id stringlengths 17 17 | body stringlengths 0 19.5k | posted_at stringlengths 24 24 | karma int64 -6 185 | parent_comment_id stringlengths 17 17 ⌀ | post_id stringlengths 17 17 | post_title stringlengths 2 127 | post_slug stringlengths 2 61 | post_url stringlengths 20 146 | post_author stringclasses 214
values | post_posted_at stringlengths 24 24 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
JcdH7uMcdbicL6bFf | It doesn't say "during 2040", it says "before 2040". | 2024-09-12T00:37:26.454Z | 7 | GvDQFbzeigsbYS9sJ | 4kuXNhPf9FBwok7tK | AI forecasting bots incoming | ai-forecasting-bots-incoming | https://www.safe.ai/blog/forecasting | Dan H | 2024-09-09T19:14:31.050Z |
qLccD6pLhQnq9zeXZ | I'd also add that a high fraction of these costs won't be increased if you improve cyber crime productivity (by e.g. 10%). As in, maybe a high fraction of the costs are due to the possiblity of very low effort cyber crime (analogous to the cashier case).
And Fabien's original motivation was more closely related to thi... | 2024-09-27T20:32:02.081Z | 10 | MmzibToAQaFHN6EjW | KLDc5JuQZLiimB58b | Is cybercrime really costing trillions per year? | is-cybercrime-really-costing-trillions-per-year | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KLDc5JuQZLiimB58b/is-cybercrime-really-costing-trillions-per-year | Fabien Roger | 2024-09-27T08:44:07.621Z |
sGJfhhWgdDYw48qbC | I don't love "smooth" vs "sharp" because these words don't naturally point at what seem to me to be the key concept: the duration from the first AI capable of being [transformatively useful](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kcKrE9mzEHrdqtDpE/the-case-for-ensuring-that-powerful-ais-are-controlled#Control_is_likely_achiev... | 2024-09-29T02:36:02.441Z | 46 | null | 6svEwNBhokQ83qMBz | "Slow" takeoff is a terrible term for "maybe even faster takeoff, actually" | slow-takeoff-is-a-terrible-term-for-maybe-even-faster | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6svEwNBhokQ83qMBz/slow-takeoff-is-a-terrible-term-for-maybe-even-faster | Raemon | 2024-09-28T23:38:25.512Z |
9BijEkmHFLjpKoNHx | Long duration/short duration takeoff | 2024-09-29T02:41:00.314Z | 2 | rhoFrebAgbd2XzYv5 | 6svEwNBhokQ83qMBz | "Slow" takeoff is a terrible term for "maybe even faster takeoff, actually" | slow-takeoff-is-a-terrible-term-for-maybe-even-faster | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6svEwNBhokQ83qMBz/slow-takeoff-is-a-terrible-term-for-maybe-even-faster | Raemon | 2024-09-28T23:38:25.512Z |
sSBStJps5K5MAChSy | > But, I also think that variable is captured by saying "smooth takeoff/long timelines?" (which is approximately what people are currently saying?
You can have smooth and short takeoff with long timelines. E.g., imagine that scaling works all the way to ASI, but requires a ton of baremetal flop (e.g. 1e34) implying lo... | 2024-09-29T03:38:27.311Z | 6 | Dri5YtMsE5c8AitX6 | 6svEwNBhokQ83qMBz | "Slow" takeoff is a terrible term for "maybe even faster takeoff, actually" | slow-takeoff-is-a-terrible-term-for-maybe-even-faster | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6svEwNBhokQ83qMBz/slow-takeoff-is-a-terrible-term-for-maybe-even-faster | Raemon | 2024-09-28T23:38:25.512Z |
3jpcMofEkSXpakB4b | I think we're pretty likely to see a smooth and short takeoff with ASI prior to 2029. Now, imagine that you were making this exactly prediction up through 2029 in 2000. From the perspective in 2000, you are exactly predicting smooth and short takeoff with long timelines!
So, I think this is actually a pretty natural p... | 2024-09-29T03:40:56.386Z | 5 | sSBStJps5K5MAChSy | 6svEwNBhokQ83qMBz | "Slow" takeoff is a terrible term for "maybe even faster takeoff, actually" | slow-takeoff-is-a-terrible-term-for-maybe-even-faster | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6svEwNBhokQ83qMBz/slow-takeoff-is-a-terrible-term-for-maybe-even-faster | Raemon | 2024-09-28T23:38:25.512Z |
nTPkKDoAAHskJmviD | Long takeoff and short takeoff sound strange to me. Maybe because they are too close to long timelines and short timelines. | 2024-09-29T03:45:55.070Z | 4 | Dri5YtMsE5c8AitX6 | 6svEwNBhokQ83qMBz | "Slow" takeoff is a terrible term for "maybe even faster takeoff, actually" | slow-takeoff-is-a-terrible-term-for-maybe-even-faster | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6svEwNBhokQ83qMBz/slow-takeoff-is-a-terrible-term-for-maybe-even-faster | Raemon | 2024-09-28T23:38:25.512Z |
uHQSNqRSJfcWnTFKm | > 'like the industrial revolution but 100x faster'
Actually, much more extreme than the industrial revolution because at the end of the singularity you'll probably discover a huge fraction of all technology and be able to quickly multiply energy production by a billion.
That said, I think Paul expects a timeframe lon... | 2024-09-29T16:40:30.980Z | 5 | 7Fx4pLAsqo6A76pGf | 6svEwNBhokQ83qMBz | "Slow" takeoff is a terrible term for "maybe even faster takeoff, actually" | slow-takeoff-is-a-terrible-term-for-maybe-even-faster | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6svEwNBhokQ83qMBz/slow-takeoff-is-a-terrible-term-for-maybe-even-faster | Raemon | 2024-09-28T23:38:25.512Z |
nYDH3LkyQgEtMpAJZ | I find this essay interesting as a case study in discourse and argumentation norms. Particularly as a case study of issues with discourse around AI risk.
When I first skimmed this essay when it came out, I thought it was ok, but mostly uninteresting or obvious. Then, on reading the comments and looking back at the bod... | 2024-09-29T19:03:40.680Z | 57 | null | LvKDMWQ3yLG9R3gHw | 'Empiricism!' as Anti-Epistemology | empiricism-as-anti-epistemology | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LvKDMWQ3yLG9R3gHw/empiricism-as-anti-epistemology | Eliezer Yudkowsky | 2024-03-14T02:02:59.723Z |
2Q24vNtzyGkhBQYpP | What are the close-by arguments that are actually reasonable? Here is a list of close-by arguments (not necessarily endorsed by me!):
- **On empirical updates from current systems**: If current AI systems are broadly pretty easy to steer and there is good generalization of this steering, that should serve as some evid... | 2024-09-29T19:04:10.202Z | 11 | nYDH3LkyQgEtMpAJZ | LvKDMWQ3yLG9R3gHw | 'Empiricism!' as Anti-Epistemology | empiricism-as-anti-epistemology | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LvKDMWQ3yLG9R3gHw/empiricism-as-anti-epistemology | Eliezer Yudkowsky | 2024-03-14T02:02:59.723Z |
XgmzbyHoeF4BYPvqL | I don't think "continuous" is self-evident or consistently used to refer to "a longer gap from human-expert level AI to very superhuman AI". For instance, in the very essay you link, Tom argues that "continuous" (and fairly predictable) doesn't imply that this gap is long! | 2024-09-29T19:10:07.474Z | 9 | omSfZMziRwx3G8vYy | dHrTjywTTfKJZ5TQL | COT Scaling implies slower takeoff speeds | cot-scaling-implies-slower-takeoff-speeds | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dHrTjywTTfKJZ5TQL/cot-scaling-implies-slower-takeoff-speeds | Logan Zoellner | 2024-09-28T16:20:00.320Z |
xQWSbQ68Q75Mp9Edt | This is a great post on the topic which I ~~pretty much entirely~~ mostly agree with. Thanks for writing this so I didn't have to!
