Hello my name is Goose.
Longtime LessWrong Lurker. Interested in AI Safety, Cognitive Science, Housing Policy, Public Education Policy, and increasingly about communicating issues about AI to non-rationalists/members of the general public.
I also have question2.
IIUC, The method Ryan describes is "generate a bunch of programs" and then "filter those". He wrote:
> The distribution of programs you are searching over [after generating a bunch of them] has to be pretty close to the right program for Best-of-6k to work at all: if you did best-of-6k for random python programs, this would not work!
I agree that it's way better than random... but is it better than the human literature? E.g., If you asked me to filter 6,000 NLP papers, I'd expect a great many of them to be "basically true" and a g... (read more)
I have two clarification questions.
Question: IIUC the "talk-y part" and "the do-y" part are sub-parts of a single model instance (circuits, or idk some sub-model package of computation). That is, you're NOT suggesting that the claude app is splitting up work into subagents under the hood, so that 3 models in a trench coat appear to be just 1 model. Do I have that right?
Question: How could this have turned out any different? What else could you reasonably expect to find? Is the alternative "a thinking thing that is aware of all its computations, at all gr... (read more)
I agree with basically everything in this comment, except maybe this part: "The emotional impact makes it less easy to treat your belief in it as a tool for impressing your friends and irritating your enemies, rather than something to actually worry about and try to solve if it's real."
I just don't think the argument goes through: "The emotional impact being stronger, makes it LESS easy for you to treat your belief as a tool for impressing friends/irritating enemies". (Citing HPMOR: "For it is a sad rule that whenever you are most in need of your art as a... (read more)