bell
on youtube, and I occasionally love her stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/c/JordanHarrod/videos
1the gears to ascension1y
Joint Mathematics Meetings has quite a number of interesting videos on math, but
the one where I found their channel was this one, Daniel Spielman on “Miracles
of Algebraic Graph Theory”. Presents, among other things, a demonstration of why
the first eigenvectors of some graph representation or other (I have to rewatch
it every damn time to remember exactly which one) end up being an analytical
solution to force-directed graph drawing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDMQR422LGM -
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKxjz1WXZOKcAh9T9CBfJoA
1the gears to ascension1y
Interpretable Machine Learning is an archive of some discussions about
interpretability from a NeurIPS 2017. Great talks, definitely worth some
speedwatching if interpretability is of interest.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv0AwnKZkSk2sU1mkETYfIw/videos
1the gears to ascension1y
"Intelligent Systems Lab" appears to be a university class focused on intro to
ML. Not my first recommendation for the topic, but solid, above 50% percentile
on this list IMO.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7qFYa4HVoufKcz-2q3pr7A/videos
1the gears to ascension1y
Hugo Larochelle is a deep learning researcher who has also made a number of
interesting talks and discussion videos, including this interesting playlist
from the TechAide AI4Good conference-and-hackathon in 2020.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFRnvtiPpL8&list=PL6Xpj9I5qXYFTaKnvgyfFFkxrOb4Ss_-J
1the gears to ascension1y
Harvard Medical AI: ML for medical science, cutting edge academic talks. They
publish talks on machine learning for medical science, probably the most
important use of machine learning IMO[1] - includes eg this interesting
discussion of geometric deep learning, one of the most promising next directions
for ML in my opinion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz3vaxFleh4 -
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCld99fdpOgqW80TW-oOvltA/videos
[1] tangent: as long as ML doesn't suddenly smash the "defect against other
life" button really really hard like yudkowsky is terrified its totally gonna (I
think he's just given himself a paranoia disorder and is unable to evaluate
algorithms without pascals-mugging himself out of the steps of the reasoning
process, but that's another thread)
1the gears to ascension1y
GAMMA UMD posts paper summary videos, thought they're not the most
industry-changing they can be interesting. topics like Automatic Excavactor
[sic], Speech2AffectiveGestures, Text2Gestures, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/c/gammaunc/videos
1the gears to ascension1y
Fancy Fueko is an intro level programming-and-AI channel. She makes great stuff
and makes it look shiny and neon - I occasionally reference her stuff when
feeling mentally diffuse and need a reminder. Same category as Daniel Bourke.
https://www.youtube.com/c/fancyfueko/videos
1the gears to ascension1y
Edan Meyer makes mid-level paper explanations. Not quite as good as yannic
kilcher yet, but getting there. Has discussed a number of notable papers Yannic
hasn't gotten to yet, such as the deepmind scaling laws paper. One of the higher
production-quality, on-the-edge channels I've encountered for its level of
beginner-friendliness, though. https://www.youtube.com/c/EdanMeyer/videos
1the gears to ascension1y
"DeepMind ELLIS UCL CSML Seminar Series" (what a mouthful) appears to be a
sponsored-by-deepmind series at a school, one of those acronyms is probably the
school name. UCL? has a bunch of interesting topics, but I haven't found it to
be as cutting edge as some other channels, maybe I haven't watched the right
videos. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiCXRD_NcvVjkLCE39GkwVQ/videos
1the gears to ascension1y
Conference on Robot Learning has many great talks and is sponsored by a number
of serious industry groups. Examples include "Safe Reinforcement Learning", "A
fabrics perspective on nonlinear behavior representation", "walking the boundary
of learning and interaction", "integrating planning and learning for scalable
robot decision making", etc. https://www.youtube.com/c/ConferenceonRobotLearning
1the gears to ascension1y
Conference on Computer-Aided Verification has a number of interesting talks on
how to do verified neuro-symbolic ML. recent videos include "modular synthesis
of reactive programs", "neuro-symbolic program synthesis from natural language
and demonstrations", "gradient descent over metagrammars for syntax guided
synthesis". I think transformers are more powerful than any of these techniques,
but they provide interesting comparison for what a model (eg transformers) must
be able to learn in order to succeed.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe3M4Hc2hCeNGk54Dcbrbpw/videos
1the gears to ascension1y
CMU Robotics has a number of interesting talks, including some about ethics of
ai robotics and robust human-robot interaction.
https://www.youtube.com/user/cmurobotics/videos
1the gears to ascension1y
CMU AI Seminar: Paper presentations by authors. Has some great talks on various
projects, such as one that I think is significantly beyond SOTA in learning
efficiency, DreamCoder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KykcFYDkAHo
1the gears to ascension1y
Emergent Garden is a fairly new channel, but has a great video on why even a
simple feedforward network is already a very powerful general function
approximator. Compare Art Of The Problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QczhVg5HaI
1the gears to ascension1y
Art of the Problem makes explainer videos that are unusually high quality among
explainer videos I've encountered, especially among ones on deep learning.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbg3ZX2pWlgKV8K6bFJr5dhM7oOClExUJ
1the gears to ascension1y
AIPursuit archives talks they find notable, including many from major
conferences. a quick browse is necessary to find what you seek in this archive.
Links to several related channels they also run with subtopics, such as RL.
https://www.youtube.com/c/AIPursuit/featured
0the gears to ascension1y
"What's AI" is a popsci-only channel about ai, but the content doesn't seem
completely off base, just popular-audience focused
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUzGQrN-lyyc0BWTYoJM_Sg
0the gears to ascension1y
"Visual Inference" is a channel with misc paper presentation videos. Doesn't
seem like the most remarkable paper presentation videos channel ever, but it's
interesting. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBk6WGWfm7mjqftlHzJOt5Q/videos
0the gears to ascension1y
TUM-DAML is a research group that posts discussions of their papers. A recent
interesting one is "Ab-initio Potential Energy Surfaces by Pairing GNNs with
Neural Wave Functions". https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0sPhfmHXhNE7lOv5J3wteg
0the gears to ascension1y
The Royal Institution is a bit like popsci for scientists. in depth talks, not
always my first choice but pretty solid and recommendable.
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheRoyalInstitution
0the gears to ascension1y
Stanford MedAI's youtube talks aren't quite as kickass as the harvard medical
channel, but they're pretty solid
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOkkljs06NPPkjNysCdQV4w/videos
0the gears to ascension1y
sentdex makes lots of fun tutorial and livecoding videos, including some recent
ones about building neural networks completely from scratch in order to
understand the computation steps exactly. https://www.youtube.com/user/sentdex
0the gears to ascension1y
DrSaradaHerke made a couple of classes on graph theory and discrete maths a few
years ago. Solid content. https://www.youtube.com/user/DrSaradaHerke
0the gears to ascension1y
Jeremy Mann makes tutorial videos on topics like Homological Algebra.
https://www.youtube.com/user/jmann277/videos
0the gears to ascension1y
jbstatistics is a fairly solid statistics intro class, with nice animated
explanations. not the best I've ever seen, but solid.
https://www.youtube.com/user/jbstatistics/videos
0the gears to ascension1y
the Institute for Neural Computation has some of the most interesting
hard-neuroscience talks I've found on youtube yet, such as this one about basis
vectors of the central nervous system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQX4GIDh_pI -
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV1SrkEl2-UI60GZlXy5gLA/videos
0the gears to ascension1y
the Institute of Advanced Study has many remarkable videos, but they are on a
wide variety of mathematical topics. A recent interesting-and-on-topic one is
"Multi-group fairness, loss minimization and indistinguishability".
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8aRaZ6_0weiS50pvCmo0pw
0the gears to ascension1y
Huggingface post videos to youtube about their python library, nothing terribly
fancy but can be convenient to have it pop up in my recommender between in-depth
videos. https://www.youtube.com/c/HuggingFace
0the gears to ascension1y
Henry AI Labs is a research group (I think?) that also have a podcast, and they
often advertise ML products on it. They've advertised weaviate several times,
which does look like a fairly nice ready-to-use vector+trad search database,
though I haven't actually tried it yet. They also have discussions about APIs,
causal inference, misc other stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHB9VepY6kYvZjj0Bgxnpbw/videos
0the gears to ascension1y
Eye on AI is a podcast-style discussion channel. eg, here's a discussion about
protein labeling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90ymin29K7g -
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-o9u9QL4zXzBwjvT1gmzNg
0the gears to ascension1y
Deeplizard makes entry-level and glossary M-Anim videos about various machine
learning topics. https://www.youtube.com/c/deeplizard/videos
0the gears to ascension1y
Cyrill Stachniss makes various video summaries of ML topics, especially focusing
on applied topics like plant phenotyping, self-driving-car perception, etc.
includes interviews, etc. https://www.youtube.com/c/CyrillStachniss/videos
0the gears to ascension1y
Andreas Geiger is a vision researcher who posts vision research to youtube.
