Must be a vestigial idea from the crypto hype days. Back then, if the Overton window shifted in your favor, it meant you were about to make a lot of money. With AI the benefits are less clear, but damn it if they’re not trying to find them.
Actually tbh this is exactly the kind of person that might go all-in on Nvidia stock so it still might be the money thing.
me when the machine specifically designed to pass the turing test passes the turing test
If you can design a model that spits out self-aware-sounding things after not having been trained on a large corpus of human text, then I’ll bite. Until then, it’s crazy that anybody who knows anything about how current models are trained accepts the idea that it’s anything other than a stochastic parrot.
Glad that the article included a good amount of dissenting opinion, highlighting this one from Margaret Mitchell: “I think we can agree that systems that can manipulate shouldn’t be designed to present themselves as having feelings, goals, dreams, aspirations.”
Cool tech. We should probably set it on fire.
delivering lectures at both UATX and Peterson’s forthcoming Peterson Academy
I thought I was terminally online but clearly I’ve missed something, his what now
Dude STOP. I’m so serious right now STOP dude. You’re forcing me to very slightly update my prior P(I’m the simulation) which is a total violation of the NAP
From the comments:
Effects of genes are complex. Knowing a gene is involved in intelligence doesn’t tell us what it does and what other effects it has. I wouldn’t accept any edits to my genome without the consequences being very well understood (or in a last-ditch effort to save my life). … Source: research career as a computational cognitive neuroscientist.
OP:
You don’t need to understand the causal mechanism of genes. Evolution has no clue what effects a gene is going to have, yet it can still optimize reproductive fitness. The entire field of machine learning works on black box optimization.
Very casually putting evolution in the same category as modifying my own genes one at a time until I become Jimmy Neutron.
Such a weird, myopic way of looking at everything. OP didn’t appear to consider the downsides brought up by the commenter at all, and just plowed straight on through to “evolution did without understanding so we can too.”
The first occurred when I picked up Nick Bostrom’s book “superintelligence” and realized that AI would utterly transform the world.
“The first occurred when I picked up AI propaganda and realized the propaganda was true”
For the purposes of this argument, near term AGI or promising clinical trials for depression are off the table.
FOX ONLY. FINAL DESTINATION. NO ITEMS ROBOT GODS.
Eh, the impression that I get here is that Eliezer happened to put “effective” and “altruist” together without intending to use them as a new term. This is Yud we’re talking about - he’s written roughly 500,000 more words about Harry Potter than the average person does in their lifetime.
Even if he had invented the term, I wouldn’t say this is a smoking gun of how intertwined EAs are with the LW rats - there’s much better evidence out there.
The cool thing to note here is how badly Yud here misunderstands what a normal person means when they say they have “100% certainty” in something. We’re not fucking infinitely precise Bayesian machines, 100% means exactly the same thing as 99.99%. It means exactly the same thing as “really really really sure.” A conversation between the two might go like this:
Unwashed sheeple: Yeah, 53 is prime. 100% sure of that.
Ellie Bayes-er: (grinning) Can you really say to be 100% sure? Do not make the mistake of confusing the map with the territory, [5000 words redacted]
Unwashed sheeple: Whatever you say, I’m 99% sure.
Eddielazer remains seated, triumphant in believing (epistemic status: 98.403% certainty) he has added something useful to the conversation. The sheeple walks away, having changed exactly nothing about his opinion.
HN:
Reading comprehension is hard. The article actually says “Zero for three when it comes to picking useful inventions to reorder life as we know it, that is to say, though at no apparent cost to his power or net worth.” It’s saying he’s a good investor in the sense of making money, but a bad investor in the sense of picking investments that change the world. Rather telling that the commenter can’t seem to distinguish between the two.
Good article, excited for part 2.