> I think the argument presented in this post is a pretty strong case against "The AI will kill literally everyone with more than 80% probability", so I wish people either stopped saying t... | 2024-09-29T20:25:10.469Z | 16 | null | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
8np8ySapyCjXSw8RB | I also don't think making any commitment is actually needed or important except under relatively narrow assumptions. | 2024-09-29T20:27:54.208Z | 10 | 6Lf3gkdpWnTNyPDAJ | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
ePmLCsrASz2K9S9zH | > we have the proposal of simulating smaller Universes and less coordinated humans, which makes the AI think that the simulators might be richer and have a better chance of solving alignment
This only matters if the AIs are CDT or dumb about decision theory etc. | 2024-09-30T00:18:29.857Z | 2 | qavmddaLzKCeevSJr | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
HETwZubqshjfEfFpL | > their force of course depends on the degree to which you think alignment is easy or hard.
I think even if aliens similar to humans always fail at alignment, it's plausible that this type of scheme saves some humans because more competent aliens bail us out.[^before] This is even less good to depend on...
[^before]... | 2024-09-30T00:25:21.392Z | 4 | pvwtQTHNdmz5tpPTH | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
T8jLe3tsKeSmBtBwe | > acausal trade framework rest on the assumption that we are in a (quantum or Tegmark) multiverse
I think the argument should also go through without simulations and without the multiverse so long as you are a UDT-ish agent with a reasonable prior. | 2024-09-30T00:37:13.150Z | 6 | J3ubhnhe2dvZbZ8Y6 | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
F7Ez3wseFNoktTBwF | To be clear, I think the exact scheme in [A proposal for humanity in the future](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your#A_proposal_for_humanity_in_the_Future) probably doesn't work as described because the exact level of payment is wrong and more mi... | 2024-09-30T01:01:25.954Z | 4 | xQWSbQ68Q75Mp9Edt | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
KzTnpADWW7fYmrCag | I agree that Nate's post makes good arguments against AIs spending a high fraction of resources on being nice or on stuff we like (and that this is an important question). And it also debunks some bad arguments against small fractions. But the post really seems to be trying to argue against small fractions in general:
... | 2024-09-30T01:33:02.101Z | 4 | gSoPjSqvoJMfyxJrS | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
XXviraNeaa5v4BbyE | > However, do I still understand correctly that spinning the quantum wheel should just work, and it's not one branch of human civilization that needs to simulate all the possible AIs, right?
This is my understanding. | 2024-09-30T01:35:10.691Z | 3 | mpdufAmbRsEvq4Yt9 | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
nmPft9JxugYkjfxBc | Another way to put this is that posts should often discuss their limitations, particular when debunking bad arguments that are similar to more reasonable arguments.
I think discussing limitations clearly is a reasonable norm for scientific papers that reduces the extent to which people intentionally or unintentionally... | 2024-09-30T01:37:44.604Z | 15 | nYDH3LkyQgEtMpAJZ | LvKDMWQ3yLG9R3gHw | 'Empiricism!' as Anti-Epistemology | empiricism-as-anti-epistemology | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LvKDMWQ3yLG9R3gHw/empiricism-as-anti-epistemology | Eliezer Yudkowsky | 2024-03-14T02:02:59.723Z |
ugGBcrDvumZudBLEJ | I think we should have a norm that you should explain the limitations of the debunking when debunking bad arguments, particularly if there are stronger arguments that sound similar to the bad argument.
A more basic norm is that you shouldn't claim or strongly imply that your post is strong evidence against something w... | 2024-09-30T01:48:31.569Z | 28 | gSoPjSqvoJMfyxJrS | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
se2YKGAyhLcZHsFMK | Notably, David is proposing that AIs take different actions prior to making powerful sims: not kill all the humans. | 2024-09-30T03:26:50.884Z | 2 | pwqybpihvvyRoKox6 | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
Luug5CTZrFdG7AZAP | Yes, but most of the expected cost is in keeping the humans alive/happy prior to being really smart.
This cost presumably goes way down if it kills everyone physically and scans their brains, but people obviously don't want this. | 2024-09-30T15:14:56.612Z | 2 | FnnyDhaLhp7igaD7i | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
vysHsvNZLv9PRebva | Note that we don't want the AI to hand over the reins to humans, just to avoid killing humans when possible/cheap and we're willing to pay quite a bit for this (in the proposal, IDK if I personally think we should pay). So, it should look like a good offer for AIs who care about Tegmark IV (with a measure etc).
So, i... | 2024-09-30T15:30:05.698Z | 12 | mgxPyiFE8CqJHeph5 | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
PddExgQEwFDLSfBuw | I agree that it is kind of insane for an AGI which cares about scope sensitive resources to treat sims in this way and thus we should expect a more sensible decision theory.
> Introducing the option of creating lots of simulations of your adversary in the future where you win doesn’t seem like it’d change the result ... | 2024-09-30T15:48:06.280Z | 5 | d46wNMrAHtqZQNxgj | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
F5bjJo4hApRKFPiQ4 | This proposal doesn't depend on mugging the AI. The proposal actually gets the AI more resources in expectation due to a trade.
I agree the post is a bit confusing and unclear about this. (And the proposal under "Can we get more than this" is wrong. At a minimum, such AIs will also be mugged by everyone else too meani... | 2024-09-30T15:49:20.950Z | 2 | h57B9ufmJBMKFAXrX | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
z5fXrEADdPEmeTsBi | Let's conservatively say that evolved life gets around 1% of the multiverse/measure and that evolved life is willing to pay 1/million of its resources in expectation to save aliens from being killed (either "selfishly" to save their own civilization via UDT/FDT supposing that AIs are good enough predictors at the relev... | 2024-09-30T16:01:25.648Z | 2 | djsDxRnx7cMoochKn | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
zN6BtY9Xsz3qcm7nn | Some more notes:
- We shouldn't expect that we get a huge win from AIs which are anthropically muggable, as discussed in [Can we get more than this?](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your?commentId=djsDxRnx7cMoochKn#Can_we_get_more_than_this_), b... | 2024-09-30T16:17:09.203Z | 4 | xQWSbQ68Q75Mp9Edt | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
R4wQusHjbTwNijw6s | No, it is in the AIs best interest to keep humans alive because this gets it more stuff. | 2024-09-30T16:18:04.614Z | 2 | sFC8Sgjpz2AYSGTsf | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
Fjf6Yhqwr3aqLBcdx | You said "shouldn't just do what's clearly in his best interests", I was responding to that. | 2024-09-30T17:15:30.374Z | 4 | 9gmJ3vujmDMkyzhNx | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
LQ9cg9vZKog9x5KmR | > in full generality, as opposed to (e.g.) focusing on their bretheren. (And I see no UDT/FDT justification for them to pay for even the particularly foolish and doomed aliens to be saved, and I'm not sure what you were aluding to there.)
