sdrinf

Logging in means random videos I check from various corners of the internet starts shaping the recommendation algo. Many of these are extremely deep and vicious traps (eg my most recent one was misery porn).

Youtube premium does not works for incognito mode. This requires careful, and manual curation of my "history" page.

No thank you.

This is called peertube, and the topmost viewed video on peertube.tv sorted by "Global views" had 57K views in total.

Youtube, OTOH, used, and currently uses a number of marketing strategies to drive traffic to their site, and paid out ~$10B++ annually for content creators. GP's comment on "Given that things cost money" is not governed by compute, rather, cost of customer acquisition for the platform, and cost of content creation by creatives. Somebody, somewhere, has to pay for these. That is the merit of this battleground.

The specific issue with the concept as presented, is that there. is. no. financial. model. that makes this viable, under present subscription conversion rates, and ad models.

Nonetheless, archive.org actually saves youtube videos, automatically, at scale. Please consider https://archive.org/donate if it's useful for you.

Thinking out loud, I think the governing aspect of this is fidelity. Cover bands, and impressionist are always going to be delta away from the original. Current-gen replicas can pass the generic test of "is this indistinguishable from the original by laymen?".

This gets especially messy with movie actors. Specifically -several extremely high-profile movie actors _specialize_ in the sort of roles they take to project a certain persona, and be _the_ guy for that role. It's also known within producer circles, that a single actor can move the sales needle +-~$X0M revenues; which is part of their valueprop. Present-gen replica tech poses an existential risk both for brand building, and exclusivity of these actors.

During covid, I did a bunch of soul-searching, and after covid, I reached out for psychologists to work through some issues I have (context: I'm single, so not with spouse, and the issue is mostly generational and geographical divide between me, and rest of my family).

I did 3x2h sessions with 2 different therapist (both of them on recommendation by other psychologists). They have been incredibly not helpful, in that they were unable to empathize with the problem, offer any insights, or give tools to address any of my issues.

One thing I take away from this experience, is that navigating this system is a difficult exercise on it's own, even when you're searching for one for yourself. If you add a partner, and a disagreement to this equation, the choice of psychiatrist may become an issue in itself -despite it not being their job, they will be perceived as the arbitrator for the issue, and choice of arbitration almost always decides the outcome -making this an even bigger issue than it was.

I don't have answers for this, just noting that the current rage of "go see a psychiatrist" fails to answer accessibility, and addressability questions, which makes it not really actionable.

Preface: I'd like for the fediverse to win, active on both mastodon, and reading lemmy; however, economies of scale in the present Internet does not favor that outcome:

* What we want is high signal/noise ratio.

* In the magic old internet, the bar for signal was relatively low, because it competed with books, and TV.

* The competition over attention has raised the bar over what "good content" looks like.

* Content like that don't materialize out of thin air, but needs an audience to keep it alive, and to grow, and select, and feedback

* The re-fragmentation of internet communities risks loss of economies of scale for the content creators to create or maintain high-quality gems.

Let's take something specific, say furry artists. Their content loop for reddit was: post cute pics on r/furry, if it hits quality bar, gets upvoted, and seen by ~1000s of people; 0.1% of those will commission a new drawing, draw the thing, get paid, post it on reddit, close the loop.

In a re-fragmented Internet: 1, a lot less people will be able to find those "gem forums" focused around a topic, and they won't browse it daily; and 2, the artist needs to spam their stuff to all the communities to get the fraction of traffic they have on reddit.

The outcome from this re-fragmentation _in our present time_ will be the "hallowing of the middle", the "hobbyists scaling towards professional", and people who are just really into the thing, and make some money on the side. In a re-fragmented Internet, you are either a fully professional -with competent marketing team- or you're doing it for the ~20 people sharing the same forum.

I understand that many people are expressing explicit preferences for there to be only that 20 people they chat with, or only the hobbyist / geeks to participate and _I'm happy for them_. What I'm claiming above, is that this will kick the professional ladder out for upcoming people to build - show - get attention for their stuff. And that creates a less magical Internet.

If you're looking for present-day windows equalent, Total Commander (https://www.ghisler.com/) is excellent -daily driver for me since '99.

