Did they try running unCLIP on an image of a room with an unlit lamp, assuming the model had a CLIP encoder?
That might have gotten a prompt that worked.
Would we really understand a glitch if we saw one? At the most basic level, our best models of reality are strongly counter-intuitive. It's possible that internal observers will incorporate such findings into their own laws of physics. Engineering itself can be said to be applied munchkinry, such as enabling heavier than air flight. Never underestimate the ability of humans to get acclimatized to anything!
Uncertainty about the actual laws of physics in the parent universe, allowing for computation being so cheap they don't have to cut corners in simulations.
3)Retroactive editing of errors, with regular snapshots of the simulation being saved and then manually adjusted when deviations occur. Or simply deleting memories of inaccuracies from the minds of observers.
I think you glossed over the section where the malevolent AI simultaneously releases super-pathogens to ensure that there aren't any pesky humans left to meddle with its kudzugoth.
I appreciate this post, it sparked several "aha" moments while reading it.
I can't recall much in the way of rationalist writing dealing with Marginal vs Universal moral arguments, or What You See is All There Is. Perhaps the phrases"your incredulity is not an argument" or "your ignorance is a fact about the map and not the territory" might capture the notion.
Bacteria have systems such as CRISPR that are specialized in detecting exogenous DNA such as from a potential viral infection.
They also have plasmids that are relatively self-contained genetic packets, which are commonly the site of mutations conferring resistance, and which are often exchanged in the bacterial equivalent of sex.
However, to the best of my knowledge, there's no specific mechanism for picking out resistance genes from others, beyond simple evolutionary pressures.
The genome is so small and compact that any gene that isn't 'pulling its weight' so to speak will likely be eradicated as it no longer confers a survival advantage, such as when the bacteria find themselves in an environment without antibiotics.
Not to mention that some genes are costly beyond the energy requirements of simply adding more codons, some mechanisms of resistance cause bacteria to build more efflux pumps to chuck out antibiotics, or to use alternate versions of important proteins that aren't affected by them. Those variants might be strictly worse than the normal susceptible version when antibiotics are absent, and efflux pumps are quite energy intensive.
There's no real foresight involved, if something isn't being actively used for a fitness advantage, it'll end up mercilessly jettisoned .
SCP stands for "Secure, Contain, Protect " and refers to a collection of fictional stories, documents, and legends about anomalous and supernatural objects, entities, and events. These stories are typically written in a clinical, scientific, or bureaucratic style and describe various attempts to contain and study the anomalies. The SCP Foundation is a fictional organization tasked with containing and studying these anomalies, and the SCP universe is built around this idea. It's gained a large following online, and the SCP fandom refers to the community of people who enjoy and participate in this shared universe.
Individual anomalies are also referred to as SCPs, so isusr is implying that the juxtaposition of the "creepy" nature of your discoveries and the scientific tone of your writing is reminiscent of the containment log for one haha.
In the hospital, we usually give 1g IV for any real pain. I don't think the notion that giving more of a painkiller would produce a stronger effect is particularly controversial!
(Anecdotally, the IV route is somewhat more effective, even though the nominal bioavailability is the same as the oral route. It might be down to faster onset and the placebo aspect of assuming anything given by a drip is "stronger")
In the hospital, we usually give 1g IV for any real pain. I don't think the notion that giving more of a painkiller would produce a stronger effect is particularly controversial!
(Anecdotally, the IV route is somewhat more effective, even though the nominal bioavailability is the same as the oral route. It might be down to faster onset and the placebo aspect of assuming anything given by a drip is "stronger")
An overview of the potential avenues for genetic enhancement of humans, their risks and benefits:
Ideally, it would briefly cover a myriad of topics, such as CRISPR, adenoviral vectors, gene drives, and less invasive options such as embryo selection.
I personally consider the sheer lack of enthusiasm for such technologies to be low-hanging fruit left to wither on the vine, damned by fear-mongering and a general aversion to trying anything not done a million times before (before becoming enthusiastically adopted, a lá IVF), as well as bad tropes and inaccurate ideas regarding their effects.
Gene drives for malaria eradication also screams out to me as a sinfully under-discussed topic, especially with the potential for ending one of the most serious infectious diseases that have plagued Mankind ever since we dwelled in Africa, malaria.
I'm a doctor, and while genetics is far from my specialty, I would happily volunteer my services if you wanted anything fact-checked or needed to pick my brains.
Certainly, malaria eradication is an important EA cause, what use for mosquito nets (barring getting bitten), when they no longer need to prevent potentially lethal illness?
I believe a measured, public-friendly overview of the subject would find plenty of takers!
I think anyone making claims that they're on the side of "objective" morality is hopelessly confused and making a category error.
Where exactly does the objectivity arise from? At most, a moral memeplex can simply become so omnipresent and universal that people take it for granted, but that's not the same as being actually objective.
I can look around and see no evidence of morality being handed down from the heavens (and even if it was, that would be highly suspect. I deny even a hypothetical ASI or God himself the right to make that determination, any more than they can make 2+2=3 by fiat).
At the end of the day, there's nothing to hide behind when subject to the Socratic Method, at one point or another, you simply need to plant your feet in the ground and declare that it is so because you say so.
At most there are axioms that are convenient to hold, or socially useful, or appealing to the same mammalian brain, in the manner that monkeys and dogs hate unfairness or show kin preference.
To look for something fundamental below that is foolishness, because there's no reason to think that such a grounding even exists.
Mind you, being a moral relativist doesn't stop me from holding onto the supremacy of my own morals, I just don't need the mental comfort of having an ineffable objectivity to prop that up.
Perhaps at the end of the day there'll be a memeplex that's hyperoptimized for human brains, such that we can't help but be attracted to it, but that's more from it being convincing than it being true.