>
> [...]
>
> rather than concentrating their resources on creatures more similar... | 2024-09-30T18:08:27.644Z | 6 | DG5eksbSxRBnoGLD7 | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
ef3qzHeAF2HCguSKd | > Towards one extreme, you have the literal people who literally died, before they have branched much; these branches need to happen close to the last minute.
By "last minute", you mean "after I existed" right? So, e.g., if I care about genetic copies, that would be after I am born and if I care about contingent life... | 2024-09-30T18:19:58.701Z | 2 | QddJtRioiWWt6J3jk | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
NwXEpdN6WHfMXLGFQ | > will the surviving branches of humanity (near or distant), or other kind civilizations throughout the multiverse, have enough resources on offer to pay for a human reserve here?
Nate and I discuss this question [in this other thread](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-una... | 2024-09-30T18:24:28.856Z | 4 | GGXEb8cqouvjutKsn | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
kEqimyJD8qrpmvzXp | > But trouble arises when the competant ones can refine P(takeover) for the various planets by thinking a little further.
Similar to how the trouble arises when you learn the result of the coin flip in a [counterfactual mugging](https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/counterfactual-mugging)? To make it exactly analogous, imagi... | 2024-09-30T18:48:00.960Z | 4 | rBrcqRxNh4jtwvBJM | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
rCGpAZbxGTC8mjctn | Hmm, maybe I misunderstood your point. I thought you were talking about using simulations to anthropically capture AIs. As in, creating more observer moments where AIs take over less competent civilizations but are actually in a simulation run by us.
If you're happy to replace "simulation" with "prediction in a way th... | 2024-09-30T22:10:43.809Z | 2 | NaXt2fiu9HpDSJYeX | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
TLAiRvrT3FkauRcCr | I probably won't respond further than this. Some responses to your comment:
---
I agree with your statements about the nature of UDT/FDT. I often talk about "things you would have commited to" because it is simpler to reason about and easier for people to understand (and I care about third parties understanding this... | 2024-09-30T22:42:33.828Z | 7 | KbtGWj6euDdCvXRvN | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
BQjJ62RGXidyBCsSe | > I agree that "not dying in a base universe" is a more reasonable thing to care about than "proving people right that takeoff is slow" but I feel like both lines of argument that you bring up here are doing something where you take a perspective on the world that is very computationalist, unituitive and therefore take... | 2024-10-01T00:26:14.415Z | 4 | 6PegBSdcA3dz3MjeC | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
3dg3HsJKGNLfRy2rM | (I mostly care about long term future and scope sensitive resource use like habryka TBC.)
Sure, we can amend to:
"I believe that AI takeover would eliminate humanity's control over its future, has a high probability of killing billions, and should be strongly avoided."
---
We could also say something like "AI takeo... | 2024-10-01T01:24:55.526Z | 4 | 8uzgPMh9MEE4dGodk | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
xffc8ffKXWTT4YF99 | > And I think this is also true by the vast majority of common-sense ethical views. People care about the future of humanity. "Saving the world" is hugely more important than preventing the marginal atrocity. Outside of EA I have never actually met a welfarist who only cares about present humans. People of course thin... | 2024-10-01T01:29:22.272Z | 2 | 8uzgPMh9MEE4dGodk | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
HGvxDGXJWSx9se8h3 | At a more basic level, I think the situation is just actually much more confusing than human extinction in a bunch of ways.
(Separately, under my views misaligned AI takeover seems *worse* than human extinction due to (e.g.) biorisk. This is because primates or other closely related seem very likely to re-evolve into ... | 2024-10-01T01:31:40.730Z | 4 | xffc8ffKXWTT4YF99 | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
nyCh4o9y7GiMqxQxt | Thanks, this seems like a reasonable summary of the proposal and a reasonable place to wrap.
I agree that kindness is more likely to buy human survival than something better described as trade/insurance schemes, though I think the insurance schemes are reasonably likely to matter.
(That is, reasonably likely to matte... | 2024-10-01T07:04:34.157Z | 6 | WhqrAXvmuD4YdNDtS | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
z3wdu7vGjTibsaWdz | Here is another more narrow way to put this argument:
- Let's say Nate is 35 (arbitrary guess).
- Let's say that branches which deviated 35 years ago would pay for our branch (and other branches in our reference class). The case for this is that many people are over 50 (thus existing in both branches), and care about ... | 2024-10-01T19:00:41.400Z | 4 | DjbCDNaE8FohwWpFs | ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj | You can, in fact, bamboozle an unaligned AI into sparing your life | you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZLAnH5epD8TmotZHj/you-can-in-fact-bamboozle-an-unaligned-ai-into-sparing-your | David Matolcsi | 2024-09-29T16:59:43.942Z |
GiCyswWvngrsaHk2c | (Oops, slow reply)
> If SLT were to say nontrivial things about what instruction fine-tuning and RLHF are doing to models, and those things were verified in experiments, would that shift your skepticism?
If SLT results in interesting predictions in some case or was generally able to notably improve our ability to pr... | 2024-10-03T23:31:27.224Z | 14 | a9jdQxyG4LQfrDZN5 | CmcarN6fGgTGwGuFp | Dialogue introduction to Singular Learning Theory | dialogue-introduction-to-singular-learning-theory | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CmcarN6fGgTGwGuFp/dialogue-introduction-to-singular-learning-theory | Olli Järviniemi | 2024-07-08T16:58:10.108Z |
m8ScYhZmeenT6tc3y | The "Shoggoth-Face" idea seems pretty good[^name].
One issue is that you might still have selection pressure early in training on the Shoggoth to hide reasoning as the Face hasn't yet learned to robustly hide stuff which would be punished.
One thing is that I might try to address this is to directly train the Face to... | 2024-10-08T18:39:24.467Z | 16 | MyypbEafojmzW59Qp | TecsCZ7w8s4e2umm4 | 5 ways to improve CoT faithfulness | 5-ways-to-improve-cot-faithfulness | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TecsCZ7w8s4e2umm4/5-ways-to-improve-cot-faithfulness | Caleb Biddulph | 2024-10-05T20:17:12.637Z |
3gczGJtmApfaEE6D8 | In case Joshua Achiam ends up reading this post, my question for him is:
My understanding is that you think P(misaligned AGI will kill all humans by 2032) is extremely low, like 1e-6.
Is this because:
- We won't have AGI by 2032?
