zug_zug

Yeah it reminds me of one those obnoxious recipe/biography websites that is the laughingstock of the internet. Why would I possibly want an AI image of a imaginary roast once I'm already at the recipe stage?

Kinda just feels like google search results in AI, which imo is a step down from distilled information. Chatgpt is already able to generate charts and visuals upon request.

This kinda nonsense is why I always feed my models and my google searches misinformation (e.g. "How to declare bankruptcy?"). Does it make any difference? I have no clue -- but I get a kick out of it.

It's well known that eating less "caloric restriction" slows down your metabolim and thus extends lifespan in mice. This would be my default hypothesis.

Go see a therapist

I guess all the "private model" people are right. Don't want to end up in jail (or even charged with something) for asking a crazy hypothetical question or something.

Well as long as there are statutes preventing disclosure of the real numbers, we can't treat this as a non-problem. For all we know somebody intentionally failed to redact the lowest water usage data-center in the state.

Different data centers have order of magnitude differences in water usage depending on how whether they use the water for cooling or not.

Well here's the thing, if we ever make an AI so smart that all known measures of intelligence fail to apply to it, I'm pretty sure you (no matter how smart you think you are) simply cannot say what it could achieve and how.

Seems like a character attack that has no bearing on the question of whether external safety intervention is necessary

I appreciate the feedback!

It sounds like you are a bit of an enthusiast and very good at these types of games. If you join the discord there are 3 harder levels, the last two have no manual identification whatsoever, which may be more interesting to you.

No, I didn't respond because it's a weird rude reaction and I don't feel like I owe you any explanation. If your intent is to try to make me feel bad about myself, and it seems it is, then please do not play my game, I'd rather not have you in the community.

I think it's pretty apparent that current-version LLMs won't wipe out humanity. But when you reflect that these GPT models are just token-predictors were never engineered optimally, it seems entirely plausible to me that there are multiple order-of-magnitude optimizations yet to be made.

If such were achieved, the model would almost certainly be smart enough to make itself smarter, and hack as much compute as it could possibly want.

So if we ask what would be done by an intelligence (human or otherwise) that is beyond human comprehension, it would be pure hubris to say we know for sure. We can scarcely control the models we have right now (e.g. hugging face attack). But given our whole society is mediated by technology, an superhuman intelligence could certainly collapse the government.

Here's a wikipedia page on the topic, since it's much too deep a topic to really understand here.

The ad-hominem stuff seems inappropriate here, Gates, Hawking, Musk have identified this as a credible threat, so saying "grow up" isn't really a sufficient argument. Also arguing only 90% of humanity would die isn't really much consolation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artifici...

I'll try to make the UI better for mobile browsers. I hadn't intended for it to be on mobile, but let me brainstorm on that.

I appreciate those two points of feedback. I'll work on those today.

Yeah so I think when most people these days say trauma, they simply mean "An ongoing emotional overreaction due to a past negative experience." I think that's a super useful concept.

In your case I'd just ask myself "Do I still feel like I'm a bother in situations where I know I'm not because of X?" And if so, it can be productive to see if you can change that directly or indirectly.

I don't live in a major city.

Looking at the research it shows that subjects who self-identify as loving America can be preducted by best by being older, and political party, though not wealth at all.

So I don't really have any hard-data to justify my impression that it's uneducated blue-collar white men without much going for them that vociferously love america, maybe it's just country music that gives that impression, or the type of uneducated poor who enter the army with blind faith in our institutions, etc.

I don't have any personal experience with this, but what's interesting to me is how similar a lot of this sounds to America. I'm not saying it IS the same as America, just that if there is a substantive difference I didn't get a sense of it

- Nationalism stemming from insecurity (I tend to notice the poorest, most desperate tend to be the proudest)

- "social death" - Is that not so different that being canceled or fear of being canceled? To me it seems very apparent that people who get ostracized on the national stage take a huge personal toll and have their personality changed for years.

- Also for the Dark World example he uses a Peter Thiel quote. I think optimism/trust/community is lower here now that a few decades ago. But I do agree that in tech jobs I've anecdotally seen more cutthroat approaches (e.g. refusing to share knowledge with a coworker) from other cultures more often.

So for me, literally I was trying to solve a problem with an AI agent and it threw the term at me. It is a real and useful concept, but my hypothesis is that a certain AI release started using and a bunch of people said "Oh this makes me sound smart/trendy" and started using it every chance they got.

We like to think we aren't token predictors, but the amount of sheer regurgitation I see from us humans makes me wonder (also "commoditize your complement", and so many others)

I mean interesting article, but I think I would consider them more "conversation -terminating" than "thought-terminating."

Like if somebody says "It is what it is" I take that to mean mean "I'm done hearing you complain about this."

And my great great grandpa thought horses would lose all their jobs to cars. And they all did and it was never the same again.

There’s no quick answers, but intuitively I think we all get that the % of jobs not doable by AI and robotics approaches 0 over time.

Somebody said (I think it was FrostPrime) roughly: Gambling is genuinely the scariest drug, I actually think it's worse than cocaine and it's just right there on your phone.

I think that really framed the issue well to me. Imagine having an addiction problem and having to carry the problem substance around with you 24/7.

Yeah following on this, when you look at places that actually are low-crime it's almost always cultural. But if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail I guess.

Shouldn't the burden of proof be the other direction, that it's both cost-effective way to prevent crime? And that the cost should include not only pricing but all of the other negative externalities of removing privacy (such as deliberate abuse by bad actors inside or outside the government).

time for somebody to make a quick script to poison your chat history by starting 1000 fake conversations with contradictory identifying details "I worry as a lesbian woman, my tween daughter doesn't blah blah Shabbat blah blah move home to Australia"

The shot timeout is the biggest issue for me. There's nothing worse than lining up the most crazy indirect shot and have it just disappear as it comes in.

The math on whether a shot is in escape velocity should be trivial for an AI to add. The only other degenerate cases would be some sort of orbit. My recommendation would be if the shot hasn't landed in 5 seconds, see if it's making progress, and if unclear, accelerate time until it is clearly making porgress (by 10x) and timeout at 60s world time.

I think gummies are a superior (more pleasant, healthier, safer) social lubricant than alcohol and I’m sure I’m not alone

Maybe I missed this but to me the economic implications are obvious: net loss for game companies, neutral for ai companies, win for gamers probably

Yeah given that I don't see any statistics in this article, I'm not convinced of a systemic problem.

So what?

Let's take aside the charged component of this and just suppose hypothetically that 100% of the assaulting students belonged to some subgroup. So what?

They may be 100% black, or 100% male, or something, but it's not like you can reasonably just say "So no males at our school." Regardless of whether you can find a subgroup who this belongs to with a very low specificity, you still need policies that tackle the behavior itself rather than trying to find some really weak predictor.

"Labour shortage" is just the business's perspective on "plenty of jobs!"

If there truly is a shortage of outstanding jobs, then they can compete and raise salaries and the least significant roles ultimately won't get filled, which is optimal.