Even Scott’s fantasy dream scenario for what prediction markets could be like and what questions they could answer feels… … deliberately naive? …like libertarian brainrot? …disconnected from reality?

That’s mostly because outright admitting that the point of prediction markets was to make having the prediction gene profitable so they could get on with breeding a rationailst kwisatz haderach to fight the robot god on more equal terms wouldn’t fly with the lower level thetans and other exoterics.

Well, you could maybe sort of train it not to generate “all men are cats”, but then that might also prevent it from making the more correct generalization “all cats are mortal” or even completely valid generalizations like combing “all men are mortal” and “Socrates is man” to get “Socrates is mortal”.

Just wanted to say that that ‘tal’ comes after ‘mor’ when ‘soc-rate-s’ is in the near context and in agreement with the attention mechanism is a very different type of logic than what this phrasing implies. This is also in combination with the peculiarities of word embeddings (the technique by which the tokens are translated to numeric vectors) like how it has a hard time making something useful out of numbers, it uh gets uh complicated.

The monofacts thing seems very post hoc and way too abstracted in comparison, and also the amount of text that can be categorized as strictly true or false isn’t that big all things considered.

Still if the point was to formalize the very no-duh observation that a neural net isn’t supposed to output it’s dataset verbatim at all times hence hallucinations, then fine, I guess. Their proposed sort of solution (controlled miscalibration) even amounts to forcing the model to generalize less by memorizing more, which used to be the opposite of why you would choose to use this type of topography.

The newest addition to her polycule

Isn’t this mostly a pretentious way of saying someone I recently fucked?

I feel like a lot of my writing on rationality would be a lot more popular if I could go back in time to the 1960s and present it there. “Twelve Virtues of Rationality” is what people could’ve been reading instead of Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land

This is someone nakedly fantasizing about being L. Ron Hubbard.

Also an email came up where Demis Hassabis tried to convince Elon to stop insisting on open sourcing OpenAI for AI safety reasons by sending him a 2015 scott alexander blogpost.

Last summer the Web Speech API got incorporated into browser standards, it’s supposed to offer in-browser speech-to-text and the like, and full support of the API requires the browser vendor to offer the ability to download a language appropriate model for autonomous inference.

Going from this to deciding that it’s now ok to side load unspecified 4GB models without telling the user is why we should never give these people an inch.

Theoretically if the people responsible for that training and reinforcement did their jobs well then those patterns should only include true statements

That would only work if inference were some sort of massive if-the-else process. Hallucinations are downstream of neural networks’ ability to generalize from the dataset examples, they aren’t going anywhere even if you train on a corpus of perfectly correct statements.

I like Evans’ take that since there’s bound to be oodles of cult related literature and interactions and also tons of self help and guru stuff in the training datasets, it stands to reason that if you interact with a chatbot in a way that indicates vulnerability to these things there’s a considerable chance that it will decide the expected response is to prey on you.

Also Scott Aaronson jump scare near the beginning, apparently he was blurbed for something.

He absolutely does. No idea if it’s supposed to be a bit.

Good find, this is never-take-me-seriously stupid, and also does the beigeness thing of trying to gradually work around an accepted definition in order to almost make a point at the last minute, here being that since (we have apparently concluded that) (because of uh hypothetical brain surgery and stuff) accountability = improvability + punishability and nothing else so of course software can be held “accountable” in all the ways that matter.

His big mistake is not doing it at novel length so it’s really obvious that he’s being willfully stupid about it.

Is that the guy who’s always trying to use LessWrong as preemptive conversion therapy to cure him of having trans thoughts, and they’re actually having none of it?

Neither ‘untraceable’ nor ‘money’ describe crypto very well though, that’s just how it’s marketed.

I mean it’s so cut and dried you had to invent a disadvantage for pushing the red button.

Maybe the catch is that picking red means you are basically ok with offing people who don’t think like you do en masse, even though it’s posited like a dilemma between securing the lives of your family vs giving a chance to hypothetical people who are heavily OCD in favor of blue buttons.

If this isn’t pure engagement bait, what’s the real world situation this is supposed to map to? Pressing red means you always live, and if everyone pushes red everyone lives so…

I mean if blue is supposed to be a proxy for altruism, that usually doesn’t come with a certain death conditional.

Apparently, you buy some currency type thing called AI Units and this is the rate the different LLMs consume them. The multipliers used to represent requests I think, i.e. times you triggered inference, but ai units are a proxy for token burn in a somewhat vague way, which makes me think there will be rate limit related controversies similar to what’s now happening with anthropic.

Existing enterprise users will get double the AIUs for three months to ease them to the new pricing model, so autumn (when the enterprise AIU pools get effectively halved) is gonna be fun.

New copilot pricing just dropped, takes effect after June 1:

Some highlights for copilot pro and pro+:

ZSNES makes a comeback, has No Vibe Coding stipulation front and center.

most of them were not able to share their favourite brainworm without being infected by the others which were being passed around

The good old cultic milieu.

This makes so much sense, and also explains why siskind’s readers are fine with him being openly disingenuous sorry I meant amenable to straussian readings.