- Much-smarter-than-human AIs could takeover, but not AGI and much-smarter-than-human A... | 2024-10-10T17:47:46.079Z | 18 | null | WavWheRLhxnofKHva | Joshua Achiam Public Statement Analysis | joshua-achiam-public-statement-analysis | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WavWheRLhxnofKHva/joshua-achiam-public-statement-analysis | Zvi | 2024-10-10T12:50:06.285Z |
6KhyMiL5YxkG9tna8 | Eliezer did not call for enforcement via nuclear war. He said that:
> Make it explicit in international diplomacy that preventing AI extinction scenarios is considered a priority above preventing a full nuclear exchange, and that allied nuclear countries are willing to run some risk of nuclear exchange if that’s what ... | 2024-10-10T17:52:14.597Z | 16 | ZQ8LcPAQQgHz7o6cd | WavWheRLhxnofKHva | Joshua Achiam Public Statement Analysis | joshua-achiam-public-statement-analysis | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WavWheRLhxnofKHva/joshua-achiam-public-statement-analysis | Zvi | 2024-10-10T12:50:06.285Z |
iBqnnv7SdgafxZ5TW | > Violently enforcing certain particularly important principles on non-signatories is entirely within the norm
True as stated, though I'm not aware of examples of this being enforced on non-signatories which are nuclear powers. This is just quantitatively riskier, not a notable change in norms.
And I agree this seem... | 2024-10-10T17:58:55.875Z | 8 | JZDJbFoRBvGQWLLQv | WavWheRLhxnofKHva | Joshua Achiam Public Statement Analysis | joshua-achiam-public-statement-analysis | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WavWheRLhxnofKHva/joshua-achiam-public-statement-analysis | Zvi | 2024-10-10T12:50:06.285Z |
iF8f8Fp38LAREs4mz | Sorry, I actually meant "not a notable change in norms". I agree that it is quantiatively much costlier from the perspective of the US. | 2024-10-10T18:10:01.494Z | 2 | kTJcvM2mGHj7ivJeo | WavWheRLhxnofKHva | Joshua Achiam Public Statement Analysis | joshua-achiam-public-statement-analysis | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WavWheRLhxnofKHva/joshua-achiam-public-statement-analysis | Zvi | 2024-10-10T12:50:06.285Z |
xGEi4mJyiSJDHaeKR | I agree that it is norms violating for a country to respond to a conventional strike on their datacenter with a nuclear response. This is different from the statement that the conventional strike from the other country is norms violating.
I don't think conventional strikes on military assets of nuclear power are that ... | 2024-10-10T18:14:06.817Z | 8 | ftNgrYuBxAxW8QNvS | WavWheRLhxnofKHva | Joshua Achiam Public Statement Analysis | joshua-achiam-public-statement-analysis | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WavWheRLhxnofKHva/joshua-achiam-public-statement-analysis | Zvi | 2024-10-10T12:50:06.285Z |
kehHqCAwsFQYXhcya | This essay doesn't seem very good in terms of making accurate predictions about the future.
I wish Dario answered questions like "if we let things go as fast as possible, what will the curve of energy production or industrial production look like" or "how plausible is it that AIs can quickly bootstrap to nanotech and ... | 2024-10-12T00:00:16.768Z | 123 | null | DxvzLngnWHhvdCGLf | Dario Amodei — Machines of Loving Grace | dario-amodei-machines-of-loving-grace | https://darioamodei.com/machines-of-loving-grace#basic-assumptions-and-framework | Matrice Jacobine | 2024-10-11T21:43:31.448Z |
BYnJgaCHXX3FvtiGe | Actually >1e6 was my conservative guess even without reversible computing.
Claude claimed that Landauer Limit is 2e8 times more efficient than current GPUs (A100). (I didn't check Claude, I just asked 3.5 sonnet "How far are modern GPUs from theoretical energy efficiency for non-reversible computing?" and got this ans... | 2024-10-12T01:20:13.338Z | 10 | FtjkrFLHSLoaftaL2 | DxvzLngnWHhvdCGLf | Dario Amodei — Machines of Loving Grace | dario-amodei-machines-of-loving-grace | https://darioamodei.com/machines-of-loving-grace#basic-assumptions-and-framework | Matrice Jacobine | 2024-10-11T21:43:31.448Z |
8qq8fHaL5Jk9wXsbQ | The setup here implies a empirical (but conceptually tricky) research direction: try to take two different AIs trained to both do the same prediction task (e.g. predict next tokens of webtext) and try to correspond their internal structure in some way.
It's a bit unclear to me what the desiderata for this research sho... | 2024-10-15T00:53:55.478Z | 20 | null | uJvKLDSSYA4y7vzyx | Minimal Motivation of Natural Latents | minimal-motivation-of-natural-latents | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uJvKLDSSYA4y7vzyx/minimal-motivation-of-natural-latents | johnswentworth | 2024-10-14T22:51:58.125Z |
FMbpFAgJtKYgShPiJ | I agree on abandoning various specifics, but I would note that the new standard is much more specific (less vague) on what needs to be defended against and what the validation process and threat modeling process should be.
(E.g., rather than "non-state actors", the RSP more specifically says which groups are and aren'... | 2024-10-15T22:05:08.478Z | 11 | DG93HAcFHsr7E3dpz | KrYNqLkaCnBdHpZAs | Anthropic rewrote its RSP | anthropic-rewrote-its-rsp | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KrYNqLkaCnBdHpZAs/anthropic-rewrote-its-rsp | Zach Stein-Perlman | 2024-10-15T14:25:12.518Z |
nMGtv4MQuLCdhGH8x | Hmm, I looked through the relevant text and I think Evan is basically right here? It's a bit confusing though.
---
[The Anthropic RSP V1.0](https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/1adf000c8f675958c2ee23805d91aaade1cd4613/responsible-scaling-policy.pdf) says:
> The model shows early signs of autonomous self-replication ability... | 2024-10-16T04:17:32.443Z | 12 | 3qpgpa3bhXygbeprc | KrYNqLkaCnBdHpZAs | Anthropic rewrote its RSP | anthropic-rewrote-its-rsp | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KrYNqLkaCnBdHpZAs/anthropic-rewrote-its-rsp | Zach Stein-Perlman | 2024-10-15T14:25:12.518Z |
X9MSL52jtKHoL3xmR | > humanity as a whole probably doesn't want things to get incredibly crazy so fast, and so we're likely to see something tamer
Doesn't this require a pretty strong and unprecedented level of international coordination on stopping an obviously immediately extremely valuable and militarily relevent technology? I think a... | 2024-10-18T16:07:33.910Z | 21 | oejpcMryqrJbymsJK | DxvzLngnWHhvdCGLf | Dario Amodei — Machines of Loving Grace | dario-amodei-machines-of-loving-grace | https://darioamodei.com/machines-of-loving-grace#basic-assumptions-and-framework | Matrice Jacobine | 2024-10-11T21:43:31.448Z |
jtw34wJQhJ5haJDNi | > My guess would be that they're not saying that well-designed control evaluations become untrustworthy
It's a bit messy because we have some ability to check whether we should be able to evaluate things.
