Wiki Contributions


I've laid out a concrete example of this at https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FgXjuS4R9sRxbzE5w/medical-image-registration-the-obscure-field-where-deep , following the "optimization on a scaffold level" route. I found a real example of a misaligned inner objective outside of RL, which is cool

No one we have worked with has had a license. I think you need one to take care of multiple people's kids at your house, but not to take care of one family's kids at their house.

Answer by Hastings30

If you can get to Seattle for your partner's career, you can likely get a job nannying during the day, which will pay $25 to $30 an hour and doesn't require a car. 

This time last summer I was an incoming intern in Seattle and I was unable to pay less than $30 an hour for childcare during working hours, hiring by combing through Facebook groups for nannys and sending many messages. At this price, one of the nannys we worked with had a car and the other did not. I do not know what the childcare market is like near your current location.

To add explore / exploit, just start the game's chess clock before allowing the players to start reading the rules.

If you choose a single player game, you are going to have to carefully calibrate the level of difficulty and the type of difficulty. However, if you pick any two player comptetitive strategy game you can focus on the type of difficulty, as the level of difficulty will be calibrated automatically to "half your participants will win."

My recommendation would be to rig up a way to randomly sample from the two player board games on boardgamearena.com that neither player has every played before (can be as simple as putting 20 names on index cards, the players remove any cards they recognize, then shuffle and draw).

A concrete research direction in the "Searching for Search" field is to find out whether ChessGPTs or the Leela chess 0 network are searching. Your "Babble and prune" description seems checkable: maybe something like linear probe for continuation board states in the residual stream, and see if bad continuations are easier to find in earlier layers? Thank you for this writeup.

Mostly I think your thought process is quite good! But if you list out the design constraints of your logistic drone: (deliver airborn self guided munitions into maximally hostile area) vs the design constraints of a modern attack aircraft (deliver airborn guided munitions into maximally hostile area) you’ll find that they’re the same constraints- so likely a fully optimized logistics drone is going to just be an F35 or MQ9. This assumes that dropping mesh-networked batteries on parachutes or even just fresh drones will work better than landing the mothership or docking to recharge.

I think thats the key takeaway- most of the killing will be done by the small drone infantry as you described, the air war still controls where the small drone infantry can deploy, the small drone infantry has limited ability to affect the air war.

Flying low works when the other guy is either on the ground or forced to also fly low by your ground based radar. It doesn’t actually do anything against a high altitude radar.

Also there’s a bit of domain knowledge you need: Anything with rotors reflects 500mph doppler shifted radio waves even when stationary, which makes them incredibly visible to any radar that is looking for aircraft.

You still need something to contest stealthy high altitude aircraft to protect your logistics drones. Against the proposed setup, any force with ground attack aircraft would shred the entire force of logistics drones from 40,000 feet and then wait for the rest to run out of batteries. If your price ceiling per unit is a laser guided bomb, you are going to have a damned hard time making a logistics drone carrying multiple attack drones, each carrying multiple guided munitions. 

Taking off when you spot it will not save you from a laser guided bomb. https://www.sandboxx.us/news/how-an-f-15e-shot-down-an-iraqi-gunship-with-a-bomb/ 

Only two moves have worked against NATO forces since the development of the F-117: hide among civilians and threaten nuclear retaliation. I don't see anything here that proposes a third effective move.


The rumors are that this was SpacexXs secret- even at huge scale, Musk interviewed every employee. From even the positive accounts of the process, his hiring and firing decision making was sleep deprived, stimulant addled, inconsistent and childish. On the other hand, something is going right at SpaceX, judging by the rockets. I agree with the theory that one agent hiring mediocrily is just more effective than professional and polite staffing decisions made by a swarm of agents at cross purposes.

Load More