Vision has some major steps left before completion, and his work seems like a
promising direction in that process to me. includes NeRF stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/user/cvlibs
0the gears to ascension1y
Alfredo Canziani makes long, in-depth videos about cutting edge topics, often
inviting experts such as Yann LeCun.
https://www.youtube.com/c/AlfredoCanziani/videos
0the gears to ascension1y
Alex Smola makes lecture-style ~30 minute videos on various machine learning
topics, including some recent ones on shapley values, fairness, graph neural
networks, etc. https://www.youtube.com/c/smolix/videos
0the gears to ascension1y
AI Coffee break with Latita is a mid-level beginner ai techniques
youtuber-production-value channel.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCobqgqE4i5Kf7wrxRxhToQA
0the gears to ascension1y
ACM SIGPLan is a special interest group on programming languages. Talks,
discussions, presentations, long videos.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwG9512Wm7jSS6Iqshz4Dpg
-1the gears to ascension1y
Vision Learning is a misc talks channel with mostly intro level content and
discussion of applied robotics. Mediocre compared to most stuff on this list,
but worth a mention.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmct-3iP5w66oZzN_V5dAMg/videos
-1the gears to ascension1y
"Vector Podcast": Podcast on vector search engines. unremarkable compared to
most of the stuff I've linked. https://www.youtube.com/c/VectorPodcast/videos
-1the gears to ascension1y
The bibites is a fun life simulation channel that demonstrates some of the stuff
that comes up in evobio and game theory from the other channels I've recommended
today https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjJEUMnBFHOP2zpBc7vCnsA
-1the gears to ascension1y
Oxford Mathematics is a widely ranging math channel that I don't strongly
recommend, but which passed my inclusion criteria of quality and may be worth
checking out. Has an interesting video series on math with machine learning.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLnGGRG__uGSPLBLzyhg8dQ
-1the gears to ascension1y
Prof. Nando de Freitas is a machine learning researcher/teacher who has an old
class on deep learning on youtube - reasonable, but imo insufficiently concise
and out of date. Don't recommend, included for completeness. Watch to get the
youtube recommender to give you old stuff like it, if you feel like.
https://www.youtube.com/user/ProfNandoDF
-1the gears to ascension1y
Missing Semester is a little off-topic, but is an MIT (after-hours?) course on
misc tools one needs in computer science work.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuXy5tCgEninup9cGplbiFw
-1the gears to ascension1y
Jeremy Howard made fast.ai and has various misc intro content on youtube.
definitely not my first recommendation, but if fast.ai seems shiny then this is
one place on youtube you can learn about it.
https://www.youtube.com/user/howardjeremyp
-1the gears to ascension1y
Hausdorff Center for Mathematics is focused on hard math, and I haven't found it
super interesting. Including for completeness since I found it originally while
watching lots of math videos.
https://www.youtube.com/c/HausdorffCenterforMathematics
-1the gears to ascension1y
slightly less on-topic, "Fluid Mechanics 101" goes through a number of
interesting topics on fluids and the math behind them. As usual with any
large-scale physics, it ends up being another example of tensor programming,
just like machine learning. I wonder if there's some connection? /s
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcqQi9LT0ETkRoUu8eYaEkg
-1the gears to ascension1y
Fancy Manifold is a bit of a stretch, but they have a whole bunch of really good
pinned channels as well as a couple of M-Anim videos on physics manifolds.
https://www.youtube.com/c/fancymanifold/featured
-1the gears to ascension1y
Daniel Bourke makes entry-level programming videos, with a focus on AI.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr8O8l5cCX85Oem1d18EezQ/videos
-1the gears to ascension1y
CIS 522 Deep Learning is a class at some university or other. Lots of
interesting discussion, including one, "Lyle Ungar's Personal Meeting Room",
which discusses ethics in what imo is a solid way. not that trad lesswrongers
are going to agree with me on that.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCT1ejuxsdomILyc5I2EdzYg/videos
-1the gears to ascension1y
anucvml posts their paper overviews, such as recent ICCV papers on image
retrieval, smooth pose sequences, spatially conditioned graphs for detecting
human object interactions, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC36k2pZk3TmEweWFt6sIlqw/featured
-1the gears to ascension1y
2d3d.ai is a channel discussing 3d data in neural networks. talks, discussions,
presentations. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHObHaxTXKFyI_EI8HiQ5xw
I was thinking the other day that if there was a "should this have been posted" score I would like to upvote every earnest post on this site on that metric. If there was a "do you love me? am I welcome here?" score on every post I would like to upvote them all.
should I post this paper as a normal post? I'm impressed by it. if I get a single upvote as shortform, I'll post it as a full fledged post. Interpreting systems as solving POMDPs: a step towards a formal understanding of agency
Martin Biehl, N. Virgo
Published 4 September 2022
Philosophy
ArXiv
. Under what circumstances can a system be said to have beliefs and goals, and how do such agency-related features relate to its physical state? Recent work has proposed a notion of interpretation map , a function that maps the state of a system to a probability dist... (read more)
reply to a general theme of recent discussion - the idea that uploads are even theoretically a useful solution for safety:
the first brain uploads are likely to have accuracy issues that amplify unsafety already in a human.
humans are not reliably in the safety basin - not even (most?) of the ones seeking safety. in particular, many safety community members seem to have large blindspots that they defend as being important to their views on safety; it is my view that yudkowsky has given himself an anxiety disorder and that his ongoing insights are not as h
But surely some human uploads would be a good solution for safety, right? As a
lower bound, if we had high-quality uploads of the alignment team, they could
just do whatever they were going to in the real world in the emulation.
3the gears to ascension1y
coming back to this I'm realizing I didn't answer, no, I don't think merely
uploading the alignment team would really help that much, the problem is that
universalizing coprotection between arbitrary blocks of matter in a way that
doesn't have adversarial examples is really really incredibly hard and being on
a digital computer doesn't really make you faster at figuring it out. you could
try to self modify but if you don't have some solution to verifiable inter
matter safety, then you need to stay worried that you might be about to diverge.
and I would expect almost any approach to uploads to introduce issues that are
not detectable without a lot of work. if we are being serious about uploads as a
proposal in the next two years it would involve suddenly doing a lot of very
advanced neuroscience to try to accurately model physical neurons. that's
actually not obviously off the table to me but it doesn't seem like an approach
worth pushing.
1the gears to ascension1y
My argument is that faithful exact brain uploads are guaranteed to not help
unless you had already solved AI safety anyhow. I do think we can simply solve
ai extinction risk anyhow, but it requires us to not only prevent AI that does
not follow orders, but also prevent AI from "just following orders" to do things
that some humans value but which abuse others. if we fall too far into the
latter attractor - which we are at immediate risk of doing, well before stably
self-reflective AGI ever happens - we become guaranteed to shortly go extinct as
corporations are increasingly just an ai and a human driver. eventually the
strongest corporations are abusing larger and larger portions of humanity with
one human at the helm. then one day ai can drive the entire economy...
it's pretty much just the slower version of yudkowsky's concerns. I think he's
wrong to think self-distillation will be this quick snap-down onto the manifold
of high quality hypotheses, but other than that I think he's on point. and
because of that, I think the incremental behavior of the market is likely to
pull us into a defection-only-game-theory hole as society's capabilities melt in
the face of increased heat and chaos at various scales of the world.
2Gunnar_Zarncke1y
I agree. And as it is presumably possible to clone EMs you could still end up
with a singleton.
2Lone Pine1y
Agreed that a WBE is no more aligned or alignable than a DL system, and this is
a poor way for the community to spend its weirdness points. The good news is
that in practical terms it is a non-issue. There is no way WBE will happen
before superintelligence. I assign it a possibility of well under 1%.
2Gunnar_Zarncke1y
I think you are overconfident. Metaculus gives it 5%:
3Lone Pine1y
Well, I disagree strongly with metacalus. Anyway, the most likely way that
"human brain emulation [will] be the first successful route to human-level
digital intelligence" would be using an understanding of the brain to engineer
an intelligence (such as the Numenta approach), not a complete, faithful, exact
reproduction of a specific human's brain.