So, there are really three relevant "failure" states for well done control:
1. We can't find countermeasures suc... | 2024-10-21T04:55:52.777Z | 6 | vBeDEAgeB6Rpwqx87 | nnvn6kaBLajiicH8e | Sabotage Evaluations for Frontier Models | sabotage-evaluations-for-frontier-models | https://assets.anthropic.com/m/377027d5b36ac1eb/original/Sabotage-Evaluations-for-Frontier-Models.pdf | David Duvenaud | 2024-10-18T22:33:14.320Z |
F22oqrkgm8a4TvXXc | I'm sympathetic to 'a high fraction of "alignment/safety" work done at AI companies is done due to commercial incentives and has negligible effect on AI takeover risk (or at least much smaller effects than work which isn't influenced by commercial incentives)'.
I also think a decent number of ostensibly AI x-risk focu... | 2024-10-21T16:18:05.327Z | 26 | null | h4wXMXneTPDEjJ7nv | A Rocket–Interpretability Analogy | a-rocket-interpretability-analogy | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/h4wXMXneTPDEjJ7nv/a-rocket-interpretability-analogy | plex | 2024-10-21T13:55:18.184Z |
sctmLPCtwuiPA4i7e | > I think the primary commercial incentive on mechanistic interpretability research is that it's the alignment research that most provides training and education to become a standard ML engineer who can then contribute to commercial objectives.
Is your claim here that a major factor in why Anthropic and GDM do mech in... | 2024-10-21T17:53:42.735Z | 11 | md7QvniMyx3vYqeyD | h4wXMXneTPDEjJ7nv | A Rocket–Interpretability Analogy | a-rocket-interpretability-analogy | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/h4wXMXneTPDEjJ7nv/a-rocket-interpretability-analogy | plex | 2024-10-21T13:55:18.184Z |
XhcuJn8FjgmJuTDBe | I'm pretty skeptical that Neel's MATS stream is partially supported/subsidized by GDM's desire to generally hire for capabilities . (And I certainly don't think they directly fund this.) Same for other mech interp hiring at GDM, I doubt that anyone is thinking "these mech interp employees might convert into employees f... | 2024-10-21T19:27:28.319Z | 10 | GRJkrnLqpHAEgFiyi | h4wXMXneTPDEjJ7nv | A Rocket–Interpretability Analogy | a-rocket-interpretability-analogy | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/h4wXMXneTPDEjJ7nv/a-rocket-interpretability-analogy | plex | 2024-10-21T13:55:18.184Z |
e5Ts2JM55nbLwN9uP | (I think random (non-leadership) GDM employees generally have a lot of freedom while employees of other companies have much less in-practice freedom (except for maybe longer time OpenAI employees who I think have a lot of freedom).) | 2024-10-21T21:29:17.154Z | 4 | PG8QRiN7gLXMbLWvx | h4wXMXneTPDEjJ7nv | A Rocket–Interpretability Analogy | a-rocket-interpretability-analogy | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/h4wXMXneTPDEjJ7nv/a-rocket-interpretability-analogy | plex | 2024-10-21T13:55:18.184Z |
aHMSvxDcQyNzvJQBH | (Huh, good to know this changed. I wasn't aware of this.) | 2024-10-22T01:18:34.996Z | 2 | kmBSZ4aRQ3bHvxpTu | h4wXMXneTPDEjJ7nv | A Rocket–Interpretability Analogy | a-rocket-interpretability-analogy | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/h4wXMXneTPDEjJ7nv/a-rocket-interpretability-analogy | plex | 2024-10-21T13:55:18.184Z |
9cmyvERuMgmmxnd74 | Our evaluations indicate that we have very poor levels of safety (e.g. the AI would probably be able to escape if it wanted to) and we can't find countermeasures which suffice to ensure any level of safety (without basically giving up on using this model). | 2024-10-22T17:11:55.225Z | 3 | GYf5qmCagNtRWyG4h | nnvn6kaBLajiicH8e | Sabotage Evaluations for Frontier Models | sabotage-evaluations-for-frontier-models | https://assets.anthropic.com/m/377027d5b36ac1eb/original/Sabotage-Evaluations-for-Frontier-Models.pdf | David Duvenaud | 2024-10-18T22:33:14.320Z |
fSduBe6fva93Ndepb | > I think your internal usage restrictions are wildly unaffordable
Sure, but note that Evan says "Lifting those internal usage restrictions requires an affirmative safety case (as specified below) for safe internal usage."
I don't think it is (clearly) wildly unaffordable to require an affirmative safety case prior t... | 2024-10-23T15:51:14.441Z | 9 | EwPEMoYBjHorJsp3M | Loxiuqdj6u8muCe54 | Catastrophic sabotage as a major threat model for human-level AI systems | catastrophic-sabotage-as-a-major-threat-model-for-human | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Loxiuqdj6u8muCe54/catastrophic-sabotage-as-a-major-threat-model-for-human | evhub | 2024-10-22T20:57:11.395Z |
7XmC9FvzFdJrKhprv | I would say that the "internal use restrictions" are just an ad hoc control argument and I'd prefer to explicitly think about it like that. But, it is worth noting that if you are sufficiently conservative in the deployment (as Evan describes), then I think it would be fine to make a very minimal safety case.
Here is ... | 2024-10-23T16:02:34.180Z | 6 | fSduBe6fva93Ndepb | Loxiuqdj6u8muCe54 | Catastrophic sabotage as a major threat model for human-level AI systems | catastrophic-sabotage-as-a-major-threat-model-for-human | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Loxiuqdj6u8muCe54/catastrophic-sabotage-as-a-major-threat-model-for-human | evhub | 2024-10-22T20:57:11.395Z |
HH4rRoZdBAKmrcRdj | This paper seems like a great first stab at starting to answer [very important questions about scalable oversight sample efficiency](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6AT4vhYzww56CR6cm/scalable-oversight-as-a-quantitative-rather-than-qualitative) (at least for non-scheming models). Better understanding of sample effiicie... | 2024-10-24T19:12:04.648Z | 7 | null | iA87ke4so2eqiJfsi | Balancing Label Quantity and Quality for Scalable Elicitation | balancing-label-quantity-and-quality-for-scalable | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/iA87ke4so2eqiJfsi/balancing-label-quantity-and-quality-for-scalable | Alex Mallen | 2024-10-24T16:49:00.939Z |
2gBsST9mgg2zhFZ3g | Counting the number of papers isn't going to be a good strategy.
I do think total research outside of labs looks competitive with research from labs and probably research done outside of labs has produced more ~~differential~~ safety progress in total.
I also think open weight models are probably good so far in terms... | 2024-10-24T23:54:22.508Z | 10 | prxdMM2LeEkZzKZkR | LmhpAyCn8Xpqfwvhb | IAPS: Mapping Technical Safety Research at AI Companies | iaps-mapping-technical-safety-research-at-ai-companies | https://www.iaps.ai/research/mapping-technical-safety-research-at-ai-companies | Zach Stein-Perlman | 2024-10-24T20:30:41.159Z |
hq9KDxo84ExHn9Ke8 | I'm just talking about research intended to be safety/safety-adjacent. As in, of this research, what has the quality weighted differential safety progress been.
Probably the word "differential" was just a mistake. | 2024-10-25T18:12:19.514Z | 5 | LJ37iKrkKzvMteRcY | LmhpAyCn8Xpqfwvhb | IAPS: Mapping Technical Safety Research at AI Companies | iaps-mapping-technical-safety-research-at-ai-companies | https://www.iaps.ai/research/mapping-technical-safety-research-at-ai-companies | Zach Stein-Perlman | 2024-10-24T20:30:41.159Z |
hHi98JKBrpg4Y2CWW | It depends on the type of transparency.
