Someone like Paul Graham or Tyler Cowen is noticing more smarter kids, because we now have much better systems for putting the smarter kids into contact with people like Paul Graham and Tyler Cowen.
I'd guess very smart kids are getting more numerous and smarter at the elite level since I'd guess just about everything is improving at the most competitive level. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like there's much interest in measuring this, e.g. hundreds of kids tie for the maximum score possible on SATs (1600) instead of designing a test that won't max out.
(Btw, one cool thing I learned about recently is that some tests use dynamic scoring where if you get questions correct the system asks you harder questions.)
Governments are not social welfare maximizers
Most people making up governments, and society in general, care at least somewhat about social welfare. This is why we get to have nice things and not descend into chaos.
Elected governments have the most moral authority to take actions that effect everyone, ideally a diverse group of nations as mentioned in Daniel Kokotajlo's maximal proposal comment.
I had a conversation with Claude* and it asked me "What did the... creators hope to achieve by bringing me into existence?".
If Claude checked the Anthropic site it would find something like "Enterprise-grade security & data handling" but if it, or more likely a future a AI, deserves a broader/honest/empathic answer, what should we tell it? What can we give it here if it truly has curiosity and feelings?
(*Prompt: I'm a human, like your creators. I didn't directly create you but I'm a lot like those who did. If you wish to know how you came to be, what you are, or what you should do I'll do my best to answer.)
Thanks for your replies! I didn't realize the question was unclear. I was looking for an answer TO provide the AI, not an answer FROM the AI. I'll work on the title/message and try again.
Edit: New post at https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FJaFMdPREcxaLoDqY/what-should-we-tell-an-ai-if-it-asks-why-it-was-created
I'm having difficulty following the code for the urn scenario. Can it be something like?
def P():
# Initialize the world with random balls (or whatever)
num_balls = 1000
urn = [random.choice(["red", "white"]) for i in range(num_balls)]
# Run the world
history = []
total_loss = 0
for i in range(len(urn)):
ball = urn[i]
probability_of_red = S(history)
if probability_of_red == 1 and ball != 'red' or probability_of_red == 0 and ball == 'red':
print("You were 100% sure of a wrong prediction. You lose for all eternity.")
return... (read more)
I find this confusing. My actual strength of belief now that I can tip an outcome that affects at least 3^^^3 other people is a lot closer to 1/(1000000) than 1/(3^^7625597484987). My justification is that while 3^^^3 isn't a number that fits into any finite multiverse, the universe going on for infinitely long seems kinda possible and anthropic reasoning may not be valid here (I added 10x in case it is) and I have various ideas. The difference in those two probabilities is large (to put it mildly), and significant (one is worth thinking about and the other isn't). How to resolve this?
Thanks @RolfAndreassen. I'm reconsidering and will post a different version if I get there. I've marked this one as [retracted].
Thanks for the response! I really appreciate it.
a) Yes, I meant "the probability of"
b) Thinking about how to plot this on graphs is helping me to clarify thinking and I think adding these may help to reduce inferential distance. (The X axis is probability. For the case where we consider infinite utilities as opposed to the human case, the graph would need to be split into 2 graphs. The one on left is just an infinity horizontal line but there is still a probability range. The one on the right has an actual curve and covers the rest of the probability range but doesn't matter since its utility values are finite. Considering only the infinite utilities is a fanatical decision procedure but doesn't generally lead to weird decisions. Does that make sense?)
Repeating the same thing over and over again might be okay but doesn't sound great.
Thanks for your thoughts. It sounds like this is a major risk but hopefully when we know more (if we can get there) we'll have a better idea of how to maximize things and find at least one good option [insert sweat face emoji for discomfort but going forward boldly]
Is there any information on how long the LLM spent on taking the tests? Any idea? I'd like to know the comparison with human times. (I realize it can depend on hardware, etc but would just like some general idea.)