All of Haiku's Comments + Replies

I used to be in a deep depression for many years, so I take this sort of existential quandary seriously and have independently had many similar thoughts. I used to say that I didn't ask to be born, and that consciousness was the cruelest trick the universe ever played.

Depression can cause extreme anguish, and can narrow the sufferer's focus such that they are forced to reflect on themselves (or the whole world) only through a lens of suffering. If the depressed person still reflexively self-preserves, they might wish for death without pursuing it, or they ... (read more)

I'm interested in whether RAND will be given access to perform the same research on future frontier AI systems before their release. This is useful research, but it would be more useful if applied proactively rather than retroactively.

This is one area where I hope the USG will be able to exert coercive force to bring companies to heel. Early access evals, access to base models, and access to training data seem like no-brainers from a regulatory POV.

It is a strange thing to me that there are people in the world who are actively trying to xenocide humanity, and this is often simply treated as "one of the options" or as an interesting political/values disagreement.

Of course, it is those things, especially "interesting", and these ideas ultimately aren't very popular. But it is still weird to me that the people who promote them e.g. get invited onto podcasts.

As an intuition pump: I suspect that if proponents of human replacement were to advocate for the extinction of a single demographic rather than all ... (read more)

Answer by HaikuJan 17, 202430

I've been instructed by my therapist on breathing techniques for anxiety reduction. He used "deep breathing" and "belly breathing" as synonyms for diaphragmatic breathing.

I have (and I think my therapist has) also used "deep breathing" to refer to the breathing exercises that use diaphragmatic breathing as a component. I think that's shorthand/synecdoche.

(Edit) I should add, as well, that slow, large, and diaphragmatic are all three important in those breathing exercises.

Thank you; silly mistake on my part.


  • Yudowsky -> Yudkowski Yudkowsky
  • corrigibilty -> corrigibility
  • mypopic -> myopic
Thanks, fixed. I believe Yudkowsky is the right spelling though.

I enjoyed filling it out!

After hitting Submit I remembered that I did have one thought to share about the survey: There were questions about whether I have attended meetups. It would have been nice to also have questions about whether I was looking for / wanted more meetup opportunities.

To repurpose a quote from The Cincinnati Enquirer: The saying "AI X-risk is just one damn cruelty after another," is a gross overstatement. The damn cruelties overlap.

When I saw the title, I thought, "Oh no. Of course there would be a tradeoff between those two things, if for no other reason than precisely because I hadn't even thought about it and I would have hoped there wasn't one." Then as soon as I saw the question in the first header, the rest became obvious.

Thank you so much for writing this post. I'm glad I found it, even if months later. This trad... (read more)

I don't have any ontological qualms with the idea of gene editing / opt-in eugenics, but I have a lot of doubt about our ability to use that technology effectively and wisely.

I am moderately in favor of gene treatments that could prevent potential offspring / zygotes / fetuses / people in general from being susceptible to specific diseases or debilitating conditions. If we gain a robust understanding of the long-term affects and there are no red flags, I expect to update to strongly in favor (though it could take a lifetime to get the necessary data if we ... (read more)

I am a smaller doner (<$10k/yr) who has given to the LTFF in the past. As a data point, I would be very interested in giving to a dedicated AI Safety fund.

The thing that made AI risk "real" for me was a report of an event that turned out not to have happened (seemingly just a miscommunication). My brain was already very concerned, but my gut had not caught up until then. That said, I do not think this should be taken as a norm, for three reasons:

  1. Creating hoaxes in support of a cause is a good way to turn a lot of people against a cause
  2. In general, if you feel a need to fake evidence for your position, that is itself is weak evidence against your position
  3. I don't like dishonesty

If AI capabilities continue to pr... (read more)

Hello! I'm not really sure which facts about me are useful in this introduction, but I'll give it a go:
I am a Software QA Specialist / SDET, I used to write songs as a hobby, and my partner thinks I look good in cyan.

I have found myself drawn to LessWrong for at least three reasons:

  1. I am very concerned about existential and extinction risk from advanced AI
  2. I enjoy reading about interesting topics and broadening and filling out my world model
  3. I would very much like to be a more rational person

Lots of words about thing 1: In the past few months, I have delibera... (read more)

I like your observation. I didn't realize at first that I had seen it before, from you during the critique-a-thon! (Thank you for helping out with that, by the way!)

A percentage or ratio of the "amount" of alignment left to the AI sounds useful as a fuzzy heuristic in some situations, but I think it is probably a little too fuzzy to get at the the failures mode(s) of a given alignment strategy. My suspicion is that which parts of alignment are left to the AI will have much more to say about the success of alignment than how many of those checkboxes are che... (read more)

Thank you for sharing this! I am fascinated by others' internal experiences, especially when they are well-articulated.

Some of this personally resonates with me, as well. I find it very tempting to implement simple theories and pursue simple goals. Simplicity can be elegant and give the appearance of insight, but it can also be reductionist and result in overfitting to what is ultimately just a poor model of reality. Internally self-modifying to overfit a very naive self-model is an especially bad trip, and one I have taken multiple times (usually in relat... (read more)

If someone did want you to delete the tweet, they might first need to understand the original intent behind creating it and the roles it now serves.


I'm not sure about the laugh react, since it can be easily abused in cases of strong disagreement.

More generally: low-quality replies can be downvoted, but as I understand, low-quality reactions are given equal weight and visibility. Limiting the available vectors of toxicity may be more generally desirable than increasing the available vectors of light-heartedness.

Reacts can also be downvoted, which results in them being hidden. This is to counter abuse in the same way as voting counters abuse via low-quality comments.