Requirements which just involve informing one part of the government (say US AISI) in ways which don't cost much personnel time mostly have the effect of potentially making the government much more aware at some point. I think this is probably good, but presumably labs would pre... | 2024-10-26T20:36:43.381Z | 6 | f7YdvLvHYqgsHimYq | FDBrNMJ8fyx3TB9rt | What AI companies should do: Some rough ideas | what-ai-companies-should-do-some-rough-ideas | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FDBrNMJ8fyx3TB9rt/what-ai-companies-should-do-some-rough-ideas | Zach Stein-Perlman | 2024-10-21T14:00:10.412Z |
W6NwyRFrRCcEzx9vL | Somewhat off-topic, but isn't this a non-example:
> We have strong evidence that interesting semantic features exist in superposition
I think a more accurate statement would be "We have a strong evidence that neurons don't do a single 'thing' (either in the human ontology or in any other natural ontology)" combined w... | 2024-10-27T01:01:36.795Z | 8 | zzg26HXcX7FN9nAzS | ztokaf9harKTmRcn4 | A bird's eye view of ARC's research | a-bird-s-eye-view-of-arc-s-research | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ztokaf9harKTmRcn4/a-bird-s-eye-view-of-arc-s-research | Jacob_Hilton | 2024-10-23T15:50:06.123Z |
ByyCiDEmQAnkvArJp | > it turns out that enforcing sparsity (and doing an SAE) gives better interp scores than doing PCA
It's not clear to me this is true exactly. As in, suppose I want to explain as much of what a transformer is doing as possible with some amount of time. Would I better off looking at PCA features vs SAE features?
Yes, ... | 2024-10-27T02:29:05.706Z | 3 | WnbNfsRxAJv4SNccs | ztokaf9harKTmRcn4 | A bird's eye view of ARC's research | a-bird-s-eye-view-of-arc-s-research | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ztokaf9harKTmRcn4/a-bird-s-eye-view-of-arc-s-research | Jacob_Hilton | 2024-10-23T15:50:06.123Z |
q8MrZgadJnRJLLQRj | I do think this was reasonably though not totally predictable ex-ante, but I agree. | 2024-10-27T02:32:23.958Z | 2 | fotqcRL3hDLMKHvpP | ztokaf9harKTmRcn4 | A bird's eye view of ARC's research | a-bird-s-eye-view-of-arc-s-research | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ztokaf9harKTmRcn4/a-bird-s-eye-view-of-arc-s-research | Jacob_Hilton | 2024-10-23T15:50:06.123Z |
ixSnsM6cPZdp9maiW | Joe's argument here would actually be locally valid if we changed:
> a sufficient number of IQ 100 agents with sufficient time can do anything that an IQ 101 agent can do
to:
>a sufficient number of IQ 100 agents with sufficient time can do anything that some number of IQ 101 agents can do eventually
We can see why... | 2024-10-30T00:46:18.593Z | 10 | uKsqfoGrLYAyYjRbn | iDRxuJyte6xvppCa3 | How might we solve the alignment problem? (Part 1: Intro, summary, ontology) | how-might-we-solve-the-alignment-problem-part-1-intro | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/iDRxuJyte6xvppCa3/how-might-we-solve-the-alignment-problem-part-1-intro | Joe Carlsmith | 2024-10-28T21:57:12.063Z |
pJ6Ynw7bXFZKwL8hf | All of these operationalizations are about exact notions from the training setup.
Another important notion is revealed identity:
- Does the AI think of the other AI as "itself" to the extent that it thinks about stuff like this at all?
- Do the AIs cooperate in a way which is reasonably similar to cooperating with yo... | 2024-11-04T19:17:17.040Z | 4 | null | 4j6HJt8Exowmqp245 | Different senses in which two AIs can be “the same” | different-senses-in-which-two-ais-can-be-the-same | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4j6HJt8Exowmqp245/different-senses-in-which-two-ais-can-be-the-same | Vivek Hebbar | 2024-06-24T03:16:43.400Z |
Y9Fv2HwFGgyJ8Nu7q | No IMO.
(I'm also skeptical of competitiveness with expert jailbreakers, but this isn't a crux. Edit: It does seem to be competitive with Scale's jailbreakers, but I think some human jailbreakers are much better and I expect the gap is more stark for harder to jailbreak models.) | 2024-11-04T21:48:42.534Z | 4 | RJgHw7xfBAE8WXDNQ | vYWDEtJ2b8tkbG7Rv | Behavioral red-teaming is unlikely to produce clear, strong evidence that models aren't scheming | behavioral-red-teaming-is-unlikely-to-produce-clear-strong | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vYWDEtJ2b8tkbG7Rv/behavioral-red-teaming-is-unlikely-to-produce-clear-strong | Buck | 2024-10-10T13:36:53.810Z |
fN5dMfrhfXpKASsPw | > You can use the first X% of scenarios at deployment time and audit them with humans.
Only if you don't have privacy guarantees?
Also, for the honeypots, you can potentially generate vast numbers of honeypots, use a trusted model to review outputs, and then only have humans look at the cases where the trusted model... | 2024-11-06T19:41:01.232Z | 3 | hwKAAYkExpGoZjudk | RveeCTcoApkAtd7oA | Anthropic: Three Sketches of ASL-4 Safety Case Components | anthropic-three-sketches-of-asl-4-safety-case-components | https://alignment.anthropic.com/2024/safety-cases/ | Zach Stein-Perlman | 2024-11-06T16:00:06.940Z |
YNeJLoSnQe4JtebAb | You can still inspect the underlying CoT to know if you have big issues.
It is worth noting that the baseline proposal was already incentivizing the Face to be deceptive to the extent to which this proposal is important (the whole hope was to allow for hiding deception). So, I agree that my proposed change trades off ... | 2024-11-15T23:56:56.587Z | 2 | noHkAy2euqAnWjaGw | TecsCZ7w8s4e2umm4 | 5 ways to improve CoT faithfulness | 5-ways-to-improve-cot-faithfulness | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TecsCZ7w8s4e2umm4/5-ways-to-improve-cot-faithfulness | Caleb Biddulph | 2024-10-05T20:17:12.637Z |
BnF5rxYX6wTEsccq8 | > On the other hand, your version of Daniel's protocol loses this property.
I'm talking about training only the Face, not training the policy (shoggoth) at all with the proposal I'm imagining.
And, these should clearly be separate models such that the training of one doesn't generalize to the other.
So, making the F... | 2024-11-16T03:59:27.950Z | 3 | WedYLsDdvuXcBdRov | TecsCZ7w8s4e2umm4 | 5 ways to improve CoT faithfulness | 5-ways-to-improve-cot-faithfulness | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TecsCZ7w8s4e2umm4/5-ways-to-improve-cot-faithfulness | Caleb Biddulph | 2024-10-05T20:17:12.637Z |
Xm5u6RGkeCgye4j2n | To the extent that complexity makes succesfully red-teaming our approaches too difficult, then we could try to mostly depend on simple approaches and only use more complex approaches only if we are confident that at least they won't can't make the situation worse.
