Seemingly Popular Covid-19 Model is Obvious Nonsense

Even with that as the goal this model is useless - social distancing demonstrably does not lead to 0 new infections. Even Wuhan didn't manage that, and they were literally welding people's doors shut.

A War of Ants and Grasshoppers

...they're ants. That's just not how ants work. For a myriad of reasons. The whole point of the post is that there isn't necessarily local deliberative intent, just strategies filling ecological niches.

How rapidly are GPUs improving in price performance?

Of course, if you don’t like how an exponential curve fits the data, you can always change models—in this case, probably to a curve with 1 more free parameter (indicating a degree of slowdown of the exponential growth) or 2 more free parameters (to have 2 different exponentials stitched together at a specific point in time).

Oh that's actually a pretty good idea. Might redo some analysis we built on top of this model using that.

Blackmailers are privateers in the war on hypocrisy

This argument would make much more sense in a just world. Information that should damage someone is very different from information that will damage someone. With blackmail you're optimized to maximize damage to the target, and I expect tails to mostly come apart here. I don't see too many cases of blackmail replacing MeToo. When was the last time the National Enquirer was a valuable whistleblower?

EDIT: fixed some wording

How rapidly are GPUs improving in price performance?
When trying to fit an exponential curve, don't weight all the points equally

We didn't. We fit a line in log space, but weighted the points by sqrt(y). The reason we did that is because it doesn't actually appear linear in log space.

This is what it looks like if we don't weight them. If you want to bite the bullet of this being a better fit, we can bet about it.

Act of Charity
I'd optimize more for not making enemies or alienating people than for making people realize how bad the situation is or joining your cause.

Why isn't this a fully general argument for never rocking the boat?

Act of Charity
Based on my models (such as this one), the chance of AGI "by default" in the next 50 years is less than 15%, since the current rate of progress is not higher than the average rate since 1945, and if anything is lower (the insights model linked has a bias towards listing recent insights).

Both this comment and my other comment are way understating our beliefs about AGI. After talking to Jessica about it offline to clarify our real beliefs rather than just playing games with plausible deniability, my actual probability is between 0.5 and 1% in the next 50 years. Jessica can confirm that hers is pretty similar, but probably weighted towards 1%.

Act of Charity
I think I'm more skeptical than you are that it's possible to do much better (i.e., build functional information-processing institutions) before the world changes a lot for other reasons (e.g., superintelligent AIs are invented)

Where do you think the superintelligent AIs will come from? AFAICT it doesn't make sense to put more than 20% on AGI before massive international institutional collapse, even being fairly charitable to both AGI projects and prospective longevity of current institutions.

Where does ADT Go Wrong?

When considering an embedder , in universe , in response to which SADT picks policy , I would be tempted to apply the following coherence condition:

(all approximately of course)

I'm not sure if this would work though. This is definitely a necessary condition for reasonable counterfactuals, but not obviously sufficient.

Load More