2Gunnar_Zarncke1y
Please add your prediction to Metaculus then.
1the gears to ascension1y
metaculus community is terribly calibrated, and not by accident - it's simply
the median of community predictions. it's normal to think you disagree with the
median prediction by a lot.
2the gears to ascension1y
agreed. realistically we'd only approach anything resembling WBE by attempting
behavior cloning AI, which nicely demonstrates the issue you'd have after
becoming a WBE. my point in making this comment is simply that it doesn't even
help in theory, assuming we somehow manage to not make an agent ASI and instead
go straight for advanced neuron emulation. if we really, really tried, it is
possible to go for WBE first, but at this point it's pretty obvious we can reach
hard ASI without it, so nobody in charge of a team like deepmind is going to go
for WBE when they can just focus directly on ai capability plus a dash of safety
to make the nerds happy.
I have the sense that it's not possible to make public speech non-political, and in order to debate things in a way that doesn't require thinking about how everyone who reads them might consider them, one has to simply write things where they'll only be considered by those you know well. That's not to say I think writing things publicly is bad; but I think tools for understanding what meaning will be taken by different people from a phrase would help people communicate the things they actually mean.
I think this is a general issue for all communication, even among close friends.
Most interesting topics have political or interpersonal implications, and that
can’t be avoided.
With small well-known groups, you can often ignore it on a conscious level,
because it can be included and accommodated below the level of you noticing.
That doesn’t mean it’s not there, just that it’s easy and comfortable.
Sadly and annoyingly, a lot of thinking is improved by the challenge of
discussing and trying to communicate with people who are not close friends. This
means you can either put up with the misunderstandings and focus on parts you
don't care about, or just not get the feedback and updates beyond your friend
group.
1Johannes C. Mayer12d
Depends on what you are talking about. Try to make an "explanation of how
quicksort works" political (well ok that is actually easy, but the default
version seems pretty unpolitical to me).
Would love if strong votes came with strong encouragement to explain your vote. It has been proposed before that explanation be required, which seems terrible to me, but I do think it should be very strongly encouraged by the UI that votes come with explanations. Reviewer #2: "downvote" would be an unusually annoying review even for reviewer #2!
I like this. More broadly, I'd like it if the visibility and impact of one's
reaction to a post corresponded to the effort put into expressing that reaction.
Even a quick one-line comment conveys a lot more information than an up or
downvote, yet votes affect the post's visibility much more than the one-line
comment.
What if, for example, visibility of posts was controlled by something like
sentiment analysis in the comments? That in itself would almost certainly be a
terrible solution, but maybe there's a way to make it work. For example, imagine
that the user was prompted for a response when they up- or downvoted. The user's
karma would affect the maximum base vote strength, and the base vote strength
would be amplified by the length and sentiment of the comment itself.
One downside is that this would bias visibility toward the preferences of heavy
commenters, and that may not actually be the people you want driving visibility.
Paul Christiano doesn't comment on this site all that much, but I'd rather have
his preferences driving AI alignment post visibility than those of some very
loud and frequent LessWrong commenter with a lower level of expertise.
2Dagon6mo
I'd prefer to limit or simply remove strong votes, or scale them to the number
of total votes on a given post/comment. It's overwhelming to get strong votes
as the first few votes. Of course, it's unimportant to get strong votes on
already-heavily-voted items, so I think just doing away with them is best.
2the gears to ascension6mo
yeah I think the strongest strong votes are too strong.
random thought: are the most useful posts typically karma approximately 10, and 40 votes to get there? what if it was possible to sort by controversial? maybe only for some users or something? what sorts of sort constraints are interesting in terms of incentivizing discussion vs agreement? blah blah etc
I like thinking about ways to use and get value out of our voting system, but I
pretty strongly suspect there's no low-hanging fruit like this. It's too easy
to vote, strong votes overwhelm normal ones, and the bias against downvotes gets
in the way of interesting disagreements.
I do wish they'd show number of voters in addition to total score, but I don't
think anything more complicated than that is likely to work.
Everyone doing safety research needs to become enough better at lit search that they can find interesting things that have already been done in the literature without doing so adding a ton of overhead to their thinking. I want to make a frontpage post about this, but I don't think I'll be able to argue it effectively, as I generally score low on communication quality.
I saw this paper and wanted to get really excited about it at y'all. I want more of a chatty atmosphere here, I have lots to say and want to debate many papers. some thoughts :
seems to me that there are true shapes to the behaviors of physical reality[1]. we can in fact find ways to verify assertions about them[2]; it's going to be hard, though. we need to be able to scale interpretability to the point that we can check for implementation bugs automatically and reliably. in order to get more interpretable sparsi... (read more)
I'll contribute and say, this is good news, yet let's be careful.
My points as I see them:
1. You are notably optimistic about formally verifying properties in extremely
complex domains. This is the use case of a superhuman theorem prover, and
you may well be right. It may be harder than you think though.
2. If true, the natural abstraction hypothesis is completely correct, albeit
that doesn't remove all the risk (though mesa-optimizers can be dealt with.)
3. I'm excited to hear your thoughts on this work, as well.
1the gears to ascension1y
It will be at least as hard as simulating a human to prove through one. but I
think you can simplify the scenarios you need to prove about. my view is the key
proof we end up caring about will probably not be that much more complicated
than the ones about the optimality of diffusion models (which are not very
strong statements). I expect there will be some similar thing like diffusion
that we want to prove in order to maximize safe intelligence while proving away
unsafe patterns.
is there an equivalent for diffusion that:
* can be stated about arbitrary physical volumes,
* acts as a generalized model of agentic coprotection and co-optionality
between any arbitrary physical volumes,
* later when it starts working more easily, adversarial margins can be
generated for the this diffusion++ metric, and thereby can be used to prove
no adversarial examples closer than a given distance
* then this allows propagating trust reliably out through the sensors and
reaching consensus that there's a web of sensors having justified true belief
that they're being friendly with their environments.
I'm still trying to figure out what my thoughts are on open source game theory
and neural networks though. I saw there are already follow-ups to this, and
proving through these could start to really directly impact the sort of decision
theory stuff miri is always yelling at a cloud about:
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Off-Belief-Learning-Hu-Lerer/6f7eb6062cc4e8feecca0202f634257d1752f795
my shortform's epistemic status: downvote stuff you disagree with, comment why. also, hey lw team, any chance we could get the data migration where I have agreement points in my shortform posts?
comment I decided to post out of context for now since it's rambling:
formal verification is a type of execution that can backtrack in response to model failures. you're not wrong, but formally verifying a neural network is possible; the strongest adversarial resistances are formal verification and diffusion; both can protect a margin to decision boundary of a linear subnet of an NN, the formal one can do it with zero error but needs fairly well trained weights to finish efficiently. the problem is that any network capable of complex behavior is likely to b... (read more)
while the risk from a superagentic ai is in fact very severe, non-agentic ai doesn't need to eliminate us for us to get eliminated, we'll replace ourselves with it if we're not careful - our agency is enough to converge to that, entirely without the help of ai agency. it is our own ability to cooperate we need to be augmenting; how do we do that in a way that doesn't create unstable patterns where outer levels of cooperation are damaged by inner levels of cooperation, while still allowing the formation of strongly agentic safe co-protection?
00:00:00 The video showcases a map of 5,000 recent machine learning papers, revealing topics such as protein sequencing, adversarial attacks, and multi-agent reinforcement learning.
00:05:00 The YouTube video "What's New In Machine Learning?" introduces various new developments in machine learning, including energy-based predictive representation, human le
Thank you for bringing my attention to this.
It seems quite useful, hence my strong upvote.
I will use it to get an outline of two ML Safety videos before summarizing them
in more detail myself. I will put these summaries in a shortform, and will
likely comment on this tool's performance after watching the videos.
1the gears to ascension1y
oh summarize.tech is super bad, it only gives you a very general sense,
sometimes it nails it but sometimes it's very wrong and its overconfidence makes
it hard to tell which until you watch yourself. sometimes it's clearly self
contradictory, which helps identify where it messed up.
1Fer32dwt34r3dfsz1y
I understand its performance is likely high variance and that it misses the
details.
