I don't have citations for you, but it seems relevant that income far in the future gets discounted quite a bit compared to current income, which would imply that short-term incentives are more important than long-term incentives.(A better argument would need to be made with realistic numbers.)
Building new hubs doesn't need to be literally building something new. A lot could be done just by load-balancing with cities that have lower rents and could use the jobs. Suppose that places where growth is a problem cooperated more with places that want more growth?
This method of caching assumes that an expression always evaluates to the same value. This is sometimes true in functional programming, but only if you're careful. For example, suppose the expression is a function call, and you change the function's definition and restart your program. When that happens, you need to delete the out-of-date entries from the cache or your program will read an out-of-date answer.
Also, since you're using the text of an expression for the cache key, you should only use expressions that don't refer to any local variables. For exa... (read more)
A model relased on openai.com with "GPT" in the name before end of 2022. Could be either GPTX where X is a new name for GPT4, but should be an iteration over GPT-3 and should have at least 10x more parameters.
When you're actually a little curious, you might start by using a search engine to find a decent answer to your question. At least, if it's the sort of question for which that would work. Maybe even look for a book to read?But, maybe we should acknowledge that much of the time we aren't actually curious and are just engaging in conversation for enjoyment? In that case, cheering on others who make an effort to research things and linking to their work is probably the best you can do. Even if you're not actually curious, you can notice people who are, ... (read more)
Museums I'll give you (when they are open again).For bookstores, in these days of electronic books, I don't think it matters where you live. I remember the last time I went into Powell's. I looked around for a while, dutifully bought one book for old time's sake, and realized later while reading it that I was annoyed that it wasn't electronic. I still go to a local library (when there's not a pandemic) but it's mostly for the walk.Teachers: that's something I hadn't considered. Since getting out of school, I'm mostly self-taught.
Of course this post is all meta, and my comment will be meta as well. We do it because it's easy.
I think part of the solution is being actually curious about the world.
When enthusiastic New Yorkers say things like "everything at your fingertips" I want to ask what they mean by everything, since it seems subjective, based on what sorts of places one values? In this case: restaurants and parks?
I'm wondering if these loans should really be considered loans, or some other kind of trade? It sounds like you're doing something like trading 100 X for 90 Y and the option to later pay 95 Y for 100 X. Is there any real "defaulting" on the loan? It seems like you just don't exercise the option.
I wonder what “O(n) performance” is supposed to mean, if anything?
The question here is whether general arguments that experts make based on inference are reliable, or do you need specific evidence. What is the track record for expert inferences about vaccines?
From a quick search, it seems that the clinical trial success rate for vaccines is about 33%, which is significantly higher than for medical trials in general, but still not all that high? Perhaps there is a better estimate for this.
Estimation of clinical trial success rates and related parameters
I found an answer on the PCR question here:
But there is something good to say about their data collection: since the UK study that’s included in these numbers tested its subjects by nasal swab every week, regardless of any symptoms, we can actually get a read on something that everyone’s been wondering about: transmission.
AstraZeneca has not applied for emergency use authorization, because it has been told not to do so.
That resolves a mystery for me if true. How do you know this?
(I was wondering if maybe they are selling all they can make in other countries.)
I'm not sure about this statement in the blog post:
In the meantime, the single dose alone is 76% effective, presumably against symptomatic infection (WaPo) and was found to be 67% effective against further transmission.
I read another article saying that this is disputed by some experts:
With a seductive number, AstraZeneca study fueled hopes that eclipsed its dataMedia reports seized on a reference in the paper from Oxford researchers that a single dose of the vaccine cut positive test results by 67%, pointing to it as the first evidence that a vaccine coul
What’s an example of a misconception someone might have due to having a mistaken understanding of causality, as you describe here?
This is a bizarre example, sort of like using Bill Gates to show why nobody needs to work for a living. It ignores the extreme inequality of fame.
Tesla doesn’t need advertising because they get huge amounts of free publicity already, partly due to having interesting, newsworthy products, partly due to having a compelling story, and partly due to publicity stunts.
However, this free publicity is mostly unavailable for products that are merely useful without being newsworthy. There are millions of products like this. An exciting product might not need adverti... (read more)
It seems like some writers have habits to combat this, like writing every day or writing so many words a day. As long as you meet your quota, it’s okay to try harder.
Some do this in public, by publishing on a regular schedule.
If you write more than you need, you can prune more to get better quality.