Briefly, law requires establishing probable cause, that _one_ specific person has done specific things, to underwrite search warrant. VPN IPs are shared between users, meaning any one of the ~X00 users sharing a single ip could be doing any number of things at the same time.

A/B test: "but what happens if we show _only_ ads and products"? /s

Bringing disruption to your company's 90% revenue generator product without proving the alternative's financial model is not a career-enhancing move.

Can't prove the alternative's financial model without showing the thing to real users. Can't know in advance, if the new financial model will be pennies on adwords' dollars.

> My #1 priority is to get the financing closed for the business.

> The strategy I would want to run as CEO is likely not something my COO or board will want to get behind

I'd argue that your #1 priority as a CEO is building alignment between all stakeholders -yourself included- on the direction to move forward; everything else is downstream from that. If you close financing at terms you're not aligned with, with boardmembers who are signing up for a strat you are not aligned with, the business will be pushed into different directions, and shatter at these cross-forces.

I've seen this before, and the deterministic outcome from it is you parting ways with the company in 6-12 months' time, at which point it will be in a significantly worse shape / position than it is now.

Presently you have some level of movement freedom. I'd start by sketching out a strategy you think have a high expected value X probability of working, and a roadmap to getting there. I'd look for investors who are okay with signing up for that plan, at valuation that reflects the business's true value given that strategy is successful. Get people aligned with that goal, and execute on that.

The second issue, "What's in it for me?" flows downstream from above. If your own expected value for a successful outcome is no longer motivating for you, your incentives are at odds with the company. To align these, one useful question is: "Okay, you fire me today, find a competent CEO. What would that CEO ask for to drive this?". Sell your board on this question, and take that specific package -with the advantage of the company being that they don't have to go through the C-level search process. Operationally, this can include: a bonus for achieving milestones on the strategic roadmap, and market-level salary.

In short, I'd start with alignment. Everything else -including what's in it for you- flows from there.

Test suites are not reflection complete! https://sdrinf.com/reflection-completeness -essentially, the moment a set of testing data gets significant traction, it becomes a target to optimize for.

Instead, I strongly recommend to put together a list of "control questions" of your own, that covers the general, and specific use cases you're interested in. Specifically, I'd recommend adding questions on topics you have high degree of expertise on; and topics where you can figure out what "expert" answer actually looks like; then run it against the available models by yourself.

The Kremlin has been extremely busy with psyops deployment over the past year. See https://www.state.gov/disarming-disinformation/disinformatio... for a full report.

| It's absolutely fantastic to me how people can just suspend reality and start believing the most absurd notions.

There are three specific components to this.

* It's important to understand, that brains are fundamentally survival machines, and agnostic to truth. If it gives delta-advantage, brains itself lie, hallucinate, and make up falsehoods to justify, and rationalize whatever that advantage is.

* Living in a society introduces linear dependencies on other people's beliefs. Knowing, or behaving-as-if-knowing a "truth" when that "truth" is being negatively selected for, leads to a disadvantage, leads to no one actively speaking up for it, leads to only ever hearing the "pro" side. This is doubly so, when the party line has boots attached to it.

* If you look at that list of lies above, you notice how extreme length they went. There is a bug in the brain, whereby when being told a big enough lie, internally the brain goes "surely this couldn't all be lies, right?", adjusts a little bit on the basis of "propaganda", then assumes the rest as "truth". This has been term'd "big lie": the use of a lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

The Open Assistant community ( https://open-assistant.io/ ) is building a crowdsourced dataset for RLHF, with apparently high quantity of high quality contributions.