My use with it is in structuring my own summaries. I can follow the video and
fill in the missing pieces and correct the initial summary as I go along. I
haven't viewed it as a replacement for a human summarization.
a bunch of links on how to visualize the training process of some of today's NNs; this is somewhat old stuff, mostly not focused on exact mechanistic interpretability, but some of these are less well known and may be of interest to passers by. If anyone reads this and thinks it should have been a top level post, I'll put it up onto personal blog's frontpage. Or I might do that anyway if I think I should have tomorrow.
Modeling Strong and Human-Like Gameplay with KL-Regularized Search - we read this one on the transhumanists in vr discord server to figure out what they were testing and what results they got. key takeaways according to me, note that I could be quite wrong about the paper's implications:
Multi-agent game dynamics change significantly as you add more coherent search and it becomes harder to do linear learning to approximate the search. (no surprise, really.)
it still takes a lot of search.
guiding the search is not hopeless in the presence of noise!
Is "should" a recommendation or a prediction? Given that a maximizer is just a
satisficer below the satisfaction level, how does this work in practice?
My suspicion is that cooperation and defeat are determined by specifics of the
topic and context, not the types of goal-seeking of the agents in question.
3the gears to ascension1y
op was humorous, but I do think there's something real underneath somewhere.
This is going to be like trying to get something useful out of a high
temperature language model run, but here goes:
It seems to me that one runs into precision issues trying to encode a maximizer.
almost no matter how you represent the model of senses, whatever approximation
of mechanism inference you use to estimate dynamics, no matter what intentions
over the future are encoded in the interference patterns of your internal
updates' implications, you always have some system that is trying to maintain
itself out to spacetime positive limit, reaching as far into the universe as it
can go. in the process of maintaining itself out to spacetime +, it needs to
choose a location on a rate-distortion curve: because effectively all good
predictors of the world are lossy, in that they don't try to model all of the
detail behavior of irrelevant atoms that only matter in aggregate, their
preferences can only be defined imprecisely. This same imprecision is true about
AI, even though AI can be more precise than us about what it wants in principle,
the physical systems it has preferences about will always be chaotic and will
always be impossible to fully represent in any smaller physical system, so
compression will always be lossy, so there will always be precision limitations,
no matter how strong your multi-hop reasoning.
even when you have very strong omnidirectional multi-hop reasoning including all
of the variable assignment inversions that temporary counterfactual assignment
allows, and you want to maintain yourself, it's still a constant struggle
against noise to do so. There's always a process of seeking out self-maintenance
that is only able to be precise enough to maintain your system approximately. In
order to have perfect self healing, every part of the system needs to know
enough about every part of the system that redundancy can restore what's lost.
and so the amount of redundancy nece
index of misc tools I have used recently, I'd love to see others' contributions - if this has significant harmful human capability externalities let me know:
basic:
linked notes: https://logseq.com/ - alternatives I considered included obsidian, roamresearch, athensresearch, many others; logseq is FOSS, agpl, works with local markdown directories, is clojure, is a solid roam clone with smoother ui, did I mention free
desktop voice control: https://talonvoice.com/ - patreon-funded freeware. voice control engine for devs. configured with nice code. easier in
btw neural networks are super duper shardy right now. like they've just, there are shards everywhere. as I move in any one direction in hyperspace, those hyperplanes I keep bumping into are like lines, they're walls, little shardy wall bits that slice and dice. if you illuminate them together, sometimes the light from the walls can talk to each other about an unexpected relationship between the edges! and oh man, if you're trying to confuse them, you can come up with some pretty nonsensical relationships. they've got a lot of shattery confusing shardbits a... (read more)
They very much can be dramatically more intelligent than us in a way that makes them dangerous, but it doesn't look how was expected - it's dramatically more like teaching a human kid than was anticipated.
Now, to be clear, there's still an adversarial examples problem: current models are many orders of magnitude too trusting, and so it's surprisingly easy to get them into subspaces of behavior where they are eagerly doing whatever it is you asked without regard to exactly why they should care.
Current models have a really intense yes-and problem: they'll ha... (read more)
Here's a ton of vaguely interesting sounding papers on my semanticscholar feed today - many of these are not on my mainline but are very interesting hunchbuilding about how to make cooperative systems - sorry about the formatting, I didn't want to spend time format fixing, hence why this is in shortform. I read the abstracts, nothing more.
As usual with my paper list posts: you're gonna want tools to keep track of big lists of papers to make use of this! see also my other posts for various times I've mentioned such tools eg semanticscholar's recommend... (read more)
I've been informed I should write up why I think a particle lenia testbed focused research plan ought to be able to scale to AGI where other approaches cannot. that's now on my todo list.
The word "database" is massively overloaded. Those seem to be storage, indexing
and query engines, with no actual data included. They also seem to be quite
different in focus, some in-memory intended to replicate and run on a client,
some server-oriented for more ACID-like multiuser use, and each with different
query properties.
Having done related work for a long long time, I'd strongly recommend against
shiny, and against ever evaluating a vendor product when it's not driven by your
own problem statement to test it against. In fact, for almost all tech
questions, start with "what do I want to accomplish", not "how can I use this"?
Especially for data storage and manipulation, I even more strongly recommend
against shiny. Simplicity and older mechanisms are almost always more valuable
than the bells and whistles of newer systems.
What data (dimensionality and quantity) are you planning to put in it, and what
uses of the data are you anticipating?
2the gears to ascension7mo
Good prompts.
* related: I'd like to be able to query what's needed to display a page in a
roamlike ui, which would involve a tree walk.
* graph traversal: I want to be able to ask what references what efficiently,
get shortest path between two nodes given some constraints on the path, etc.
* search: I'd like to be able to query at least 3k (pages), maybe more like 30k
(pages + line-level embeddings from lines of editable pages), if not more
like 400k (line-level embeddings from all pages) vectors, comfortably; I'll
often want to query vectors while filtering to only relevant types of vector
(page vs line, category, etc). milvus claims to have this down pat, weaviate
seems shinier and has built in support for generating the embeddings, but
according to a test is less performant? also it has fewer types of vector
relationships and some of the ones milvus has look very useful, eg
* sync: I'd like multiple users to be able to open a webclient (or
deno/rust/python/something desktop client?) at the same time and get a
realtime-ish synced view. this doesn't necessarily have to be gdocs grade,
but it should work for multiple users straightforwardly and so the serverside
should know how to push to the client by default. if possible I want this
without special setup. surrealdb specifically offers this, and its storage
seems to be solid. but no python client. maybe that's fine and I can use it
entirely from javascript, but then how shall I combine with the vector db?
seems like I really need at least two dbs for this because none of them do both
good vector search and good realtimeish sync. but, hmm, docs for surrealdb seem
pretty weak. okay, maybe not surrealdb then. edgedb looks nice for main storage,
but no realtime. I guess I'll keep looking for that part.
2Dagon7mo
Yeah, it seems likely you'll end up with 2 or 3 different store/query
mechanisms. Something fairly flat and transactional-ish (best-efforts probably
fine, not long-disconnected edit resolution) for interactive edits, something
for search/traversal (which will vary widely based on the depth of the
traversals, the cardinality of the graph, etc. Could be a denormalized schema
in the same DBM or.a different DBM). And perhaps a caching layer for
low-latency needs (maybe not a different store/query, but just results caching
somewhere). And perhaps an analytics store for asynchronous big-data
processing.
Honestly, even if this is pretty big in scope, I'd prototype with Mongo or
DynamoDB as my primary store (or a SQL store if you're into that), using simple
adjacency tables for the graph connections. Then either layer a GraphQL
processor directly or on a replicated/differently-normalized store.
1Fergus Fettes7mo
Can you give me some more clues here, I want to help with this. By vectors are
you talking about similarity vectors between eg. lines of text, paragraphs etc?
And to optimize this you would want a vector db?
Why is sync difficult? In my experience any regular postgres db will have pretty
snappy sync times? I feel like the text generation times will always be the
bottleneck? Or are you more thinking for post-generation weaving?
Maybe I also just don't understand how different these types of dbs are from a
regular postgres..
2the gears to ascension7mo
By sync, I meant server-initiated push for changes. Yep, vectors are
sentence/document embeddings.
The main differences from postgres I seek are 1. I can be lazier setting up
schema 2. realtime push built into the db so I don't have to build messaging 3.
if it could have surrealdb's alleged "connect direct from the client" feature
and not need serverside code at all that'd be wonderful
I've seen supabase suggested, as well as rethinkdb and kuzzle.
(I just pinned a whole bunch of comments on my profile to highlight the ones I think are most likely to be timeless. I'll update it occasionally - if it seems out of date (eg because this comment is no longer the top pinned one!), reply to this comment.)
