Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions


I agree with the first sentence. I agree with the second sentence with the caveat that it's not strong absolute evidence, but mostly applies to the given setting (which is exactly what I'm saying).

People aren't fixed entities and the quality of their contributions can vary over time and depend on context.

That said, It also appears to me that Eliezer is probably not the most careful reasoner, and appears indeed often (perhaps egregiously) overconfident. That doesn't mean one should begrudge people finding value in the sequences although it is certainly not ideal if people take them as mantras rather than useful pointers and explainers for basic things (I didn't read them, so might have an incorrect view here). There does appear to be some tendency to just link to some point made in the sequences as some airtight thing, although I haven't found it too pervasive recently.


You're describing a situational character flaw which doesn't really have any bearing on being able to reason carefully overall.

I'm echoing other commenters somewhat, but - personally - I do not see people being down-voted simply for having different viewpoints. I'm very sympathetic to people trying to genuinely argue against "prevailing" attitudes or simply trying to foster a better general understanding. (E.g. I appreciate Matthew Barnett's presence, even though I very much disagree with his conclusions and find him overconfident). Now, of course, the fact that I don't notice the kind of posts you say are being down-voted may be because they are sufficiently filtered out, which indeed would be undesirable from my perspective and good to know.


When you have a role in policy or safety, it may usually be a good idea not to voice strong opinions on any given company. If you nevertheless feel compelled to do so by circumstances, it's a big deal if you have personal incentives against that - especially if they're not disclosed.

Might be good to estimate the date of the recommendation - as the interview where Carmack mentioned this was in 2023, a rough guess might be 2021/22?

It might not be legal reasons specifically, but some hard-to-specify mix of legal reasons/intimidation/bullying. While it's useful to discuss specific ideas, it should be kept in mind that Altman doesn't need to restrict his actions to any specific avenue that could be neatly classified.

I'd like to listen to something like this in principle, but it has really unfortunate timing with the further information that's been revealed, making it somewhat less exciting. It would be interesting to hear how/whether the participants believes change.

Have you ever written anything about why you hate the AI safety movement? I'd be quite curious to hear your perspective.

I think the best bet is to vote for a generally reasonable party. Despite their many flaws, it seems like Green Party or SPD are the best choices right now. (CDU seems to be too influenced in business interests, the current FDP is even worse)

The alternative would be to vote for a small party with a good agenda to help signal-boost them, but I don't know who's around these days.

Load More