AI Explained already has a video out on it:
The New, Smartest AI: Claude 3 – Tested vs Gemini 1.5 + GPT-4
Supposing humanity is limited to Earth, I can see arguments for ideal population levels ranging from maybe 100 million to 100 billion with values between 1 and 10 billion being the most realistic. However, within this range, I'd guess that maximal value is more dependent on things like culture and technology than on the raw population count, just like a sperm whale's brain being ~1000x the mass of an African grey parrot's brain doesn't make it three orders of magnitude more intelligent.
Size matters (as do the dynamic effects of growing/shrinking) but it's not a metric I'd want to maximize unless everything else is optimized already. If you want more geniuses and more options/progress/creativity, then working toward more opportunities for existing humans to truly thrive seems far more Pareto-optimal to me.
Leela now has a contempt implementation that makes odds games much more interesting. See this Lc0 blog post (and the prior two) for more details on how it works and how to easily play odds games against Leela on Lichess using this feature.
GM Matthew Sadler also has some recent videos about using WDL contempt to find new opening ideas to maximize chances of winning versus a much weaker opponent.
I'd bet money you can't beat LeelaQueenOdds at anything close to a 90% win rate.
Why not go all the way and use a constructed language (like Lojban or Ithkuil) that's specifically designed for the purpose?
All the pics and bragging about how wonderful their adventures were really rub me the wrong way. It comes across as incredibly tone deaf to the allegations and focusing on irrelevant things. Hot tubs, beaches, and sunsets are not so important if you’re suffering from deeper issues. Good relationship dynamics are way more important than scenery and perks, especially in a small group setting.
The markets you linked to roughly align with my intuition that GPT-5 before 2025 is likely, although maybe not fully released publicly.
Things to keep in mind:
Other than the amount of investment in next-gen models, most of my intuition is related to the human and marketing factors involved. OpenAI won't want to lose its lead by waiting many years.
That sounds rather tautological.
Assuming ratfic represents LessWrong-style rationality well and assuming LW-style rationality is a good approximation of truly useful instrumental reasoning, then the claim should hold. There’s room for error in both assumptions.
My hunch is that there's sufficient text already if an AI processes it more reflectively. For example, each chunk of text can be fed through a series of LLM prompts intended to enrich it, and then the model trains on the enriched/expanded text.
I definitely like the term "confabulate" more than "hallucinate". It's more accurate and similar to what humans do. My favorite confabulation examples in humans are split-brain experiments.
"split-brain" patients, whose left and right brain hemispheres have been surgically disconnected for medical treatment. Neuroscientists have devised clever experiments in which information is provided to the right hemisphere (for instance, pictures of naked people), causing a change in behavior (embarrassed giggling). Split-brain individuals are then asked to explain their behavior verbally, which relies on the left hemisphere. Realizing that their body is laughing, but unaware of the nude images, the left hemisphere will confabulate an excuse for the body's behavior ("I keep laughing because you ask such funny questions, Doc!").
Some of these depend on how concise you want to be. For example,
"Partial derivative with respect to x of f of x, y" may be shortened to "partial x, f of x, y".
Conciseness is more common when speaking if the written form is also visible (as opposed to purely vocal communication).