arabaga

I agree that there is a good chance that this solution is not actually SOTA, and that it is important to distinguish the three sets.

There's a further distinction between 3 guesses per problem (which is allowed according to the original specification as Ryan notes), and 2 guesses per problem (which is currently what the leaderboard tracks [rules]). 

Some additional comments / minor corrections:

The past SOTA got [we don't know] on the first, 52% on the second, and 34% on the third.

AFAICT, the current SOTA-on-the-private-test-set with 3 submissions per pr... (read more)

You can directly write/paste your own lyrics (Custom Mode). And v3 came out fairly recently, which is better in general, in case you haven't tried it in a while.

Yeah, this seems to be a big part of it. If you instead switch it to the probability at market midpoint, Manifold is basically perfectly calibrated, and Kalshi is if anything overconfident (Metaculus still looks underconfident overall).

No, the letter has not been falsified.

Just to clarify: ~700 out of ~770 OpenAI employees have signed the letter (~90%)

Out of the 10 authors of the autointerpretability paper, only 5 have signed the letter. This is much lower than the average rate. One out of the 10 is no longer at OpenAI, so couldn't have signed it, so it makes sense to count this as 5/9 rather than 5/10. Either way, it's still well below the average rate.

Ah, nice catch, I'll update my comment.

There is an updated list of 702 who have signed the letter (as of the time I'm writing this) here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/11/20/technology/letter-to-the-open-ai-board.html (direct link to pdf: https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/f31ff522a5b1ad7a/9cf7eda3-full.pdf)

Nick Cammarata left OpenAI ~8 weeks ago, so he couldn't have signed the letter.

Out of the remaining 6 core research contributors:

• 3/6 have signed it: Steven Bills, Dan Mossing, and Henk Tillman
• 3/6 have still not signed it: Leo Gao, Jeff Wu, and William Saunders

Out ... (read more)

It seems like a strategy by investors or even large tech companies to create a self-fulfilling prophecy to create a coalition of OpenAI employees, when there previously was none.

How is this more likely than the alternative, which is simply that this is an already-existing coalition that supports Sam Altman as CEO? Considering that he was CEO until he was suddenly removed yesterday, it would be surprising if most employees and investors didn't support him. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're claiming here?

If you follow the link, under the section "Free Market Seen as Best, Despite Inequality", Vietnam is the country with the highest agreement by far with the statement "Most people are better off in a free market economy, even though some people are rich and some are poor" (95%!)

That being said, while it is the most pro-capitalism country, it is clearly not the most capitalist country (although it's not that bad, 72nd out of 176 countries ranked: https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking), and it would likely be more capitalist today if South Vietnam had won.

Small typo/correction: Waymo and Cruise each claim 10k rides per week, not riders.

Note that another way of phrasing the poll is:

Everyone responding to this poll chooses between a blue pill or red pill.

• if you choose red pill, you live
• if you choose blue pill, you die unless >50% of ppl choose blue pill

Which do you choose?

I bet the poll results would be very different if it was phrased this way.

Does anyone doubt that, with at most a few very incremental technological steps from today, one could train a multimodal, embodied large language model (“RobotGPT”), to which you could say, “please fill up the cauldron”, and it would just do it, using a reasonable amount of common sense in the process — not flooding the room, not killing anyone or going to any other extreme lengths, and stopping if asked?

Indeed, isn't PaLM-SayCan an early example of this?

To be precise, Alphabet owns DeepMind. Google and DeepMind are sister companies.

So it's possible for something to benefit Google without benefiting DeepMind, or vice versa.

"A scenario where a group of human thugs [rips and devours your entire family] is still okay-ish in some sense, because no state was involved; at least you have avoided the horrors of non-consensual taxation!"

Sorry, this doesn't pass the ITT.

Yes, anarcho-capitalists accept that ~everyone will hire a security agency. This isn't a refutation of anarchism.

The point is that security agencies have incentive to compete on quality, whereas current governments don't (as much), so the quality of security agencies would be higher than the quality of governments today.