My general view is that complex methods are only produ... | 2024-11-16T06:21:40.180Z | 17 | GdXtDhRv6grfxFSoj | TBLztZivgMbpYCPvt | Using Dangerous AI, But Safely? | using-dangerous-ai-but-safely | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TBLztZivgMbpYCPvt/using-dangerous-ai-but-safely | habryka | 2024-11-16T04:29:20.914Z |
Qv9GyCZprvto8Rzqr | I agree there are various ways the Face could cause problems via influencing the training of the actual policy. (Both more wild influence that would require clever manipulation and a more mundane reduction of disincentive for problematic reasoning (though I'd note this mundane issue is the core goal of the original pro... | 2024-11-16T17:02:24.897Z | 2 | XtAuNPTn7LCcSG3Lf | TecsCZ7w8s4e2umm4 | 5 ways to improve CoT faithfulness | 5-ways-to-improve-cot-faithfulness | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TecsCZ7w8s4e2umm4/5-ways-to-improve-cot-faithfulness | Caleb Biddulph | 2024-10-05T20:17:12.637Z |
p6piai4E8rcBEfPBM | Or get some other work out of these systems such that you greatly reduce risk going forward. | 2024-11-16T18:02:06.655Z | 5 | J4eAiiBD7jgmkaZSH | nnvn6kaBLajiicH8e | Sabotage Evaluations for Frontier Models | sabotage-evaluations-for-frontier-models | https://assets.anthropic.com/m/377027d5b36ac1eb/original/Sabotage-Evaluations-for-Frontier-Models.pdf | David Duvenaud | 2024-10-18T22:33:14.320Z |
WRE4WTa2m2EDSNu4q | Sure, I mean that I expect that for the critical regime for TAI, we can literally have the Face be 3.5 sonnet. | 2024-11-18T23:09:01.255Z | 2 | WEqxky9gvdmgGYbba | TecsCZ7w8s4e2umm4 | 5 ways to improve CoT faithfulness | 5-ways-to-improve-cot-faithfulness | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TecsCZ7w8s4e2umm4/5-ways-to-improve-cot-faithfulness | Caleb Biddulph | 2024-10-05T20:17:12.637Z |
LA9WegmwnjTytwkEm | > I guess one way of framing it is that I find the shoggoth/face idea great as a science experiment; it gives us useful evidence! However, it doesn't make very much sense to me as a safety method intended for deployment.
Sadly, gathering evidence of misalignment in deployment seems likely to me to be one of the most e... | 2024-11-18T23:10:43.788Z | 2 | WEqxky9gvdmgGYbba | TecsCZ7w8s4e2umm4 | 5 ways to improve CoT faithfulness | 5-ways-to-improve-cot-faithfulness | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TecsCZ7w8s4e2umm4/5-ways-to-improve-cot-faithfulness | Caleb Biddulph | 2024-10-05T20:17:12.637Z |
jKCD3NLizgzN4BhRX | I was asking about HSB not because I think it is similar to the process about AIs but because if the answer differs, then it implies your making some narrower assumption about the inductive biases of AI training.
> On generalizing to extremely unlikely conditionals, I think TD-agents are in much the same position as o... | 2024-11-19T22:49:48.027Z | 2 | GJGjSFhFwFubw9aCF | YbEbwYWkf8mv9jnmi | The Shutdown Problem: Incomplete Preferences as a Solution | the-shutdown-problem-incomplete-preferences-as-a-solution | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/YbEbwYWkf8mv9jnmi/the-shutdown-problem-incomplete-preferences-as-a-solution | Elliott Thornley (EJT) | 2024-02-23T16:01:16.378Z |
7BkGjJcuGrKsBtY5b | > Q: Why bother splitting shoggoth and face? Why not simply blind the reinforcement process to the internal CoT, like OpenAI claims to be doing with o1? You coulld still have a paraphraser too.
>
> A: Because if you use the same model weights to do both the internal reasoning and the external token outputs, there's mor... | 2024-11-20T00:50:06.347Z | 14 | null | Tzdwetw55JNqFTkzK | Why Don't We Just... Shoggoth+Face+Paraphraser? | why-don-t-we-just-shoggoth-face-paraphraser | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Tzdwetw55JNqFTkzK/why-don-t-we-just-shoggoth-face-paraphraser | Daniel Kokotajlo | 2024-11-19T20:53:52.084Z |
ZfBiftLAnyT34ap9o | Testing sounds great though I'd note that the way I'd approach testing is to first construct a general test bed that produces problematic behavior through training incentives for o1-like models. (Possibly building on [deepseek's version of o1](https://api-docs.deepseek.com/news/news1120).) Then I'd move to trying a bu... | 2024-11-20T19:41:57.441Z | 10 | TeHRdof83qz9gaKHp | Tzdwetw55JNqFTkzK | Why Don't We Just... Shoggoth+Face+Paraphraser? | why-don-t-we-just-shoggoth-face-paraphraser | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Tzdwetw55JNqFTkzK/why-don-t-we-just-shoggoth-face-paraphraser | Daniel Kokotajlo | 2024-11-19T20:53:52.084Z |
XrENSNCXqWMwfek3f | One aspect of untrusted monitoring which this post neglects, but which seems very important to me, is that we'll be uncertain about which model should be untrusted and the extent to which these models are untrusted.
This suggests that ensembling over untrusted monitors could be very promising (and much of the benefits... | 2024-12-01T03:27:18.248Z | 27 | null | GCqoks9eZDfpL8L3Q | How to prevent collusion when using untrusted models to monitor each other | how-to-prevent-collusion-when-using-untrusted-models-to | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GCqoks9eZDfpL8L3Q/how-to-prevent-collusion-when-using-untrusted-models-to | Buck | 2024-09-25T18:58:20.693Z |
fskAJy9gdMMcywknb | Zvi noted that this is an error in [this comment](https://thezvi.substack.com/p/repeal-the-jones-act-of-1920/comment/79099406). Zvi claims this is fixed in the substack, idk about the lesswrong post. | 2024-12-01T06:29:58.330Z | 2 | swEeEC2GZDAFMaQcG | dnH2hauqRbu3GspA2 | Repeal the Jones Act of 1920 | repeal-the-jones-act-of-1920 | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dnH2hauqRbu3GspA2/repeal-the-jones-act-of-1920 | Zvi | 2024-11-27T15:00:06.801Z |
yhsYFYnTFdqK6EqtM | I donated $3,000. I've gained and will continue to gain a huge amount of value from LW and other activities of Lightcone Infrastructure, so it seemed like a cooperative and virtuous move to donate.[^cost]
I tried to donate at a level such that if all people using LW followed a similar policy to me, Lightcone would be ... | 2024-12-02T00:36:34.679Z | 57 | null | 5n2ZQcbc7r4R8mvqc | (The) Lightcone is nothing without its people: LW + Lighthaven's big fundraiser | the-lightcone-is-nothing-without-its-people | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5n2ZQcbc7r4R8mvqc/the-lightcone-is-nothing-without-its-people | habryka | 2024-11-30T02:55:16.077Z |
NyNYZCHCHPPcm3AWg | ("well approximates AIXI" seems unlikely to be an accurate description to me. Maybe "closer to what AIXI is doing than to base GPT-4 without a sampling loop" or "dominates human competence" are more accurate.) | 2024-12-11T19:32:08.572Z | 11 | 3hEMaorfJyQc4WQuT | byNYzsfFmb2TpYFPW | o1: A Technical Primer | o1-a-technical-primer | https://www.youtube.com/live/6fJjojpwv1I?si=5qYt5BZq3dWQoq0i&t=265 | Jesse Hoogland | 2024-12-09T19:09:12.413Z |
SgmntncSunhHwra8D | > All results are based on runs where the models are given a goal that they later realize is misaligned | 2024-12-15T20:45:46.083Z | 2 | iAAFECnHG7F3h58kH | YTZAmJKydD5hdRSeG | Would catching your AIs trying to escape convince AI developers to slow down or undeploy? | would-catching-your-ais-trying-to-escape-convince-ai | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/YTZAmJKydD5hdRSeG/would-catching-your-ais-trying-to-escape-convince-ai | Buck | 2024-08-26T16:46:18.872Z |
hmKctjAvm4ppyni4Y | I often refer to the ideas in this post and think the fundamental point is quite important: structural advantages in quantity, cost, and speed might make AI systems quite useful and thus impactful prior to being broadly superhuman.