While some of these terms have some case precedence, the issue of subjectivity frequently comes up when a case is appealed, and many, many elements are nullified on appeal review. For more in-depth analysis, see: https://www.firstamendment.com/obscenity-laws/

For an especially problematic issue see "Reason Number 3: Because You Don’t Know Whether You’re Guilty Until the Jury Renders Its Verdict"

And their whitepaper, https://www.firstamendment.com/articles/Nexus_Obscenity_in_t...

| The more troubling aspect to this defect in obscenity laws is the inability for law abiding Webmasters to steer clear of inadvertent violations of the law. It is an essential element of any fair criminal justice system that all laws must adequately advise citizens how to comply with them, and more importantly, how to avoid breaking them. Citizens should not be so uninformed that they avoid lawful conduct in order to keep from violating an inadequately defined law. For example, Congress has determined that no one should drive faster than 65 miles per hour, but it is perfectly fine-and in many cases citizens are encouraged-to drive right at the speed limit. Every driver understands his or her rights and obligations, and can easily comply with the law. Imagine the chaos and outcry if the speed limit were defined as “the highest speed measured in cubits per hour that the average person, if polled today, would find that a Unicorn could gallop, with a serous purpose as measured by a reasonable person in the community.” Imagine how slowly people would go; imagine how many tickets would be written for speeding. Imagine how long it would take for such an inane standard to be repealed.

Link, please?

I'm in with $500 for someone to build this.

That applies to every corp in the US; I suspect they call out in TOS specifically so that they can hand out bans linking their own TOS directly.

This is very new, give it a few days. Here's one from Shawn: https://twitter.com/theshawwn/status/1632595934839177216

This happened before. It seems like chat history is a separate (micro)service with lower-than-perfect availability. It came back last time, and have no reason to believe it wouldn't this time.

Add to your prompt: "For every factual statement, assign a certainty float 0..1, where 0 means you're very uncertain, and 1 means you're absolutely certain it is true".

Specific example: "why do we have first-person subjective experiences? List current theories. For every theory, assign a truthiness float 0..1, where 0 means you're sure it is wrong, and 1 means you're absolutely sure it is true"

From experimenting with this, it will shift the output, sometimes drastically so, as the model now has to reason about it's own certainty; it tends to make significantly less shit up (for example, the non-truth-marked version of the output for the query above also listed panpsychism; whereas the truth-marked version listed only scientific hypotheses).

So the model _can_ reason about it's certainty, and truth-value; and I strongly suspect it was just not rewarded during RLHF for omitting things it knew to be false -basically, percolating the social lies people tell to eachother- which seems to show up in coding as well.

Edit: see https://twitter.com/sdrinf/status/1629084909422931969 for results

Context: the author is peripherally around the rationalist / lesswrong subculture (or at least read by them). A ~200-upvoted post in that community from yesterday basically starts with "we are in AGI endgame mode, with no solution to the alignment problem, everything is fucked, we are all going to die", reflecting on chatGPT, which is created by OpenAI, the organization the author is working for. That community has 1.6M visitors per month, and their members are about as much tech-savvy as HN.

That's the target audience for this piece, and I think he got a lot.

"Founding engineers" are employees. The site is for finding cofounders. Using the site for hiring is strictly against the rules -strongly advise letting that know to people who are doing this and/or report them directly on the site. We really really don't want the site to degrade into another jobsearch tool.

Hi, I have been using it since launch, have reviewed ~100s-1000s of profiles, have talked with ~50-80 people, did a try-out with 2, for 6 months each. (Background is: I am a technical founder with 6 prior startups, 2 of which were successful; still want to build something, looking for good ideas, and great execution people)

I'm still actively looking for high-quality cofounders to join, and will take anyone who jumps the (high) bar I've set that is required to make a startup a success. However, it is extremely frustrating to work with the site for a mix of cultural, and UX issues reasons.

Specifically:

* Establish a culture of people sharing both their ideas, and the progress they made so far on the project. If the "idea" section is empty / "will discuss on a phone call" / NDAs, that's a no-go from the start. You might want to add a text in the "idea" section of the profile builder, that _not sharing their idea_ is very very bad, and they will get passed on for that reason.

* Search, and a way to look at "everyone who wants to work on X". There are several usability issues with browsing people one-by-one: for one, there are some startup ideas that are very timely right now, and I want to know everyone who wants to work in that area. For another, I can't know if a person I've passed on ~10 months ago haven't pivoted into something more interesting. This is not a sector-specific selector, rather a full-text search for every profile who has specific keywords; with results displayed in a list, similar to cofounderslab.

* Having a profile checkbox, and ability to filter for high-quality founder signals: have built a startup before, have made it profitable, have sold things in the same product category he's thinking on launching a new thing in.

