There might be a better chance of this becoming widely used if the design is pitched to IKEA (or similar), over being developed in a new, dedicated company
In BE 'quite' can also be used sarcastically, becoming a negative intensifier. If you say something's "quite nice" that could mean it really wasn't good at all.
Less so once they've done enough RLHF
Populations got much bigger post-Industrial revolution, after which very few people were farmers. I'm pretty sure more people who have existed were non-farmers just from that growth, by a huge margin.
But I'm not sure whether or not that should carry over to ancestors. On one hand, you can only have so many ancestors at a time, and explosive industrial population growth doesn't change that. But smaller farming populations might mean more of my family tree crossing over itself, and so fewer unique farming ancestors?
Thanks for the post!
The Zach Weinersmith quote you mentioned goes further, in a direction that might also be relevant:
"...bravery is not cross contextual... Conversely, recklessness *is* cross contextual. Unsafe sex correlates to drug abuse."
I'm pretty reckless in some ways, but need to build courage in other areas.Fostering courage where I need it, turning my recklessness into courage where it's helping me, and minimising it where it isn't, all seem like worthwhile things to try.
Best guess: because they've found the Haskell expertise they were after. That tweet is nearly two years old now, and I'm pretty sure Ed Kmett joined more recently than that.
Is there any data on how people feel like rationality has changed their lives? Somewhat separate to what we're doing as a community / what some of the most successful rationalists are up to, it seems worth trying to work out how engaging more with rationality changes things for people. I'm pretty sure my engagement with rationality has helped me become stronger; if it turned out not to help most people that would definitely change how I presented things.
Ordered chronologically. In retrospect, I've assumed some pretty weak evil forces here, and mostly gone for variations on a needle-in-a-haystack type theme.
Fwiw, human underperformance on vending-bench is an elicitation problem. The human was only given a set amount of time (iirc 5 hours), whereas the LLMs run until they lose coherence. The human maintained coherence throughout but types slower, and therefore sees less days of simulation.
The human is also the only case with n=1.