theory: a huge part of having a good social life is just taking social bids whenever they become available. examples of social bids both large and small include: deciding whether to join your friends on a roadtrip; getting to know someone you just met; getting to better know someone you bump into occasionally but usually never talk to; standing in line, seeing something amusing, and having the option to point this out to another stranger in line; saying something funny in a group conversation; following up over text with someone after meeting them; flirting; cold emailing someone on the internet; catching up with a friend.

there are a variety of reasons why we might end up not taking social bids. if you don't have the social ability to notice opportunities to take bids, you might miss bids that you could take. if you force yourself to take bids without the requisite social ability, and end up taking bids which you incorrectly believe to exist, you might act in ways that people find weird, and burn potential connections, or intrude on people. if you are really tired or low-bandwidth or depressed or stressed, you will not want to take bids, because taking bids requires quite a lot of activation energy investment. if you are really focused on something else, like a research project, you will not take bids, because they distract your focus.

i find that when i make more successful social bids, i feel a greater sense of community and connection, and often feel happier too; and conversely, when i don't, i feel isolated. my most common reason for not making more social bids is often just being super tired or busy.

also, i feel like people around you generally mirror the kind of energy you bring to social bids; if you are super enthusiastic and friendly about taking social bids, then other people will also treat your social bids similarly. if you are having an amazing time meeting lots of new cool people, then other people will be more excited to meet you and willing to help you on your quest; conversely, if you are miserable and merely exist to complete your requisite daily activities, other people will also be hesitant to include you in their groups, or invite you to things, or spend lots of time with you. this can create a self reinforcing feedback loop.

sure, you can notice extremely large effect sizes through vibes. but the claim is that for even "smaller" effect sizes (like, tens of percentage points, e.g 50->75%), you need pretty big sample sizes. obviously 0->100% doesn't need a very large sample size.

I agree that chatgpt obviously has lots of name recognition but I do also separately think chatgpt has less name recognition than you might guess. I predict that only 85% of Americans would get a multiple choice question right about what kind of app chatgpt is (choices: artificial intelligence; social media; messaging and calling; online dating). whereas a control question about e.g Google will get like 97% or whatever the lizardman constant dictates 

it's notable that ilya only caved very late into the incident, when it was all but certain that the board had lost

like, suppose i anecdotally noticed a few people last year be visibly confused when i said the phrase AGI in normal conversation last year, and then this year i noticed that many fewer people were visibly confused by AGI. then, this would tell me almost nothing about whether name-recognition of AGI increased or decreased; at n=10, it is nearly impossible to say anything whatsoever.

my mental model of how a pop triggers a broader crash is something like: a lot of people are taking money and investing it into AI stuff, directly (by investing in openai, nvidia, tsmc, etc) or indirectly (by investing in literally anything else; like, cement companies that make a lot of money by selling cement to build datacenters or whatever). this includes VCs, sovereign wealth funds, banks, etc. if it suddenly turned out that the datacenters and IP were worth a lot less than they thought it was, their equity (or debt) ownership is suddenly worth a lot less than they thought it was, and they may become insolvent. and lots of financial institutions becoming insolvent is pretty bad.

running the agi survey really reminded me just how brutal statistical significance is, and how unreliable anecdotes are. even setting aside sampling bias of anecdotes, the sheer sample size you need to answer a question like "do more people this year know what agi is than last year" is kind of depressing - you need like 400 samples for each year just to be 80% sure you'd notice a 10 percentage point increase even if it did exist, and even if there was no real effect you'd still think there was one 5% of the time. this makes me a lot more bearish on vibes in general.

to be more precise, I mean worthless for decreasing p(doom)

some reasons why it matters

• all effects that route through longer timelines (allocating more to upskilling oneself and others, longer term bets, not expecting agi to look like current models, aggressiveness of distributing funds to alignment, etc)
• whether to pursue an aggressive (stock-heavy) or conservative (bond-heavy) investment strategy. if there is an ai bubble pop, it will likely bring the entire economy into a recession.
• how much money to save as runway; should you be taking advantage of the bubble to grab as much cash as possible before the music stops, or should you be trying to dispose of all of your money before the singularity makes it worthless?
• for lab employees: how much lab equity to sell/hold?
• how much to emphasize "agi soon" in public comms, or in conversations with policymakers? (during a bubble pop, having predicted agi soon will probably be even more negatively viewed than merely having been wrong about timelines with no pop)
• if there is a bubble and it pops, sentiment around agi will flip from inevitability to impossibility. many people will not be epistemically strong enough to resist the urge to conform. being aware of the hype cycle can help free yourself from it and avoid both over and under exuberance.

I think people in these parts are not taking sufficiently seriously the idea that we might be in an AI bubble. this doesn't necessarily mean that AI isn't going to be a huge deal - just because there was a dot com bubble doesn't mean the Internet died - but it does very substantially affect the strategic calculus in many ways.

I think another reason why people procrastinate is that it makes each minute spent right before the deadline both obviously high value on net and resulting in immediate payoff. this makes the decision to put in effort in each moment really easy - obviously it makes sense to spend a minute working on something that will make a big impact on tomorrow. whereas each minute long before the deadline has longer time till payoff, and if you already put in a ton of work early on, then the minutes right before the deadline have lower marginal value because of diminishing returns. so this creates a perverse incentive to end-load the effort