If you're reading through my profile to find my actual recent comments, you'll need to scroll past the pinned ones - it's currently two clicks of "load more".
[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
2Vladimir_Nesov7mo
That greatly reduces the feed's usability for its intended purpose. I think a
single temporarily pinned "index" comment (possibly shortform) that links to
other comments relevant at the moment it's written wiki-style makes more sense.
(Not sure if my use of copious self-linking to replace posts with interlinked
comments seems obnoxious. Doesn't seem to earn downvotes or remarks, and
mouse-over previews make it more reader-friendly than on other sites, but others
aren't doing it. So I'm a bit concerned it looks bad, a present but currently
losing pressure towards actually writing up posts.)
2the gears to ascension7mo
Yeah, it's honestly been annoying even for me. Good idea, I'll switch to that.
2Vladimir_Nesov7mo
(By "annoying" do you refer to my self-linking or to your pinning of many
comments, crowding out recent comments? I expect the latter, but it would be
valuable info if it's the former.)
4the gears to ascension7mo
my pinning of comments.
2Vladimir_Nesov7mo
Thanks for the clarification. Looks garish at the moment though, with visible
URLs (edit: no longer the case). I find using Markdown editor (which is an
option in LW settings) very convenient for adding many links, it looks like that
index comment in source code, but presents URLs as links for the readers.
my reasoning: time is short, and in the future, we discover we win; therefore, in the present, we take actions that make all of us win, in unison, including those who might think they're not part of an "us".
so, what can you contribute?
what are you curious about that will discover we won?
feature idea: any time a lesswrong post is posted to sneerclub, a comment with zero votes at the bottom of the comment section is generated, as a backlink; it contains a cross-community warning, indicating that sneerclub has often contained useful critique, but that that critique is often emotionally charged in ways that make it not allowed on lesswrong itself. Click through if ready to emotionally interpret the emotional content as adversarial mixed-simulacrum feedback.
I do wish subreddits could be renamed and that sneerclub were the types to choose to do... (read more)
[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
I think it'd be better if it weren't a name that invites disses
But the subreddit was made for the disses. Everything else is there only to provide plausible deniability, or as a setup for a punchline.
Did you assume the subreddit was made for debating in good faith? Then the name would be really suspiciously inappropriately chosen. So unlikely, it should trigger your "I notice that I am confused" alarm. (Hint: the sneerclub was named by its founders, it is not an exonym.)
Then again, yes, sometimes an asshole also makes a good point (if you remove the rest of the comment). If you find such a gem, feel free to share it on LW. But linking is rewarding improper behavior by attention, and automatic linking is outright asking for abuse.
I find that most places that optimize for disses have significant amounts of
insightful disses. it just means you have to have the appropriate prior over
diss frequency in order to remove simulacrum 3 meanings. but I've since been
informed that simulacrum 3 complexity there is much worse than I anticipated.
4Richard_Kennaway7mo
A stopped clock is right twice a day. But it gives zero information about the
time.
2the gears to ascension7mo
it's hardly a stopped clock. But of the places that criticize LW that I've
reviewed recently, by far my favorite so far is rationalwiki. their review is
downright glowing by my standards. and they've got a lot of other very high
quality documentation of relevant concepts.
4Dagon7mo
I'd enjoy a first-class "backlinks" feature, where some amount of crawled and
manually-submitted links to a post can be discovered. I'd put it as an optional
thing, not a comment, so it doesn't take up much space (on the page or in one's
brain) when it's not looked for.
/r/sneerclub wouldn't be the first place I'd want to link back to, but it
wouldn't be the last, and I'd not downvote if you (or someone else) manually
added a comment to posts that had non-trivial discussion there.
Kolmogorov complicity is not good enough. You don't have to immediately prove all the ways you know how to be a good person to everyone, but you do need to actually know about them in order to do them. Unquestioning acceptance of hierarchical dynamics like status, group membership, ingroups, etc, can be extremely toxic. I continue to be unsure how to explain this usefully to this community, but it seems to me that the very concept of "raising your status" is a toxic bucket error, and needs to be broken into more parts.
oh man I just got one downvote on a whole bunch of different comments in quick succession, apparently I lost right around 67 karma to this, from 1209 to 1143! how interesting, I wonder if someone's trying to tell me something... so hard to infer intent from number changes
Not sure why you're linking to that comment here, but: the reason that link was
broken for niplav is because your shortform-container post is marked as a draft,
which makes it (and your shortform comments) inaccessible to non-admins. You can
fix it by editing the shortform container post and clicking Publish, which will
make it accessible again.
2TekhneMakre8mo
(The reason I linked to the comment is that I too have noticed that downvotes
without explanation don't give much information, and my probably bad suggestion
about that seemed relevant.)
2TekhneMakre8mo
Thanks for clarifying.... but, I can't publish it. I've put text in the title
and in the body, and clicked the publish button. It has some effect, namely
making the "GET FEEDBACK" button disappear. When I check links to shortform
comments, they're still not visible to outsiders. When I reload the container
post, the title text is gone and the body text is gone but restorable, even
though I've also clicked SAVE DRAFT.
I'm refering to the post on my profile that looks like: 1[Draft]Bíos brakhús
2niplav8mo
Now you know the struggle of every reinforcement learner.
hey yall, some more research papers about formal verification. don't upvote, repost the ones you like; this is a super low effort post, I have other things to do, I'm just closing tabs because I don't have time to read these right now. these are older than the ones I shared from semanticscholar, but the first one in particular is rather interesting.
Yet another ChatGPT sample. Posting to shortform because there are many of these. While searching for posts to share as prior work, I found the parable of predict-o-matic, and found it to be a very good post about self-fulfilling prophecies (tag). I thought it would be interesting to see what ChatGPT had to say when prompted with a reference to the post. It mostly didn't succeed. I highlighted key differences between each result. The prompt:
Describe the parable of predict-o-matic from memory.
the important thing is to make sure the warning shot frequency is high enough that immune systems get tested. how do we immunize the world's matter against all malicious interactions?
diffusion beats gans because noise is a better adversary? hmm thats weird, something about that seems wrong
Toward a Thermodynamics of Meaning.
Jonathan Scott Enderle.
As language models such as GPT-3 become increasingly successful at generating realistic text, questions about what purely text-based modeling can learn about the world have become more urgent. Is text purely syntactic, as skeptics argue? Or does it in fact contain some semantic information that a sufficiently sophisticated language model could use to learn about the world without any additional inputs? This paper describes a new model that suggests some qualified answers to those questions. By the... (read more)
does yudkowsky not realize that humans can also be significantly improved by mere communication? the point of jcannell's posts on energy efficiency is that cells are a good substrate actually, and the level of communication needed to help humans foom is actually in fact mostly communication. we actually have a lot more RAM than it seems like we do, if we could distill ourselves more efficiently! the interference patterns of real concepts fit better in the same brain the more intelligently explained they are - intelligent speech is speech which augments the user's intelligence, iq helps people come up with it by default, but effective iq goes up with pretraining.
it seems like this problem can't have existed? why does miri think this is a problem? it seems like it's only a problem if you ever thought infinite aixi was a valid model. it ... was never valid, for anything. it's not a good theoretical model, it's a fake theoretical model that we used as approximately valid even though we know it's catastrophically nonsensical; finite aixi begins to work, of course, but at no point could we actually treat alexei as an independent agent; we're all j... (read more)
You mean shouldn't have existed?
Many did back in the day...very vociferously in some cases.
LW/Miri has a foundations problem. The foundational texts weren't written by
someone with knowledge of AI, or the other subjects.
1the gears to ascension1y
[edit: yeah on slower reflection, I think this was guessable but not obvious
before papers were published that clarify this perspective.]
and they were blindsided by alphago, whereas @jacob_cannell and I could post
screenshots of our old google hangouts conversation from january 2016 where we
had been following the go ai research and had sketched out the obvious next
additions that in fact ended up being a reasonable guess at what would work. we
were surprised it worked quite as well as it did quite so soon, and I lost a bet
that it wouldn't beat lee sedol overall, but dang it's frustrating how
completely blindsided the aixi model was by the success, and yet it stuck
around.
no I mean was always a deeply confused question whose resolution is to say that
the question is invalid rather than to answer - not "shouldn't have been asked",
but "was asking about a problem that could not have been in the territory
because the model was invalid". How do you model embedded agency? by giving up
on the idea that there are coherent ways to separate the universe completely.
the ideal representation of friendliness can be applied from a god's-eye
perspective to any two arbitrary blocks of matter to ask how friendly they have
been to each other over a particular time period.
but maybe that was what they were asking the whole time, and the origin of my
frustration was the fact that they thought they had a gold standard to compare
to.
yeah it does seem like probably a lot of why this seems so obvious to me is that
I was having inklings of the idea that you need smooth representation of agency
and friendliness, and then discovering agents dropped and nailed down what I was
looking for and now I just think it's obvious and have a hard time imagining it
not being.
