I am extremely torn on this for a few reasons. Here is one in favor and one against:
Positive: I like the instrumental value, especially when imagining dealing with non-human, non-machine agents. As a sentientist I rationally don't know whether your communicated preferences hold moral value, but if you give me enough evidence to assume so, I will take them into consideration. I often treat LLMs (whom I consider to be far from sentience and preference capabilities) as if they had preferences. I called it 'duck typing sentience' (If it walks like a duck, quac...
This is seperate from my feedback and just an addition that really helps me: If you plan to do like 100 cards in one day, find yourself a calm straight path through some natural environment, and learn the cards while walking there. This is the type of multitasking that, in my opininion, mostly has benefits. The natural envirnoment is good for your psyche, you get some healthy steps in, and it's only a teensy bit slower. I cannot recommend it enough and do it every time I have to study a lot of cards for an exam.
I have experimented with this a lot and feel like there are two problems with the LLM card creation approach:
I've been learning with Anki for Exams for Years now and I have never managed to keep learning them after the exams. I've been using very few cards, and been splitting them more and more, but I guess not enough.
In my experience, however, some bigger cards are needed against frustration, but to be kept at a minimum. I call them 'Overview Cards'. For instance, if you split a mathematical proof into bite sized chunks, the way I inferred from your post would be to have a card 'Step after X' between every two steps. This worked well when the intervals were smal...
One thing I would like to add in terms of a life-goal or life strategy. Learning how to make vaccines or microchips is cool, but it requires you to stay within some amount of financial stability. Using your metaphor, it is wizardry that requires a wand. If you sell your lithography machine for your next month's rent (inequality is rising), the usefulness of your skill will vanish as quickly as the kings power during the French revolution.
I therefore find it prudent to start at the bottom assuming no possessions. One would hence start out with basic surviva...
This resonated a lot with me, but I had a different mental model of this kind of power, which I think may interest you: 'Real' Power vs 'Make Believe' Power.
The 'Kings' power you described relies heavily on a social group collectively believing in your power. If every subject of a King stopped believing in Monarchy at the same time, you would lose your power immediately. If the whole of America were to stop believing in student loan debt, banks would lose a lot of money. And if people stopped believing the the trading value of paper bills, money would lose...
I must disagree and would like to suggest a confounding variable that seems to explain the Feynman example better (I will come to the 'Invention of Lying Scene later'): Intellectual Consistency.
Bohr wanted to talk to Feynman, but not because he was rude or unable to be socially graceful. (It may even be argued that Feynmans fame comes in part from his social abilities). According to your quote, Bohr wanted to talk to him because he didn't disregard his own intuition and knowledge for the sake of being engraciating. All the others doing so, did not recogn...
Hi! I am a master student in Computer Science majoring in — yes you guessed it — AI, but also with a background in psychology.
I was always interested in thinking and optimizing my own thought patterns. It's probably half my urge to be 'more intelligent' and half the necessity to overcome my ADHD challenges. Through my studies, I already learned about many of the things taught here or in Eliezers works, but HPMOR and the Sequences still had/have a lot to teach me, or at least help my knowledge affect my actions.
I pursue AI due to my...
I can't say much about claude because I've never used it, let alone seen the output logits. But i've heard that it can seem more human and intelligent than other models. Whether its 'magic' or slight of hand from the researchers, I can't tell. But baring in mind conceptual limitations of GPT-style models, I'd assume its just really good product design and man-decades of work.
Especially when getting back to your argument of 'models losing the ability to voice their preference after RL(H/V)F': Claude just comes in fine tuned variants. According to you argume... (read more)