Is there reason to think that Bores or Wiener are not trustworthy or lack integrity? Genuine question, asking because it could affect my donation choices. (I couldn't tell from your post if there were, e.g., rumors floating around about them, or if you were just using this as an example of a key question that you thought was missed in Neyman's analysis.)
Got it. Okay thanks!
Earnest question: For both this & donating to Alex Bores, does it matter whether someone donates sooner rather than a couple months from now? For practical reasons, it will be easier for me to donate in 2026--but if it will have a substantially bigger impact now, then I want to do it sooner.
One small suggestion: When I read this, I genuinely couldn't tell whether "Gray swans: None detected this week" was a joke (like you were pretending to look for literal gray/black swans), or if it meant something serious. After reading your website, my guess is that it's meant to be serious---but I'm still not sure, and if it is serious then I don't know what it means. (My understanding is that "black swan" means an unexpected, highly improbable / out of distribution event, so it wasn't clear to me what it would mean in this context to be generally looking for global gray/black swans.) Might be worth clarifying or finding other terminology, if you want readers like me to quickly grok what you mean.
We haven't had one yet! But we only did it ~3 times. Obviously people are more careful than they'd normally be while dancing on the slippery floor.
I'll add to this list: If you have a kitchen with a tile floor, have everyone take their shoes off, pour soap and water on the floor, and turn it into a slippery sliding dance party. It's so fun. (My friends and I used to call it "soap kitchen" and it was the highlight of our house parties.)
1I see, that makes sense. Thank you!
Can you help me see this point? Why not correct it in the dataset? (Assuming that the dataset hasn't yet been used to train any models)
I'm long overdue here, but thank you so much for doing this!! I've been wanting this for a long time and just discovered this post :)
Fascinating point, I think you're right. Just to repeat your point in my own words: The problem is that, if the activation steering makes the model want to talk about the injected concept, and if it knows that saying "yes, I received an injection" will give it a chance to talk about the concept later in the response, then it will say "yes" in order to talk about the concept later (even if it actually had no metacognitive awareness of the injection). Is that what you're saying?