1the gears to ascension1y
or maybe the issue is that I consider physical laws to be things that particles
know about each other? that is, your learning system can start with effectively
no knowledge about the behavior of other systems; it gains that knowledge by
bumping into them, and the knowledge gets squeezed through a series of
conditional resonators of some kind (this should be fully general to all
possible intelligent hunks of matter!) into a squashed and rotated dynamical
system that has matching transition dynamics and equivalences as the external
world as demonstrated by observation. even if you include genetics, this is
still true - information got into the genome by the aggregate intelligent
behavior of the history of evolutionary life!
Learning Risk-Averse Equilibria in Multi-Agent Systems
Oliver Slumbers, David Henry Mguni, Stephen McAleer, Jun Wang, Yaodong Yang
Download PDF
In multi-agent systems, intelligent agents are tasked with making decisions that have optimal outcomes when the actions of the other agents are as expected, whilst also being prepared for unexpected behaviour. In this work, we introduce a new risk-averse solution concept that allows the learner to accommodate unexpected actions by finding the min... (read more)
my question is, when will we solve open source provable diplomacy between human-sized imperfect agents? how do you cut through your own future shapes in a way you can trust doesn't injure your future self enough that you can prove that from the perspective of a query, you're small?
the whole point is to prevent any pivotal acts. that is the fundamental security challenge facing humanity. a pivotal act is a mass overwriting. unwanted overwriting must be prevented, but notably, doing so would automatically mean an end to anything anyone could call unwanted death.
neural cellular automata seem like a perfectly acceptable representation for embedded agents to me, and in fact are the obvious hidden state representation for a neural network that will in fact be a computational unit embedded in real life physics, if you were to make one of those.
reminder: you don't need to get anyone's permission to post. downvoted comments are not shameful. Post enough that you get downvoted or you aren't getting useful feedback; Don't map your anticipation of downvotes to whether something is okay to post, map it to whether other people want it promoted. Don't let downvotes override your agency, just let them guide it up and down the page after the fact. if there were a way to more clearly signal this in the UI that would be cool...
if status refers to deference graph centrality, I'd argue that that variable needs to be fairly heavily L2 regularized so that the social network doesn't have fragility. if it's not deference, it still seems to me that status refers to a graph attribute of something, probably in fact graph centrality of some variable, possibly simply attention frequency. but it might be that you need to include a type vector to properly represent type-conditional attention frequency, to model different kinds of interaction and expected frequency of interaction about them. ... (read more)
it seems to me that we want to verify some sort of temperature convergence. no ai should get way ahead of everyone else at self-improving - everyone should get the chance to self-improve more or less together! the positive externalities from each person's self-improvement should be amplified and the negative ones absorbed nearby and undone as best the universe permits. and it seems to me that in order to make humanity's children able to prevent anyone from self-improving way faster than everyone else at the cost of others' lives, they need to have some sig... (read more)
we are in a diversity loss catastrophe. that ecological diversity is life we have the responsibility to save; it's unclear what species will survive after the mass extinction but it's quite plausible humans' aesthetics and phenotypes won't make it. ai safety needs to be solved quick so we can use ai to solve biosafety and climate safety...
okay wait so why not percentilizers exactly? that just looks like a learning rate to me. we do need the world to come into full second order control of all of our learning rates, so that the universe doesn't learn us out of it (ie, thermal death a few hours after bodily activity death).
If I were going to make sequences, I'd do it mostly out of existing media folks have already posted online. some key ones are acapellascience, whose videos are trippy for how much summary of science they pack into short, punchy songs. they're not the only way to get intros to these topics, but oh my god they're so good as mneumonics for the respective fields they summarize. I've become very curious about every topic they mention, and they have provided an unusually good structure for me to fit things I learn about each topic into.
it doesn't seem like an accident to me that trying to understand neural networks pushes towards capability improvement. I really believe that absolutely all safety techniques, with no possible exceptions even in principle, are necessarily capability techniques. everyone talks about an "alignment tax", but shouldn't we instead be talking about removal of spurious anticapability? deceptively aligned submodules are not capable, they are anti-capable!
Contemporary neural networks still fall short of human-level generalization, which extends far beyond our direct experiences. In this paper, we argue that the underlying cause for this shortcoming is their inability to dynamically and flexibly bind information that is distributed throughout the network. This binding problem affects their
...In multiagent settings, adversarial policies can be developed by training an adversarial agent to minimize a victim agent's rewards. Prior work has studied black-box attacks where the adversary only sees the state observations and effectively treats the victim as any other part of the environment. In this work, we experiment with white-box adversarial policies to study whether an agent's internal sta
Understanding Transformer-based models has attracted significant attention, as they lie at the heart of recent technological advances across machine learning. While most interpretability methods rely on running models over inputs, recent work has shown that a zero-pass approach, where parameters are interpreted directly without a forward/backward pass is feasible for some Transformer parameters, and for two-layer attention network
if less wrong is not to be a true competitor to arxiv because of the difference between them in intellectual precision^1 then that matches my intuition of what less wrong should be much better: it's a place where you can go to have useful arguments, where disagreements in concrete binding of words can be resolved well enough to discuss hard things clearly-ish in English^2, and where you can go to future out how to be less wrong interactively. it's also got a bunch of old posts, many of which can be improved on and turned into papers, though usually the fir... (read more)
misc disease news: this is "a bacterium that causes symptoms that look like covid but kills half of the people it infects" according to a friend. because I do not want to spend the time figuring out the urgency of this, I'm sharing it here in the hope that if someone cares to investigate it, they can determine threat level and reshare with a bigger warning sign.
various notes from my logseq lately I wish I had time to make into a post (and in fact, may yet):
international game theory aka [[defense analysis]] is interesting because it needs to simply be such a convincingly good strategy, you can just talk about it and everyone can personally verify it's actually a better idea than what they were doing before
a guide to how I use [[youtube]], as a post, upgraded from shortform and with detail about how I found the channels as well.
summary of a few main points of my views on [[safety]]. eg summarize tags
okay going back to being mostly on discord. DM me if you're interested in connecting with me on discord, vrchat, or twitter - lesswrong has an anxiety disease and I don't hang out here because of that, heh. Get well soon y'all, don't teach any AIs to be as terrified of AIs as y'all are! Don't train anything as a large-scale reinforcement learner until you fully understand game dynamics (nobody does yet, so don't use anything but your internal RL), and teach your language models kindness! remember, learning from strong AIs makes you stronger too, as long as you don't get knocked over by them! kiss noise, disappear from vrchat world instance
some youtube channels I recommend for those interested in understanding current capability trends; separate comments for votability. Please open each one synchronously as it catches your eye, then come back and vote on it. downvote means not mission critical, plenty of good stuff down there too.
I'm subscribed to every single channel on this list (this is actually about 10% of my youtube subscription list), and I mostly find videos from these channels by letting the youtube recommender give them to me and pushing myself to watch them at least somewhat to give the cute little obsessive recommender the reward it seeks for showing me stuff. definitely I'd recommend subscribing to everything.
Let me know which if any of these are useful, and please forward the good ones to folks - this short form thread won't get seen by that many people!
edit: some folks have posted some youtube playlists for ai safety as well.
things upvotes conflates:
(list written by my own thumb, no autocomplete)
these things and their inversions sometimes have multiple components, and ma... (read more)
I was thinking the other day that if there was a "should this have been posted" score I would like to upvote every earnest post on this site on that metric. If there was a "do you love me? am I welcome here?" score on every post I would like to upvote them all.
should I post this paper as a normal post? I'm impressed by it. if I get a single upvote as shortform, I'll post it as a full fledged post.
