FireStormOOO

Posts

Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions

Comments

This is very much what I want my headlines to look like.  

Personally, preferred mode of consumption would be AM email newsletter like Axios or Morning Brew.

The resolution dates on the markets seem important on several of the headlines and were noticeably missing from the body.

"Crimea land bridge 22% chance of being cut [this year/campaign season], down from 34% according to Insight"

Notice how different that would read with the time horizon on there vs leaving unqualified.  The other big question an update like that begs is "what changed?"

Interesting follow-up: how long do they take to break out of the bad equilibrium if all start there? How about if we choose a less extreme bad equilibrium (say 80 degrees)?

Looking ahead multiple moves seems sufficient to break the equilibrium, but for the started assumption that the other players also have deeply flawed models of your behavior that assume you're using a different strategy - the shared one including punishment. There does seem to be something fishy/circular about baking an assumption about other players strategy into the player's own strategy and omitting any ability to update.

Not sure I'm following the setup and notation quite close enough to argue that one way or the other, as far as the order we're saying the agent receives evidence and has to commit to actions.  Above I was considering the simplest case of 1 bit evidence in, 1 bit action out, repeat.

I pretty sure that could be extended to get that one small key/update that unlocks the whole puzzle sort of effect and have the model click all at once. As you say though, not sure that gets to the heart of the matter regarding the bound; it may show that no such bound exists on the margin, the last piece can be much more valuable on the margin than all the prior pieces of evidence, but not necessarily in a way that violates the proposed bound overall.  Maybe we have to see that last piece as unlocking some bounded amount of value from your prior observations.

It's possible to construct a counterexample where there's a step from guessing at random to perfect knowledge after an arbitrary number of observed bits; n-1 bits of evidence are worthless alone and the nth bit lets you perfectly predict the next bit and all future bits.  

Consider for example shifting bits in one at a time into the input of a known hash function that's been initialized with an unknown value (and known width) and I ask you to guess a specified bit from the output; in the idealized case, you know nothing about the output of the function until you learn the final bit in the input (all unknown bits have shifted out) b/c they're perfectly mixed, and after that you'll guess every future bit correctly.

Seems like the pathological cases can be arbitrarily messy.

Wary of this line of thinking, but I'll concede that it's a lot easier to moderate when there's something written to point to for expected conduct.  Seconding the other commenters that if it's official policy then it's more correctly dubbed guidelines rather than norms.

I'm struck by the lack any principled center or shelling point for balancing [ability to think and speak freely as the mood takes you] vs any of the thousand and one often conflicting needs for what makes a space nice/useful/safe/productive/etcetera.  It seems like anyone with moderating experience ends up with some idea for a workable place to draw those lines, but it rarely seems like two people end up with exactly the same idea, and articulating it is fraught.  This would really benefit from some additional thought and better framing, and is pretty central to what this forum is about (namely building effective communities around these ideas) rather than purely a moderation question.

Taking the premise at face value for sake of argument.  

You should be surprised just how many fields of study bottom out in something intractable to simulate or re-derive from first principals.  

The substrate that all agents seem to run on seems conveniently obfuscated and difficult to understand or simulate ourselves - perhaps intentionally obfuscated to make it unclear what shortcuts are being taken or if the minds are running inside the simulation at all.

Likewise chemistry bottoms out in near-intractable quantum soup, the end result being that almost all related knowledge has to be experimentally determined and compiled into large tables of physical properties.  Quantum mechanics does relatively to constrain this in practice; I think large molecules and heavy elements' properties could diverge significantly from what-we-would-predict if we could run large enough QM simulations without it being detectable.

It's awfully convenient most of us spend all our time running on autopilot and then coming up with post-hoc justifications of our behavior.  Why we're scarcely more convincing than GPT explaining the actions of a game NPC.  I wonder why we're like that... (see point 1).

I'm sure folks could come up with other examples.  It's kind of an odd change of pace how science keeps running into bizarre smokescreens everywhere we look after the progress seen in the last few centuries.  How many oddities are hiding just a little deeper?

I don't personally find the above persuasive on net, but it is the first tree I'd go barking up if I was giving that hypothesis further consideration.

I suppose the depends a lot on how hard anyone is trying to cause mischief, and how much easier it's going to get to do anything of consequence.  4-chan is probably a good prototype of your typical troll "in it for the lulz", and while they regularly go past what most would call harmless fun, there's not a body count.  

The other thing people worry about (and the news has apparently decided is the thing we all need to be afraid of this month...) is conventional bad actors using new tools to do substantially whatever they were trying to do before, but more; mostly confuse, defraud, spread propaganda, what have you.  I'm kind of surprised I don't already have an inbox full of LLM composed phishing emails... On some level it's a threat, but it's also not a particularly hard one to grasp, it's getting lots of attention, and new weapons and tactics are a constant in conflicts of all types.

I'm still of the mind that directly harmful applications like the above are going to pale next to the economic disruption and social unrest that's going to come from making large parts of the workforce redundant very quickly.  Talking specific policy doesn't look like it's going to be in the Overton window until after AI starts replacing jobs at scale, and the "we'll have decades to figure it out" theory hasn't been looking good of late.  And when that conversation starts it's going to suck all the air out of the room and leave little mainstream attention for worrying about AGI.

Getting clear, impossible to ignore warning shots first would be a good thing on net, even if unpleasant in the moment.  Unless you're suggesting that simple(non-AGI) AI tools are going to be civilization-threatening - but I'm not seeing it and you didn't argue it.

I very much understand the frustration, but I'll ask, as someone also not directly adjacent to any of this either, what would you have me and others like me do?  There's no shortage of anger and frustration in any discussion like this, but I don't see any policy suggestions floating around that sound like they might work and aren't already being tried (or at least any suggestion that there's countermeasures that should be deployed and haven't been).

Load More