I value my leasure time >> my money (at least within typical gift cost amounts). The value of a gift chosen by someone who knows my preferences well enough is primarily the value of time I did not have to spend on finding something matching my preferences well enough >> the monetary value of the gift.
P.S. Edited to add: as an additional bonus, people would often give the type of gifts where their expertise exceeds mine, so they end up giving me something better than I would even know to get myself (e.g. they have a better sense of style and can gift me something that would look well on me).
Yeah, and another strategy is to manufacture fake/exaggerated stories about supposed problems. To the extent that the whole notion of "am I better now than 4 years ago" is becoming quite broken, increasingly follo ing the political affiliations rather than reality, and the "am I better off" (more reality-v\based) vs "is the country better off" (more perception-based) are increasingly disconnected...
I do not see how this has any chance at scaling. Who sits at the root of the delegation tree? The CEO? And they are spending all their time doing things they do not know how to do (as your rule does not allow them to delegate those tasks, and presumably there are enough to take all their time)? That does not sound to me like how competent delegation should look like. And being able to do X vs being able to evaluate someone else doing X are of course related, but still quite different skills.
What about all the future people that would no longer get a chance to exist - do they count? Do you value continued existence and prosperity of human civilization above and beyond the individual people? For me, it's a strong yes to both questions, and that does change the calculus significantly!
How about this - in most non-disaster scenarios, AI would make the abundance a lot easier to achieve. And conservative or liberal, it's basic human nature to go for abundance in such situations.
I think this might be underestimating how the conservative/liberal axis correlates with scarcity/abundance axis. In an existential struggle against a zombie horde, the conservative policies are a lot more relevant - of course "our tribe first" is the only survivable answer, anybody who wants to "find themselves" when they are supposed to be guarding the entrance is an idiot and a traitor, deviating from proven strategies is a huge risk, etc. When all important resources are abundant, liberal policies become a lot more relevant - hoarding resources, and not sharing with neighbors is a mental illness, there is low risk in an kinds of experimentation and rule breaking, etc. Well, AI is very likely to drastically move us away from scarcity and towards abundance, so need to consider how it affects which policies would make more sense.
Definitely, and for mypy where I was having similar issues, but where it's faster to just rerun, I did add it to pre-commit. But my point was about the broader issue that the LLM was perfectly happy to ignore even very strongly worded "this is esse tial for safety" rules, just for some cavalier expediency, which is obviously a worrying trend, assuming it generalizes. And I think my anecdote was slightly more "real life" than a made up grid game of the original research (although of course way less systematically investigated).
Here is a relevant anecdote - been using Althropic Opus 4 and Sonnet 4 for coding, and trying to get them to adhere to a basic rule of "before you commit your changes, make sure all tests pass" formulated in increasingly strong ways (telling it it's a safety-critical code, do not ever even thing about commiting, unless every single test passes, and even more explicit and detailed rules that I am too lazy to type out right now). It constantly violated the rule! "None of the still failing tests are for the core functionality. Will go head and commit now". "Great progress! I am down to only 22 failures from 84. Let's... (read more)
Please define your acronyms. It took me a few moments of staring at your post to stop thinking about Society of Automotive Engineers making errors and realize what you actually meant :)
Epistemic status: pure speculation, want to hear what more informed people think
In public discussions of COVID origins, I observe an apparent implicit assumptions that the two leading theories - lab leak and Wuhan market origin - are incompatible, and evidence for one is automatically evidence against another.
It feels to me that there is a plausible theory for both being true - the virus was created studied in a lab, some animals were infected as part of that research, and then some low-paid employee was responsible for properly disposing of the animals, but lacking full understanding of the dangers and needing quick cash, they sold the animals to be then resold on the... (read more)
But what does it mean to "give skepticism a try"? I would think the challenge is not in simply being skeptical (and in fact, just being equally skeptical of everything is IMHO even more silly then being equally trusting in everything) - it's being properly calibratedly skeptical, with incrementally reduced levels of skepticism as more evidence "for" is accumulated, and increased skepticism given more evidence "against"...