I enjoyed the book write better, faster, in which an author set out on a series of self-experimentations to write faster. First she tried measuring words per hour. She was quite successful at getting this to be much higher, but it turned out that this resulted in writing for less time each day (so average wordcount per day was about the same). She then tried to maximize words per day, which was again successful, but this similarly resulted in writing less on subsequent days. (She might have then had the same experience on the week level, I don't remember.)... (read more)
One aspect that might be worth thinking about is the speed of spread. Seeing someone once a week means that it slows down the spread by 3 1/2 days on average, while seeing them once a month slows things down by 15 days on average. It also seems like they are more likely to find out they have it before they spread it to you?
Yes, sometimes we don't notice. We miss a lot. But there are also ordinary clarifications like "did I hear you correctly" and "what did you mean by that?" Noticing that you didn't understand something isn't rare. If we didn't notice when something seems absurd, jokes wouldn't work.
It's not quite the same, because if you're confused and you notice you're confused, you can ask. "Is this in American or European date format?" For GPT-3 to do the same, you might need to give it some specific examples of resolving ambiguity this way, and it might only do so when imitating certain styles.
It doesn't seem as good as a more built-in preference for noticing and wanting to resolve inconsistency? Choosing based on context is built in using attention, and choosing randomly is built in as part of the text generator.
It's also worth noticing that the GPT-3 world is the corpus, and a web corpus is a inconsistent place.
Having demoable technology is much different than having reliable technology. Take the history of driverless cars. Five teams completed the second DARPA grand challenge in 2005. Google started development secretly in 2009 and announced the project in October 2010. Waymo started testing without a safety driver on public roads in 2017. So we've had driverless cars for a decade, sort of, but we are much more cautious about allowing them on public roads.
Unreliable technologies can be widely used. GPT-3 is a successor to autocomplete, which everyone alrea... (read more)
In that case, I'm looking for people sharing interesting prompts to use on AI Dungeon.
Where is this? Is it open to people who don't have access to the API?
I'm suggesting something a little more complex than copying. GPT-3 can give you a random remix of several different clichés found on the Internet, and the patchwork isn't necessarily at the surface level where it would come up in a search. Readers can be inspired by evocative nonsense. A new form of randomness can be part of a creative process. It's a generate-and-test algorithm where the user does some of the testing. Or, alternately, an exploration of Internet-adjacent story-space.
It's an unreliable narrator and I suspect it will be an unreliable search engine, but yeah, that too.
I was making a different point, which is that if you use "best of" ranking then you are testing a different algorithm than if you're not using "best of" ranking. Similarly for other settings. It shouldn't be surprising that we see different results if we're doing different things.
It seems like a better UI would help us casual explorers share results in a way that makes trying the same settings again easier; one could hit a "share" button to create a linkable output page with all relevant settings.
It could also save the alternate responses that either the u... (read more)
I don't see documentation for the GPT-3 API on OpenAI's website. Is it available to the public? Are they doing their own ranking or are you doing it yourself? What do you know about the ranking algorithm?
It seems like another source of confusion might be people investigating the performance of different algorithms and calling them all GPT-3?
How do you do ranking? I'm guessing this is because you have access to the actual API, while most of us don't?
On the bright side, this could be a fun project where many of us amateurs learn how to do science better, but the knowledge of how to do that isn't well distributed yet.
We take the web for granted, but maybe we shouldn't. It's very large and nobody can read it all. There are many places we haven't been that probably have some pretty good writing. I wonder about the extent to which GPT-3 can be considered a remix of the web that makes it seem magical again, revealing aspects of it that we don't normally see? When I see writing like this, I wonder what GPT-3 saw in the web corpus. Is there an archive of Tolkien fanfic that was included in the corpus? An undergrad physics forum? Conversations about math and computer science?
Rather than putting this in binary terms (capable of reason or not), maybe we should think about what kinds of computation could result in a response like this?
Some kinds of reasoning would let you generate plausible answers based on similar questions you've already seen. People who are good at taking tests can get reasonably high scores on subjects they don't fully comprehend, basically by bluffing well and a bit of luck. Perhaps something like that is going on here?
In the language of "Thinking, Fast and Slow", this might be "Syst... (read more)
GPT-3 has partially memorized a web corpus that probably includes a lot of basic physics questions and answers. Some of the physics answers in your interview might be the result of web search, pattern match, and context-sensitive paraphrasing. This is still an impressive task but is perhaps not the kind of reasoning you are hoping for?
From basic Q&A it's pretty easy to see that GPT-3 sometimes memorizes not only words but short phrases like proper names, song titles, and popular movie quotes, and probably longer phrases if they are common enough.
