Wiki Contributions


Agreed. You'll bifurcate the mission and end up doing both things worse than you would have done if you'd just picked one and focused.

Your position seems to be one that says this is not something to be worried about/looking at. Can you explain why?

For instance, if it is a desire to train predictive systems to provide accurate information, how is 10% or even 1-2% label noise "fine" under those conditions (if, for example, we could somehow get that number down to 0%)?

Ah. Yeah, it's been forever and a day since I used it as well. Bummer to hear they've succumbed to the swiping model!

Isn't OkCupid still around? I was confused by your saying that it no longer exists. Did it change ownership or style or something?

This was a lot clearer, thank you.

You speak with such a confident authoritative tone, but it is so hard to parse what your actual conclusions are.

You are refuting Paul's core conclusion that there's a "30% chance of TAI by 2033," but your long refutation is met with: "wait, are you trying to say that you think 30% is too high or too low?" Pretty clear sign you're not communicating yourself properly.

Even your answer to his direct follow-up question: "Do you think 30% is too low or too high for July 2033?" was hard to parse. You did not say something simple and easily understandable like, "I think 30% is too high for these reasons: ..." you say "Once criticality is achieved the odds drop to 0 [+ more words]." The odds of what drop to zero? The odds of TAI? But you seem to be saying that once criticality is reached, TAI is inevitable? Even the rest of your long answer leaves in doubt where you're really coming down on the premise.

By the way, I don't think I would even be making this comment myself if A) I didn't have such a hard time trying to understand what your conclusions were myself and B) you didn't have such a confident, authoritative tone that seemed to present your ideas as if they were patently obvious.

I would be interested to know if that's true and they are updating on that information or if they're going "But Grusch didn't reveal any of that classified information TO ME, John Q. Public. So it's not even worth thinking about at all!"

Would love to hear from the people who voted to disagree with you as to why they voted that way/what they specifically disagree with here.

Edit: 2 days later and no one wants to speak up? Seriously? Seems like some evidence for Lord Dreadwar's points #1 and #2 above.

I think the silence from major news outlets could be explained for the same reason that there has been silence from the vast majority of the LessWrong community: stigmatization and the fear of looking like crackpots.

Load More