eye96458

I would caution against saying "parties aren't real" for at least two reasons. First, it more-or-less invites definitional wars which are rarely productive. Second, when we think about explanatory and predictive theories, whether something is "real" (however you define it) is often irrelevant. What matters more is is the concept sufficiently clear / standardized / "objective" to measure something and thus serve as some replicable part of a theory.

I think this (implied) mode of reasoning can be pretty useful.  For example:

• Sally: A ghost just turned my television on again!
• Tom: Ghosts aren't real, so that's not what happened.

But I'm like 75% sure that American political parties do exist (i.e., the correct ontology of the universe includes political parties alongside electrons, minds, and trees).  I'd like to hear @Elizabeth's argument against this.

Quantum mechanics is pretty well established, and we may suppose that it describes everything (at least, in low gravitational fields). Given that, pointing at a thing and saying "quantum mechanics!" adds no new information.

Are you making this argument?

• P1: Quantum mechanics is well established.
• P2: Quantum mechanics describes everything in low gravitational fields.
• C1: So, calling a thing a “quantum system” doesn’t convey any information.

First of all, if everything is mathematically equivalent to an EU maximizer, then saying that something is an EU maximizer no longer represents meaningful knowledge, since it no longer distinguishes between fiction and reality.

I’m confused about your claim. For example, I can model (nearly?) everything with quantum mechanics, so then does calling something a quantum mechanical system not confer meaningful knowledge?

Except his name is George. He has a personality. He once had parents, maybe a school, maybe hopes and dreams. He is not detritus, but a person. Something terrible has gone wrong in his life, and we are of the opinion that it was his own fault. Karma. Just desserts.

I’m fascinated by the bolded claim. Are you asserting that there was a part of his life that was terrible AND that it, the terrible part, has gone wrong? Please clarify.

There is also this (incredibly well known?) website where (among other things) you can try to stay alive on a trip to Mars.

edit: And there is also No Vehicles in the Park.

Does the preference forming process count as thinking?  If so, then I suspect that my desire to communicate that I am deep/unique/interesting to my peers is a major force in my preference for fringe and unpopular musical artists over Beyonce/Justin Bieber/Taylor Swift/etc.  It's not the only factor, but it is a significant one AFAICT.

And I've also noticed that if I'm in a social context and I'm considering whether or not to use a narcotic (eg, alcohol), then I'm extremely concerned about what the other people around me will think about me abstaining (eg, I may want to avoid communicating that I disapprove of narcotic use or that I'm not fun).  In this case I'm just straight forwardly thinking about whether or not to take some action.

Are these examples of the sort of thing you are interested in? Or maybe I am misunderstanding what is meant by the terms "thinking" and "signalling".

I think the way LLMs work might not be well described as having key internal gears or having an at-all illuminating python code sketch.

What motivates your believing that?

Would anyone like to have a conversation where we can intentionally practice pursuit of truth? (eg, ensure that we can pass eachother ITTs, avoid strawmanning, look for cruxes, etc)

I'm open to considering a wide range of propositions and questions, for example:

• What speech, if any, should be prohibited in high schools?
• Why don't universities do more explicit rationality training?
• Is death a harm?
• Under what conditions are centrally planned economies better than market economies?
• Is monarchy superior to democracy?

Can I request tabooing the phrase "genuine safety role" in favor of more detailed description of the work that's done?

I suspect that would provide some value, but did you mean to respond to @Elizabeth?

I was just trying to use the term as a synonym for "actual safety role" as @Elizabeth used it in her original comment.

There's broad disagreement about which kinds of research are (or should count as) "AI safety", and what's required for that to succeed. 

This part of your comment seems accurate to me, but I'm not a domain expert.