James_Henry

Since when was AP Calculus BC on the same order of magnitude as "design and implement a practical self-improving AI architecture"?

Which authors? Machine Learning research authors?

I recently realized that Hackernews deletes double spaces.

Also note that image input isn't available to the public yet.

>Image inputs are still a research preview and not publicly available.

Hey, I don't think any real decision theorists would take something like this seriously. And if any would, then let's change the definition of a real decision theorist to exclude them.

Good rule of thumb: Yudkowsky is always trying to appear more knowledgeable than he is. He's also been larping an AI expert for a long time.

I don't know what game #160 is supposed to teach me, lol. I do admit that my explanation isn't right. The game's measure of similarity is based on context in which words are used, not necessarily their meaning. Some people probably argue that context is what gives meaning to words. I think it's not just context.

Is it working for you today?

Whatever x-risk-style Effective Altruists' goals, if they run their organizations like The Nonlinear Fund, I wonder how long they are going to last.

Thanks for typing out their tweet. I wouldn't have been able to have read it otherwise, seeing twitter is down.

See also part 1: https://old.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/11fjmvr/the_nonl...

I am all for being effectively altruistic, but it seems like you have to be careful around Effective Altruism to do it right. (And I'm sure plenty of EAs think this way too.)

It's because it's not based on a simple measure of the similarity of meaning of the words. It's based on how often the words are used next to each other, which means that since celsius is used more often with the word temperature in the corpus, it will be closer to the word temperature.

I missed the veil.

Not being outsourced is part of what's going on. There is more to it, and each of these different goods have their own particular factors going into the rise in their costs.

A big factor leading to this graph is labor productivity. An hour is an hour for everyone, but while we've figured out how to make a TV in a lot less labor hours, it still takes about as many labor hours to set a bone or read a book.

It's because he stopped drinking recently. https://pmarca.substack.com/p/on-pausing-alcohol

(In all seriousness, I'm very happy it's becoming more fashionable to not drink)

Just whatever sells. Sometimes they pitch something we all want.

Some people probably agree with him. I think his reasoning isn't quite right and do think that there will be people fired and replaced at least in part by AI, but I think his insistence that AI is illegal and that's the reason health, education, and housing prices are so high is kind of funny. I feel like he hasn't thought about how setting a bone, wrapping a bandage, meeting with individual students, building on finite land might not be done as relatively efficiently as the other things on that list.

And I'm wondering what aspect of their bigness is causing the badness. Is it profits? revenues? Is it the number of employees? Is it percent of the market share in the business that they are active in? Or is it some measure of their political power?

What exactly about "big" is it that makes you say this? Is it the amount of money they can throw around? Is it the ability to integrate these bought companies in with the rest of their companies? Is it that there aren't enough people at the top of the company?

Have you found that book to be helpful in actually cultivating creativity? I started reading it a week back because I saw it's been massively popular and wondered if it's actually going to be of much help to most of the readers. Perhaps it gets much better after the first short bit I read.

You said that, "People still had kids because they needed them to tend farms." If you started a farm, then you too could have the same excuse! Is this an act of cruelty? I don't think you can know unless you have the kid and then ask them.

On the leopards/asteroid, just imagine, I realize you don't believe this, but just imagine that you realized that AI wasn't going to hurt people. Imagine the weight that would just lift right off your shoulders. This is how most people feel because they aren't convinced that AI is going to do anything that horrible. Deepfakes, misinformation, etc, those will all be problems we pretty much all realize we'll have to face, but imagine letting go of all the more apocalyptic visions.

It depends on the content and the page. I do like using space bar rather than the page down key.

Instead we give incentives for electric vehicles, presumably because they have fewer externalities. It truly is backwards.

No, and the article links to a StackOverflow question about this.

Do people not use invalid anymore? I thought it was still used for people bed-bound by illness.

What is Zvi Mowshowitz's utility function. That's probably what the author is talking about when he talks of value.

And it's not just Sam.

I say this in all seriousness, though it may sound kind of snarky: You could start a farm, move somewhere with fewer "leopards", and build a new social circle. Also, can't you let a new consciousness have their own say on the matter? They can choose their reaction to the multiple looming hells when they get here, no?

Don't you think it's a little presumptuous to say that those "not feeling anxiety are ignorant at best"? Many people fully understand the ideas behind the Yudkowskian doom scenario and they simply don't agree with this or that foundational assumption.

Maybe we'll discover that being human is about a lot more than just creativity, friendships, and romance. These things are important, but are they necessarily what makes us human or are they the part of humanness that is most important or valuable?