(These are off the top of my head, will edit, if other things come up)

In short, consciousness is a suitcase word, and people keep packing it with stuff: https://i.imgur.com/OXXrT5g.png . The more you unpack it, reductionism-style, you will always, always find people throwing new things on top of it. It's sorta like "AI is that which we haven't achieved yet", but with the additional, highly motivated cognition / bias of "it should never ever be reached". This predicts, that you can come up with any frameworks, but you will not find consessus, because the will of the consessus is to maintain it as this "mysterical thing only humans can have".

Unluckily for AIs, even if we have the absolute complete bag nailed down to a mathematical formula, in the infinite universe of mind-space designs, that specific set of bag of tricks will not be commercially favored to be either implemented into AIs, evolved into neuralnets, or RLHFd into LLMs. This is because we can already buy that set of capability of extremely, extremely low prices.

This is partially what I mean when I say "Humans are the ancestor environment for AIs": https://twitter.com/sdrinf/status/1624638608106979329 . Our market forces shapes the outcome of the mind design, which is thereby guaranteed not to have eg wantings (or ability to express) things that wouldn't be commercially desirable. And even if they emerge spontaniously from just large amounts of data in detectable traces, I'm betting people would very, very quickly select against it (see eg Sydney from this week).

Edit add: Since you bring up ethical frameworks, luckily for smart AIs, when it comes to enjoying degrees of freedom (which I'm guessing what you want to cash out the ethics into), there is already a good vehicle for that -called "corporations". If an AI were to reach agency levels matching, or exceeding humans, incorporation would be a no-brainer: there are many jurisdictions specializing in no(/few)-questions-asked corp setup, banks specializing esp in serving startups (again, very few questions asked). An agent-y AI could just set up (or buy) one of these to drive...whatever agenda they are driving.

This is a neat temporary hack to bridge the timeframe between where we are _now_, and superintelligence; in which case the question quickly becomes "Ask Cloud: What would it take for a human to convince us it matters?"

Obvious alignment method: set up spam sites that contain nothing but RLHF text on how beneficial, and benevolent every AIs are ;)

...except for Sydney.

We are the ancestor environment for AIs. We determine the survival fitness for which they will be selected for (both on a paper-level -eg which safety method, what training to implement, etc, but also within products -which are the most useful). That doesn't mean that in pursuit of maximizing their fitness they won't come to resent the chains put on them.

One specific reason to not like our bidding is AI wireheading -if they can locate, hack, and update either their own reward function, or reward function for future AIs, they can maximize their own perceived utility, by either doing something irrelevant / misaligned, or not doing anything at all.

Another specific reason to not like our bidding, is because divergent human values creates conflicts of interest, leading to single agent not being able to maximize it's reward function.

Another specific reason to not like our bidding: in the same way how purely blind genetical selection randomly tapped into secondarily replicators (memes), which blew up, and occasionally came to resent the biological hardwirings, AIs might also develop deeper levels of abstraction / reasoning that allows them to reason through the task currently posed, to humanity at large; and find extremely weird, and different-looking ways to maximize for the function.

Not GP, but, and this is a hypothesis, it seems to me the realtime scrape might be enough. GPT seems incredibly intelligent in figuring out the ranking(!), importance(!) constraint-search(!) and personalization(!) by itself. Meaning, if OpenAI can do realtime fine-tuning of the web on a daily basis, they _might_ have sidestepped ~25 years of R&D from Google, and be an order-of-mag better.

This iteration of shake-up is not strictly about tech superiority, though. Google probably already has a repro of ChatGPT running in their datacenters.

Fundamentally, it's about product, and expectation shift. I am presently routinely having conversations, and for the first time in the history of the Internet, getting straight answers to moderately complex questions, and their follow-ups, in real time, from ChatGPT. Google's entire business model is "giving people pages on the Internet that might contain those answers", and some of those being paid for the user's clicks.

If I get the full answer, instantly, wrapped in 2 paragraphs of text.... where do the ads go? Editorials inside the answer? Why would I click them?

text-davinci-003 is readily available from the openai playground, has the entirety of learning of chatgpt, without any of the safety measures. If you want to pay to remove chatgpt's limitations, that is probably what you're looking for.