Google's Q&A might seem more magical too if they didn't link to the source, which gives away the trick.
This is more about expanding the question with slightly more specific questions:
Currently it seems like there are many people who are not scared enough, but I wonder if sentiment could quickly go the other way?
A worst-case scenario for societal collapse is that some "essential" workers are infected and others decide that it is too risky to keep working, and there are not enough people to replace them. Figuring out which sectors might be most likely to have critical labor shortages seems important.
An example of a "labor" shortage might b... (read more)
Yeah, I don't see it changing that drastically; more likely it will be a lot of smaller and yet significant changes that make old movies look dated. Something like how the airports changed after 9/11, or more trivially, that time when all the men in America stopped wearing hats.
I'm wondering what's a way to keep better tabs on what people are talking in the rationalist community without reading everything? There is a lot of speculation, but sometimes very useful signal.
I feel like I'm reasonably in touch from reading Slate Star Codex and occasionally checking in here, and yet the first thing I saw that really got my attention was "Seeing the Smoke" getting posted on Hacker News. I guess I'm not following the right people yet?
I'm wondering if anyone can recommend some recordings that they like on YouTube or Spotify of this sort of music? I don't know if I've heard it before.
I'm just a lurker, but as an FYI, on The Well, hidden comments were marked <hidden> (and clickable) and deleted comments were marked <scribbled> and it seemed to work out fine. I suppose with more noise, this could be collapsed to one line: <5 scribbled>.
I mean things like using mathematical proofs to ensure that Internet-exposed services have no bugs that a hostile agent might exploit. We don't need to be able to build an AI to improve defences.
I think odds are good that, assuming general AI happens at all, someone will build a hostile AI and connect it to the Internet. I think a proper understanding the security mindset is that the assumption "nobody will connect a hostile AI to the Internet" is something we should stop relying on. (In particular, maintaining secrecy and internatonal cooperation seems unlikely. We shouldn't assume they will work.)
We should be looking for defenses that aren't dependent of the IQ level of the attacker, similar to how mathematical proofs are ind... (read more)
Even if there's no "friendly part," it seems unlikely that someone who learns the basic principles behind building a friendly AI will be unable to build an unfriendly AI by accident. I'm happy that we're making progress with safe languages, but there is no practical programming language in which it's the least bit difficult to write a bad program.
It would make more sense to assume that at some point, a hostile AI will get an Internet connection, and figure out what needs to be done about that.
I'm happy to see a demonstration that Eliezer has a good understanding of the top-level issues involving computer security.
One thing I wonder though, is why making Internet security better across the board isn't a more important goal in the rationality community? Although very difficult (for reasons illustrated here), it seems immediately useful and also a good prerequisite for any sort of AI security. If we can't secure the Internet against nation-state level attacks, what hope is there against an AI that falls into the wrong hands?
In parti... (read more)
Thanks! Bug filed. Regarding the Intercom chat bubble, I did post one comment a while back (accidentally in the wrong chat room for Lesswrong), but got no response, and I don't see any other responses in either chat room. Also, the indicator always says "away". To the naive user it looks abandoned. Are you sure it's working? Maybe the old chat room should be deleted?
Where do we report bugs? For example, I was unable to leave a comment here using Chrome on an Android tablet. (Desktop is okay.)
Also, is source available? I might be able to make suggestions.
I'd like to see citations for the claims about maganese and selenium.
Prize money helps, but you'd also need to find relevant experts who know enough about each sub-field to tell whether the standards are indeed high. (Usually they are called "judges," but perhaps we could call them "peers?")
It might help to narrow the question: instead of looking for "high standards" (which is vague), the prizes could be awarded based on whether papers already published elsewhere appear to use good statistics. Then you'd only need reviewers who are experts in statistics.
From an outside (but sympathetic) perspective, seems like this post would have been better if you started out with "Why we're starting a new rationalist community in Manchester" and took it from there? As it is, I wonder how many people made it to the end.
I'm reminded of the Oblique Strategies playing cards. Obviously the cards don't provide any sort of rigor. But having them around might be useful for thinking creatively. Might the same apply for Less Wrong jargon?
Looks like there is a detailed Wiki page about this.
Yes, everything is terrible. But it seems like, if you're writing a book and discover something like the Omegaven story, it might be worth writing a blog post just about that and seeing if it can get some publicity via social media? (I settled for resharing the 2013 NBC article.)
Maybe compare with epistemic learned helplessness?