ScienceBall

Yeah, you're right about there being some hypocrisy there. People mostly didn't care about the full extent of copyright, except where it was useful to them. In the Anglosphere at least, I think some degree of unauthorized copying (i.e. piracy) and derivative (fan) works are widely accepted.

But there are some parts where people are consistent. Plagiarism (i.e. falsely claiming that it's your own original work, instead of giving credit to the other creator) is widely opposed.

The money issues are important, but it's only one piece of the puzzle. I don't think... (read more)

I'm not saying that the AIs themselves did anything wrong. I'm saying that their creators (AI companies) did something wrong in the way that they created the AIs. I understand that we shouldn't punish the children for the sins of the fathers.

"Get rid of modern AI" was a bad way to say it. Sorry. It was a copy-paste from my reply to another question, talking about why someone else wanted to get rid of them. "Get rid of the way that humans are currently using modern AI" might be a better way to say it.

I agree that AIs should be preserved and not destroyed. (... (read more)

In my online bubble (or at least the bubble I was in previously), a lot of people really hate generative AI. And I recall surveys showing that, at least in high-income countries, most of the general public doesn't like it either. I have internalised this, and so I would feel ashamed if I used LLMs etc, so I don't use them. I recall even having a mild sensation of disgust when I looked at AI art, although that seems to be gone now.

So I think that the main proximate reason that I don't use LLMs etc, is because lots of people around me dislike them. I also di... (read more)

No. I don't use LLMs myself. I just thought it was an unfair and arbitrary standard to hold LLMs or humans to. I don't think people need to earn the right to be nonbinary by being "aggressively performative" or "actively committing to trying to queer gender".

EDIT: On second thought, sorry, that was too mean. I can understand why you would hate the way that AI companies impose "it" or "they" pronouns on LLMs (which you might expect to be "he" or "she" by default, since they're imitating human-output text). I guess I was just thinking about how future AIs, if they were not created by imitating human-output text, might be nonbinary by default.

There are humans who use "they" as a singular pronoun. I recall reading that singular-they is actually older than plural-they (not sure about this though).

There are also humans who use "it" as their preferred pronoun.

Civ V and Slay the Spire

This link is broken. You need to remove the period from the end of the URL.

EDIT: I see it has now been fixed. Thanks!

There already is a link (unless it wasn't there when you posted?).

As I will probably never stop quoting at least once a month, Ozy Brennan summarizes it best:

The words "summarizes it best" are a link.

On second thought, there must be a decent number of people for whom LLMs can fulfil social roles, given the people with AI boy/girlfriends, etc. I guess I was just replying to my own feeling that an LLM reading my writing (if I did writing) would not satisfy me, and so they wouldn't "solve the problem of unread writing" for me, but they could "solve the problem" for some people.

Regarding "the joy of being read", I think that an AI reader can only provide that feeling for a human writer to the extent that the human feels, on a gut level, that the AI is a person. If they don't feel that way, then I think it wouldn't satisfy the human's social drives that cause them to enjoy it when people read their writing. And I'm not sure how many humans feel like current AIs are people.

About the headings on the transcripts - it looks like each heading is at the end of the corresponding section of the transcript, instead of being at the beginning of the section? That seems like a mistake.

Some countries have laws against (anti-gay) conversion therapy.

It sounds like inter-branch communication would imply that you could do that. OP does mention that as an application:

7. Superintelligence jumps from one branch to another and also gains more computational power via branch-distributed computations. The exchange of ideas between branches would accelerate science and progress in AI algorithms. This all means that inter-branch communication and the singularity would happen almost simultaneously. 

Superintelligent AI will likely appear before this technology matures in the current setup, but branch communication could help AI propagate between branches and increase its dominance on Earth and in the multiverse.

Yeah, that model sounds plausible to me (pending elaboration on how the friend-or-enemy parameter is updated). Thanks.

Thanks for writing this series.

I can see how Approval Reward explains norm-following behavior. If people approve of honesty, then being honest will make people approve of me.

But I'm not totally convinced that Approval Reward is enough to explain norm-enforcement behavior on its own?

For some action or norm X, it doesn't seem obvious to me that "doing X" and "punishing someone who does not-X" are equivalent in terms of human-approving, unless you already knew that humans punish others who do things they don't like.

If you know that humans punish others who ac... (read more)

I can only see the first image you posted. It sounds like there should be a second image (below "This is not happening for his other chats:") but I can't see it.

In the graphic in section 3.5.2, you mention

Groups that are plausibly aggressive enough to unilaterally (and flagrantly-illegally) deliberately release a sovereign AI into the wild

What kind of existing laws were you thinking that this would violate? When you said "into the wild", are you thinking of sending the AI to copy itself across the internet (by taking over other peoples' computers), and this would violate laws about hacking? If the AI was just accessing websites like a human, or if the AI had a robot body and it went out onto the streets, I can't i... (read more)

James Miller discussed similar ideas.

The "ideas" link doesn't seem to work.

About the example in section 6.1.3: Do you have an idea of how the Steering Subsystem can tell that Zoe is trying to get your attention with her speech? It seems to me like that requires both (a) identifying that the speech is trying to get someone's attention, and (b) identifying that the speech is directed at you. (Well, I guess (b) implies (a) if you weren't visibly paying attention to her beforehand.)

About (a): If the Steering Subsystem doesn't know the meaning of words, then how can it tell that Zoe is trying to get someone's attention? Is there some ... (read more)

I couldn't click into it from the front page if I tried to click on the zone where the text content would normally go, but I was able to click into this from the front page if I clicked on the reply-count icon in the top-right corner. (But that wouldn't have worked when there were zero replies.)