(The exact estimates in the post do pretty strongly assume the current rough architect... | 2024-12-15T21:37:44.106Z | 12 | null | 5sWNnbHRkExfLaS49 | Before smart AI, there will be many mediocre or specialized AIs | before-smart-ai-there-will-be-many-mediocre-or-specialized | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5sWNnbHRkExfLaS49/before-smart-ai-there-will-be-many-mediocre-or-specialized | Lukas Finnveden | 2023-05-26T01:38:41.562Z |
JLb3yx6fA7k6zuwSA | ASI alignment could be trivial (happens by default), easy, or hard. If it is trivial, then "if we build it, we all die" is false.
Separately, I don't buy that misaligned ASI with totally alien goals and that full takes over will certainly kill everyone due to[^base] [trade arguments like this one](https://www.lesswron... | 2024-12-15T22:41:46.965Z | 16 | uKSLixKuydqZJaYta | cqF9dDTmWAxcAEfgf | Communications in Hard Mode (My new job at MIRI) | communications-in-hard-mode-my-new-job-at-miri | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cqF9dDTmWAxcAEfgf/communications-in-hard-mode-my-new-job-at-miri | tanagrabeast | 2024-12-13T20:13:44.825Z |
FbccrNvFWcSkjS3oQ | You said:
> How does it not show that it would try to escape if it could?
>
> Gemini still tried to escape 1% of the time, even without any behavioral nudging.
However, it isn't that they found Gemini would try to escape 1% of the time in a natural internal usage context, they gave it a conflicting goal (and informe... | 2024-12-16T18:10:47.408Z | 7 | tcwF3QGr2iDQHRFpD | YTZAmJKydD5hdRSeG | Would catching your AIs trying to escape convince AI developers to slow down or undeploy? | would-catching-your-ais-trying-to-escape-convince-ai | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/YTZAmJKydD5hdRSeG/would-catching-your-ais-trying-to-escape-convince-ai | Buck | 2024-08-26T16:46:18.872Z |
pGyvYuRCAYELHajCB | As in, for the literal task of "solve this code forces problem in 30 minutes" (or whatever the competition allows), o3 is ~ top 200 among people who do codeforces (supposing o3 didn't cheat on wall clock time). However, if you gave humans 8 serial hours and o3 8 serial hours, much more than 200 humans would be better. ... | 2024-12-21T21:08:48.648Z | 10 | fYELkmvB5ebJHgxek | Ao4enANjWNsYiSFqc | o3 | o3 | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ao4enANjWNsYiSFqc/o3 | Zach Stein-Perlman | 2024-12-20T18:30:29.448Z |
YTESYYcC87yncj8uX | > scaring laws
lol | 2024-12-21T21:09:54.801Z | 8 | d8pGJMEadpd7kR93Z | 5BbcaPPeAoe9nJJwC | Anthropic leadership conversation | anthropic-leadership-conversation | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om2lIWXLLN4 | Zach Stein-Perlman | 2024-12-20T22:00:45.229Z |
7zyzD4wkHFAmfasHS | This plan seems to underemphasize security. I expect that for 10x AI R&D[^prod], you strongly want state proof security (SL5) against weight exfiltration and then quickly after that you want this level of security for algorithmic secrets and unauthorized internal usage[^usage][^evenhigher].
Things don't seem to be on ... | 2024-12-22T18:09:17.312Z | 34 | null | SvvYCH6JrLDT8iauA | When AI 10x's AI R&D, What Do We Do? | when-ai-10x-s-ai-r-and-d-what-do-we-do | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/SvvYCH6JrLDT8iauA/when-ai-10x-s-ai-r-and-d-what-do-we-do | Logan Riggs | 2024-12-21T23:56:11.069Z |
o5oPjKzppkfKfBLje | Donating to the LTFF seems good. | 2024-12-22T23:30:33.076Z | 22 | RqQ9hZMERCavvaKis | jb4bBdeEEeypNkqzj | Orienting to 3 year AGI timelines | orienting-to-3-year-agi-timelines | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jb4bBdeEEeypNkqzj/orienting-to-3-year-agi-timelines | Nikola Jurkovic | 2024-12-22T01:15:11.401Z |
yj7hySp2JdsfxrBQg | I think the best bull case is something like:
They did this pretty quickly and were able to greatly improve performance on a moderately diverse range of pretty checkable tasks. This implies OpenAI likely has an RL pipeline which can be scaled up to substantially better performance by putting in easily checkable tasks ... | 2024-12-23T17:52:27.248Z | 24 | d9oFg4HosqpKqyhet | Ao4enANjWNsYiSFqc | o3 | o3 | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ao4enANjWNsYiSFqc/o3 | Zach Stein-Perlman | 2024-12-20T18:30:29.448Z |
hQedm7pvNvHPy4Q6o | > progress from o1 to o3 was only three months
Can't we just count from announcement to announcement? Like sure, they were working on stuff before o1 prior to having o1 work, but they are always going to be working on the next thing.
Do you think that o1 wasn't the best model (of this type) that OpenAI had internally... | 2024-12-23T17:56:02.942Z | 5 | ocPQPKtc3wX3rDkDw | Ao4enANjWNsYiSFqc | o3 | o3 | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ao4enANjWNsYiSFqc/o3 | Zach Stein-Perlman | 2024-12-20T18:30:29.448Z |
oCRtLKRv4xydReJkq | Yeah, sorry this is an important caveat. But, I think very superhuman performance in most/all checkable domains is pretty spooky and this is even putting aside how it generalizes. | 2024-12-23T18:10:18.990Z | 8 | Hgr8daXytktc4tFWR | Ao4enANjWNsYiSFqc | o3 | o3 | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ao4enANjWNsYiSFqc/o3 | Zach Stein-Perlman | 2024-12-20T18:30:29.448Z |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.