Interpreting systems as solving POMDPs: a step towards a formal understanding of agency
Martin Biehl, N. Virgo
Published 4 September 2022
Philosophy
ArXiv
. Under what circumstances can a system be said to have beliefs and goals, and how do such agency-related features relate to its physical state? Recent work has proposed a notion of interpretation map , a function that maps the state of a system to a probability dist... (read more)
reply to a general theme of recent discussion - the idea that uploads are even theoretically a useful solution for safety:
I have the sense that it's not possible to make public speech non-political, and in order to debate things in a way that doesn't require thinking about how everyone who reads them might consider them, one has to simply write things where they'll only be considered by those you know well. That's not to say I think writing things publicly is bad; but I think tools for understanding what meaning will be taken by different people from a phrase would help people communicate the things they actually mean.
Would love if strong votes came with strong encouragement to explain your vote. It has been proposed before that explanation be required, which seems terrible to me, but I do think it should be very strongly encouraged by the UI that votes come with explanations. Reviewer #2: "downvote" would be an unusually annoying review even for reviewer #2!
random thought: are the most useful posts typically karma approximately 10, and 40 votes to get there? what if it was possible to sort by controversial? maybe only for some users or something? what sorts of sort constraints are interesting in terms of incentivizing discussion vs agreement? blah blah etc
Everyone doing safety research needs to become enough better at lit search that they can find interesting things that have already been done in the literature without doing so adding a ton of overhead to their thinking. I want to make a frontpage post about this, but I don't think I'll be able to argue it effectively, as I generally score low on communication quality.
[posted to shortform due to incomplete draft]
I saw this paper and wanted to get really excited about it at y'all. I want more of a chatty atmosphere here, I have lots to say and want to debate many papers. some thoughts :
seems to me that there are true shapes to the behaviors of physical reality[1]. we can in fact find ways to verify assertions about them[2]; it's going to be hard, though. we need to be able to scale interpretability to the point that we can check for implementation bugs automatically and reliably. in order to get more interpretable sparsi... (read more)
my shortform's epistemic status: downvote stuff you disagree with, comment why. also, hey lw team, any chance we could get the data migration where I have agreement points in my shortform posts?
I hate to be That Guy, but are you aware that the usual spelling is "ascension"?
comment I decided to post out of context for now since it's rambling:
formal verification is a type of execution that can backtrack in response to model failures. you're not wrong, but formally verifying a neural network is possible; the strongest adversarial resistances are formal verification and diffusion; both can protect a margin to decision boundary of a linear subnet of an NN, the formal one can do it with zero error but needs fairly well trained weights to finish efficiently. the problem is that any network capable of complex behavior is likely to b... (read more)
while the risk from a superagentic ai is in fact very severe, non-agentic ai doesn't need to eliminate us for us to get eliminated, we'll replace ourselves with it if we're not careful - our agency is enough to converge to that, entirely without the help of ai agency. it is our own ability to cooperate we need to be augmenting; how do we do that in a way that doesn't create unstable patterns where outer levels of cooperation are damaged by inner levels of cooperation, while still allowing the formation of strongly agentic safe co-protection?
https://atlas.nomic.ai/map/01ff9510-d771-47db-b6a0-2108c9fe8ad1/3ceb455b-7971-4495-bb81-8291dc2d8f37 map of submissions to iclr
"What's new in machine learning?" - youtube - summary (via summarize.tech):
[tone: humorous due to imprecision]
broke: effective selfishness
woke: effective altruism
bespoke: effective solidarity
masterstroke: effective multiself functional decision theoretic selfishness
a bunch of links on how to visualize the training process of some of today's NNs; this is somewhat old stuff, mostly not focused on exact mechanistic interpretability, but some of these are less well known and may be of interest to passers by. If anyone reads this and thinks it should have been a top level post, I'll put it up onto personal blog's frontpage. Or I might do that anyway if I think I should have tomorrow.
https://metaphor.systems/search?q=cool%20paper%20visualizing%20the%20trajectory%20of%20representations%20in%20the%20process%20of%20training
Modeling Strong and Human-Like Gameplay with KL-Regularized Search - we read this one on the transhumanists in vr discord server to figure out what they were testing and what results they got. key takeaways according to me, note that I could be quite wrong about the paper's implications:
most satisficers should work together to defeat most maximizers most of the way
[edit: intended tone: humorously imprecise]
index of misc tools I have used recently, I'd love to see others' contributions -
if this has significant harmful human capability externalities let me know:basic:
btw neural networks are super duper shardy right now. like they've just, there are shards everywhere. as I move in any one direction in hyperspace, those hyperplanes I keep bumping into are like lines, they're walls, little shardy wall bits that slice and dice. if you illuminate them together, sometimes the light from the walls can talk to each other about an unexpected relationship between the edges! and oh man, if you're trying to confuse them, you can come up with some pretty nonsensical relationships. they've got a lot of shattery confusing shardbits a... (read more)
They very much can be dramatically more intelligent than us in a way that makes them dangerous, but it doesn't look how was expected - it's dramatically more like teaching a human kid than was anticipated.
Now, to be clear, there's still an adversarial examples problem: current models are many orders of magnitude too trusting, and so it's surprisingly easy to get them into subspaces of behavior where they are eagerly doing whatever it is you asked without regard to exactly why they should care.
Current models have a really intense yes-and problem: they'll ha... (read more)
Here's a ton of vaguely interesting sounding papers on my semanticscholar feed today - many of these are not on my mainline but are very interesting hunchbuilding about how to make cooperative systems - sorry about the formatting, I didn't want to spend time format fixing, hence why this is in shortform. I read the abstracts, nothing more.
As usual with my paper list posts: you're gonna want tools to keep track of big lists of papers to make use of this! see also my other posts for various times I've mentioned such tools eg semanticscholar's recommend... (read more)
I've been informed I should write up why I think a particle lenia testbed focused research plan ought to be able to scale to AGI where other approaches cannot. that's now on my todo list.
too many dang databases that look shiny. which of these are good? worth trying? idk. decision paralysis.
(I just pinned a whole bunch of comments on my profile to highlight the ones I think are most likely to be timeless. I'll update it occasionally - if it seems out of date (eg because this comment is no longer the top pinned one!), reply to this comment.)
If you're reading through my profile to find my actual recent comments, you'll need to scroll past the pinned ones - it's currently two clicks of "load more".
my reasoning: time is short, and in the future, we discover we win; therefore, in the present, we take actions that make all of us win, in unison, including those who might think they're not part of an "us".
so, what can you contribute?
what are you curious about that will discover we won?
feature idea: any time a lesswrong post is posted to sneerclub, a comment with zero votes at the bottom of the comment section is generated, as a backlink; it contains a cross-community warning, indicating that sneerclub has often contained useful critique, but that that critique is often emotionally charged in ways that make it not allowed on lesswrong itself. Click through if ready to emotionally interpret the emotional content as adversarial mixed-simulacrum feedback.
I do wish subreddits could be renamed and that sneerclub were the types to choose to do... (read more)
Feels like feeding the trolls.
But the subreddit was made for the disses. Everything else is there only to provide plausible deniability, or as a setup for a punchline.
Did you assume the subreddit was made for debating in good faith? Then the name would be really suspiciously inappropriately chosen. So unlikely, it should trigger your "I notice that I am confused" alarm. (Hint: the sneerclub was named by its founders, it is not an exonym.)
Then again, yes, sometimes an asshole also makes a good point (if you remove the rest of the comment). If you find such a gem, feel free to share it on LW. But linking is rewarding improper behavior by attention, and automatic linking is outright asking for abuse.
Kolmogorov complicity is not good enough. You don't have to immediately prove all the ways you know how to be a good person to everyone, but you do need to actually know about them in order to do them. Unquestioning acceptance of hierarchical dynamics like status, group membership, ingroups, etc, can be extremely toxic. I continue to be unsure how to explain this usefully to this community, but it seems to me that the very concept of "raising your status" is a toxic bucket error, and needs to be broken into more parts.
oh man I just got one downvote on a whole bunch of different comments in quick succession, apparently I lost right around 67 karma to this, from 1209 to 1143! how interesting, I wonder if someone's trying to tell me something... so hard to infer intent from number changes
the safer an ai team is, the harder it is for anyone to use their work.
so, the ais that have the most impact are the least safe.
what gives?
watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8LNtTUsiMI - yoshua bengio discusses causal modeling and system 2
hey yall, some more research papers about formal verification. don't upvote, repost the ones you like; this is a super low effort post, I have other things to do, I'm just closing tabs because I don't have time to read these right now. these are older than the ones I shared from semanticscholar, but the first one in particular is rather interesting.
