YafahEdelman

Wiki Contributions

Comments

I think communicating clearly with the word "woman" is entirely possible for many given audiences. In many communities, there exists an internal consensus as to what region of the conceptual map the word woman refers to. The variance of language between communities isn't confined to the word "woman" - in much of the world the word "football" means what American's mean by "soccer". Where I grew up i understood the tristate area to be NY, PA, and NJ - however the term "the tristate area" is understood by other groups to mean one of ... a large number of options

(Related point: I'm not at all convinced that differing definitions of words is a problem that needs a permanent solution. It seems entirely plausible to me that this allows for beneficial evolution of language as many options spawn and compete with each other.)

Manifold.markets is play-money only, no real money required. And users can settle the markets they make themselves, so if you make the market you don't have to worry about loopholes (though you should communicate as clearly as possible so people aren't confused about your decisions).

I'm specifically interested in finding something you'd be willing to bet on - I can't find an existing manifold market, would you want to create one that you can decide? I'd be fine trusting your judgment. 

I'm a bit confused where you're getting your impression of the average person / American, but I'd be happy to bet on LLMs that are at least as capable as GPT3.5 being used (directly or indirectly) on at least a monthly basis by the majority of Americans within the next year?

I think that null hypothesis here is that nothing particularly deep is going on, and this is essentially GPT producing basically random garbage since it wasn't trained on the  petertodd token. I'm weary of trying to extract too much meaning from these tarot cards. 

I think point (2) of this argument either means something weaker then it needs to for this rest of the argument to go through or is just straightforwardly wrong. 

If OpenAI released a weakly general (but non-singularity inducing) GPT5 tomorrow, it would pretty quickly have significant effects on people's everyday lives. Programmers would vaguely described a new feature and the AI would implement it, AIs would polish any writing I do, I would stop using google to research things and instead just chat with the AI and have it explain such-and-such paper I need for my work. In their spare time people would read custom books (or watch custom movies) tailored to their extremely niche interests. This would have a significant impact on the everyday lives of people within a month. 

It seems concievable that somehow the "socio-economic benefits" wouldn't be as significant that quickly - I don't really know what "socio-economic benefits" are exactly.

However, the rest of your post seems to treat point (2) as proving that there would be no upside from a more powerful AI being released sooner. This feels like a case of a fancy clever theory confusing an obvious reality: better AI would impact a lot of people very quickly. 

Relevance of prior Theoretical ML work to alignment, research on obfuscation in theoretical cryptography as it relates to interpretability, theory underlying various phenomena such as grokking. Disclaimer: This list is very partial and just thrown together.

Hm, yeah that seems like a relevant and important distinction.

I think I was envisioning profoundness as humans can observe it to be primarily an aesthetic property, so I'm not sure I buy the concept of "actually" profoundness, though I don't have a confident opinion about this.

I think on the margin new alignment researchers should be more likely to work on ideas that seem less deep then they currently seem to me to be. 

Working on a wide variety of deep ideas does sound better to me than working on a narrow set of them.

Load More