## LESSWRONGLW

Quinn

Host of the technical ai safety podcast https://technical-ai-safety.libsyn.com/

Streams linear algebra in coq on sundays twitch.tv/quinndougherty92

Quinn's Shortform

::: latex :::

Quinn's Shortform

:::hm? x :: Bool -> Int -> String :::

Quinn's Shortform

testing latex in spoiler tag

Testing code block in spoiler tag

Infodemics: with Jeremy Blackburn and Aviv Ovadya

7p on thursday the 14th for New York, 4p in San Fransisco

Announcing the Technical AI Safety Podcast

When I submitted to pocketcasts it said we were already on it :) https://pca.st/9froevor

Have general decomposers been formalized?

Thank you Abram. Yes, factored cognition is more what I had in mind. However, I think it's possible to speak of decomposition generally enough to say that PCA/SVD is a decomposer, albeit an incredibly parochial one that's not very useful to factored cognition.

Like, my read of IDA is that the distillation step is proposing a class of algorithms, and we may find that SVD was a member of that class all along.

How ought I spend time?

I'll check out Lynette's post.

I'd like to take a shot at technical AI alignment

How ought I spend time?

What granularity of time are you talking about? When you "never maintain 1 and 2 at the same time", is that any given minute, or any given decade?

I would say every couple months is an opportunity to either pivot or continue.

Have general decomposers been formalized?

Sorry, I think I might have a superficial understanding of encoders and embeddings. Would you be able to try pointing out for me how decomposition is performed in that case (or point me toward a favorite reading on the subject)? When I think of feeding a sentence into an encoder, I can think of multiple ways in which some compositional structure might be inferred.

I'm drawing up a proof of concept with seq2seq learners right now, but my hypothesis is that they will be inadequate decomposers suitable only for benchmarking a baseline.

The Politics of Age (the Young vs. the Old)

SITG-suffrage Sorry, by this point OP and I had established "right to vote weighted by stake" as a concept, using the words "skin-in-the-game", so SITG was an acronym for skin-in-the-game, and suffrage referred to right to vote.

Parents are different from any other group in my comment because I was referencing Richard Kennaway's question "Does having children whose future you care about also count as skin in the game?"