[–] 8 points 3 days ago

it just has that feel.

yeah. Looking past the initial quiz, a lot of the complaints about Eliezer's predictions feel like rationalist inside-baseball about takeoff speeds and alignment strategies, as opposed to calling the whole thing bunk.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 7 points 4 days ago

    In short, here, I described this not as collusion

    other similar systems

    Something of a side note to your excellent write-up... I think we should push back on the "sub-agent" "agent swarm" language used to describe LLM workflows.

    The workflows often described as swarms or whatever are the same LLM (or at least related LLMs), just prompted a bunch of different ways in parallel. Individual agents don't really act like coherent agents in the lesswrong rationalist sense, or in any sort of philosophical sense of selfhood or agency or unified purposes, they just get described that way for convenience, so treating "swarms" of agents and subagents as some special category is lending too much credence to the anthropomorphisizing boosters like to do. "Agent swarms" really just means that someone set up a slop machine to prompt itself a bunch of times in parallel without enough human supervision.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 8 points 4 days ago* (5 children)

    This has been talked about in the reddit sneerclub, but not yet on awful systems (as far as I could tell with a quick search on this and last week's stubstack)...

    Caroline Ellison (the convicted FTX fraudster) got hired for an EA position dealing with financial allocations!

    Reddit sneerclub discussion

    EA Forums Discussion surprisingly (by the low low bar we have for EA) this announcement was heavily downvoted and all the top comments clearly and frankly denounce Manifund for hiring Ellison, accurately calling out the sheer violation of common sense and the obviously unethical nature of hiring someone because they previously directed money your way that turned out to be stolen. (The Manifund person outright admits this as a motivation!) Not so surprisingly, less upvoted, but still upvoted comments do some hand-wringing about the optics (as opposed to the clear ethical and common sense issues) and some even outright call for forgiveness for Caroline!

    The lesswrong discussion is less surprising (as in it is full classic lesswrong fallacies). It starts with considering the optics, and some posters, such as habryka, outright question the existence of any such ethical rule that hiring Caroline might violate! (If there isn't a rule anywhere, its only because "don't hire convicted fraudsters for positions dealing with a lot of money" is such blatant common sense.)

    Bonus: A galaxy brain take: maybe since Caroline has already messed up so massively, that means she actually has the best experience!

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 5 days ago (1 child)

    True... except for the fact that some of them were there at the start. Like, for example, Nick Bostrom had some pretty racist/eugenicist stuff come out from the 90s when he was on some mailing lists and 90s nets. Nick Bostrom was a founding member of the Future of Humanity Institute, along with Toby Ord (another EA founding member) and they got money from Elon Musk.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 4 points 6 days ago

    What choice did they have. The media and the masses ignored the clear bio threat from AI (as undeniably proved by them getting a 99% on biology focused multiple choice quizzes rigorous PhD level benchmarks, which everyone knows is a great way to evaluate PhD level biology and wetlab skill). And the media took the hugging faces hack seriously. So clearly Anthropic just needs to show their AIs manufacturing a genuine pandemic!

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    A year might be enough time for the bubble to start leaking faster or the pop to become outright undeniable. And from what I've picked up from Ed Zitron's reporting, a lot of the bigger data center deals are kind of tenuous to begin with (sketchy financing, no ability to actually meet overly aggressive timelines even with optimal money and no regulation, etc.). So anything helps.

    Going on a bit of a tangent... Eliezer (and lots of rationalists) are so certain only international deals driven by their ideology have any hope of really stopping AGI (Eliezer's Only Law Can Prevent Extinction is mostly about not supporting direct extralegal action against AI, but it also implies this, and of course AI 2040 is fixated on some cartoonishly impossible international deal), it would be funny if the surge data center opposition for purely pragmatic reasons prove to be a major cause of the bubble finally popping.

  • source
  •  

    So seeing the reaction on lesswrong to Eliezer's book has been interesting. It turns out, even among people that already mostly agree with him, a lot of them were hoping he would make their case better than he has (either because they aren't as convinced as him, or they are, but were hoping for something more palatable to the general public).

    This review (lesswrong discussion here), calls out a really obvious issue: Eliezer's AI doom story was formed before Deep Learning took off, and in fact was mostly focusing on more GOFAI than neural networks, yet somehow, the details of the story haven't changed at all. The reviewer is a rationalist that still believes in AI doom, so I wouldn't give her too much credit, but she does note this is a major discrepancy from someone that espouses a philosophy that (nominally) features a lot of updating your beliefs in response to evidence. The reviewer also notes that "it should be illegal to own more than eight of the most powerful GPUs available in 2024 without international monitoring" is kind of unworkable.

    This reviewer liked the book more than they expected to, because Eliezer and Nate Soares gets some details of the AI doom lore closer to the reviewer's current favored headcanon. The reviewer does complain that maybe weird and condescending parables aren't the best outreach strategy!

    This reviewer has written their own AI doom explainer which they think is better! From their limited description, I kind of agree, because it sounds like the focus on current real world scenarios and harms (and extrapolate them to doom). But again, I wouldn't give them too much credit, it sounds like they don't understand why existential doom is actually promoted (as a distraction and source of crit-hype). They also note the 8 GPUs thing is batshit.

    Overall, it sounds like lesswrongers view the book as an improvement to the sprawling mess of arguments in the sequences (and scattered across other places like Arbital), but still not as well structured as they could be or stylistically quite right for a normy audience (i.e. the condescending parables and diversions into unrelated science-y topics). And some are worried that Nate and Eliezer's focus on an unworkable strategy (shut it all down, 8 GPU max!) with no intermediate steps or goals or options might not be the best.

    view more: next ›