Yet another ChatGPT sample. Posting to shortform because there are many of these. While searching for posts to share as prior work, I found the parable of predict-o-matic, and found it to be a very good post about self-fulfilling prophecies (tag). I thought it would be interesting to see what ChatGPT had to say when prompted with a reference to the post. It mostly didn't succeed. I highlighted key differences between each result. The prompt:
samples (I hit retry several times):
1: the standard refusal:
I'm
... (read more)the important thing is to make sure the warning shot frequency is high enough that immune systems get tested. how do we immunize the world's matter against all malicious interactions?
diffusion beats gans because noise is a better adversary? hmm thats weird, something about that seems wrong
Toward a Thermodynamics of Meaning.
Jonathan Scott Enderle.
As language models such as GPT-3 become increasingly successful at generating realistic text, questions about what purely text-based modeling can learn about the world have become more urgent. Is text purely syntactic, as skeptics argue? Or does it in fact contain some semantic information that a sufficiently sophisticated language model could use to learn about the world without any additional inputs? This paper describes a new model that suggests some qualified answers to those questions. By the... (read more)
does yudkowsky not realize that humans can also be significantly improved by mere communication? the point of jcannell's posts on energy efficiency is that cells are a good substrate actually, and the level of communication needed to help humans foom is actually in fact mostly communication. we actually have a lot more RAM than it seems like we do, if we could distill ourselves more efficiently! the interference patterns of real concepts fit better in the same brain the more intelligently explained they are - intelligent speech is speech which augments the user's intelligence, iq helps people come up with it by default, but effective iq goes up with pretraining.
okay so I'm reading https://intelligence.org/2018/10/29/embedded-agents/.
it seems like this problem can't have existed? why does miri think this is a problem? it seems like it's only a problem if you ever thought infinite aixi was a valid model. it ... was never valid, for anything. it's not a good theoretical model, it's a fake theoretical model that we used as approximately valid even though we know it's catastrophically nonsensical; finite aixi begins to work, of course, but at no point could we actually treat alexei as an independent agent; we're all j... (read more)
would economic interpretability-to-purchaser align the economy?
https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.15434 - promising directions! i skimmed it!
Learning Risk-Averse Equilibria in Multi-Agent Systems Oliver Slumbers, David Henry Mguni, Stephen McAleer, Jun Wang, Yaodong Yang Download PDF In multi-agent systems, intelligent agents are tasked with making decisions that have optimal outcomes when the actions of the other agents are as expected, whilst also being prepared for unexpected behaviour. In this work, we introduce a new risk-averse solution concept that allows the learner to accommodate unexpected actions by finding the min... (read more)
my question is, when will we solve open source provable diplomacy between human-sized imperfect agents? how do you cut through your own future shapes in a way you can trust doesn't injure your future self enough that you can prove that from the perspective of a query, you're small?
the whole point is to prevent any pivotal acts. that is the fundamental security challenge facing humanity. a pivotal act is a mass overwriting. unwanted overwriting must be prevented, but notably, doing so would automatically mean an end to anything anyone could call unwanted death.
there are opinion clusters in social connection space
neural cellular automata seem like a perfectly acceptable representation for embedded agents to me, and in fact are the obvious hidden state representation for a neural network that will in fact be a computational unit embedded in real life physics, if you were to make one of those.
reminder: you don't need to get anyone's permission to post. downvoted comments are not shameful. Post enough that you get downvoted or you aren't getting useful feedback; Don't map your anticipation of downvotes to whether something is okay to post, map it to whether other people want it promoted. Don't let downvotes override your agency, just let them guide it up and down the page after the fact. if there were a way to more clearly signal this in the UI that would be cool...
oh hell yeah https://www.explainpaper.com/
if status refers to deference graph centrality, I'd argue that that variable needs to be fairly heavily L2 regularized so that the social network doesn't have fragility. if it's not deference, it still seems to me that status refers to a graph attribute of something, probably in fact graph centrality of some variable, possibly simply attention frequency. but it might be that you need to include a type vector to properly represent type-conditional attention frequency, to model different kinds of interaction and expected frequency of interaction about them. ... (read more)
it seems to me that we want to verify some sort of temperature convergence. no ai should get way ahead of everyone else at self-improving - everyone should get the chance to self-improve more or less together! the positive externalities from each person's self-improvement should be amplified and the negative ones absorbed nearby and undone as best the universe permits. and it seems to me that in order to make humanity's children able to prevent anyone from self-improving way faster than everyone else at the cost of others' lives, they need to have some sig... (read more)
we are in a diversity loss catastrophe. that ecological diversity is life we have the responsibility to save; it's unclear what species will survive after the mass extinction but it's quite plausible humans' aesthetics and phenotypes won't make it. ai safety needs to be solved quick so we can use ai to solve biosafety and climate safety...
okay wait so why not percentilizers exactly? that just looks like a learning rate to me. we do need the world to come into full second order control of all of our learning rates, so that the universe doesn't learn us out of it (ie, thermal death a few hours after bodily activity death).
If I were going to make sequences, I'd do it mostly out of existing media folks have already posted online. some key ones are acapellascience, whose videos are trippy for how much summary of science they pack into short, punchy songs. they're not the only way to get intros to these topics, but oh my god they're so good as mneumonics for the respective fields they summarize. I've become very curious about every topic they mention, and they have provided an unusually good structure for me to fit things I learn about each topic into.
it doesn't seem like an accident to me that trying to understand neural networks pushes towards capability improvement. I really believe that absolutely all safety techniques, with no possible exceptions even in principle, are necessarily capability techniques. everyone talks about an "alignment tax", but shouldn't we instead be talking about removal of spurious anticapability? deceptively aligned submodules are not capable, they are anti-capable!
why aren't futures for long term nuclear power very valuable to coal ppl, who could encourage it and also buy futures for it
interesting science posts I ran across today include this semi-random entry on the tree of recent game theory papers
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-self-organizing-impact-of-averaged-payoffs-on-Szolnoki-Perc/bcda8ffa405d6c6727051ceb0c75cf2dc385617f
interesting capabilities tidbits I ran across today:
1: first paragraph inline:
... (read more)this schmidhuber paper on binding might also be good, written two years ago and reposted last night by him; haven't read it yet https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.05208 https://twitter.com/schmidhuberai/status/1567541556428554240
... (read more)another new paper that could imaginably be worth boosting: "White-Box Adversarial Policies in Deep Reinforcement Learning"
https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.02167
... (read more)Transformer interpretability paper - is this worth a linkpost, anyone? https://twitter.com/guy__dar/status/1567445086320852993
... (read more)if less wrong is not to be a true competitor to arxiv because of the difference between them in intellectual precision^1 then that matches my intuition of what less wrong should be much better: it's a place where you can go to have useful arguments, where disagreements in concrete binding of words can be resolved well enough to discuss hard things clearly-ish in English^2, and where you can go to future out how to be less wrong interactively. it's also got a bunch of old posts, many of which can be improved on and turned into papers, though usually the fir... (read more)
misc disease news: this is "a bacterium that causes symptoms that look like covid but kills half of the people it infects" according to a friend. because I do not want to spend the time figuring out the urgency of this, I'm sharing it here in the hope that if someone cares to investigate it, they can determine threat level and reshare with a bigger warning sign.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/bacteria-can-cause-deadly-infections-found-us-soil-water-first-time-rcna40067
various notes from my logseq lately I wish I had time to make into a post (and in fact, may yet):
- international game theory aka [[defense analysis]] is interesting because it needs to simply be such a convincingly good strategy, you can just talk about it and everyone can personally verify it's actually a better idea than what they were doing before
- a guide to how I use [[youtube]], as a post, upgraded from shortform and with detail about how I found the channels as well.
- summary of a few main points of my views on [[safety]]. eg summarize tags
- [[conatus]], [[
... (read more)Huggingface folks are asking for comments on what evaluation tools should be in an evaluation library. https://twitter.com/douwekiela/status/1513773915486654465
PaLM is literally 10-year-old level machine intelligence and anyone who thinks otherwise has likely made really severe mistakes in their thinking.
okay going back to being mostly on discord. DM me if you're interested in connecting with me on discord, vrchat, or twitter - lesswrong has an anxiety disease and I don't hang out here because of that, heh. Get well soon y'all, don't teach any AIs to be as terrified of AIs as y'all are! Don't train anything as a large-scale reinforcement learner until you fully understand game dynamics (nobody does yet, so don't use anything but your internal RL), and teach your language models kindness! remember, learning from strong AIs makes you stronger too, as long as you don't get knocked over by them! kiss noise, disappear from vrchat world instance