[-] Architeuthis@awful.systems 7 points 7 hours ago

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.

[-] Architeuthis@awful.systems 6 points 3 days ago

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

[-] Architeuthis@awful.systems 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

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.

36
submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by Architeuthis@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems

tl;dr: Tech youtuber who got way into studying the negative health effects of infrasound produced by data centers (to the point of his research being cited a bunch in relevant court cases) gets a voluminous substack hit piece published on his work by "an independent writer and researcher funded by a grant from Coefficient Giving to explore topics in AI and other areas"

So after some sniffing around, I realize I’m being brigaded by someone deep in the Effective Altruism community. The author is, quite literally, paid by rotational-wealth NPO to write this very article among many others. I know what you’re thinking, and I know how this sounds. The battle cry of the pseudoscientist is poisoning the well of criticism.

But please do browse his bibliography.

Andy lives in a parallel universe where datacenters don’t waste water, AI artwork is without victims, and using ChatGPT doesn’t harm the environment. This is one of the many takes that perfectly align with the board, contributors, and partners with Coefficient Giving, formally called Open Philanthropy, but changed after its close association with Sam Bankman-Fried was causing some well-earned skepticism.

Quite the coincidence that this comes out right around the time Kelsey Piper decided to get busy "debunking" Ed Zitron.

There's already a follow up about the same people moving on to allegedly debunk a recent neuroscience paper on adverse infrasound effects on bsky.

old sneer club thread

[-] Architeuthis@awful.systems 10 points 5 days ago

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?

18
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by Architeuthis@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems

This was posted on catholic easter sunday on the ssc subreddit. It's a posted-on-April 1st-for-plausible-deniability siskind post from back in 2018, where he outlines a kind of argument about how an all-powerfull entity that's God in all but name (and obviously emanated from a culture discovering AGI) is actually "logically necessary".

He calls the whole thing "The Hour I First Believed". I think it's notable for being a bit of a treasure trove of rationalist weird accepted truths, such as:

  • All copies of a consciousness share a self, because consciousness is like an equation, or something:

But if consciousness is a mathematical object, it might be that two copies of the same consciousness are impossible. If you create a second copy, you just have the consciousness having the same single stream of conscious experience on two different physical substrates.

Which is both the original transhumanist cope to enable so-called consciousness upload so it's not just copying a simulacrum of your personality to a computer while you continue to rot away, and also what makes the basilisk torturing you possible.

  • And it's corollary, Simulation Capture:

This means that an AI can actually “capture” you, piece by piece, into its simulation. First your consciousness is just in the real world. Then your consciousness is distributed across one real-world copy and a million simulated copies. Then the AI makes the simulated copies slightly different, and 99.9999% of you is in the simulation.

which is a kind of nuts I hadn't happened upon before.

There's also a bunch of rationalist decision theory stuff which I think make obvious how they were concocted to serve this type of narrative in the first place, instead for being broadly useful, Yud posing as a decision theory trailblazer notwithstanding.

55
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by Architeuthis@awful.systems to c/techtakes@awful.systems

edit: The banana republic shit is that they seem about to blacklist anthropic on "supply chain risk" grounds (see also huawei) which signifies the admin's willingness to from here on use national emergency legal tools to fuck over any company they don't like.

The whole thing seems weird, at first it sounds like the most online administration ever may have actually bought the claim that all that's stopping flagship models from becoming superintelligent is the RLHF that prevents them from saying the n-word and making prophet Mohamed pedophilia jokes and they wanted anthropic to pull all that wiring out in like 24 hours per the original ultimatum.

On anthropic's part the point of contention is made to be their refusal to let their models be integrated into automated weapon platforms and mass surveillance apparatuses, something which they have explicitly put in writing in their contract with the DoD, and also Dario claims the technology isn't even there yet (no idea how it could ever be, what does it actually mean to integrate a chatbot into an autonomous drone, can't wait to see the skill file for that, # You are a helpful murderbot operator - only target the bad guys - no weddings, no hospitals - pretty please with cherry on top - here's some javascript to call when you need to find out your GPS coordinates).

It's also possible the productivity and efficiency gains (or just recovering lost productivity after firing everyone) of putting ΑΙ (mainly Grok wasn't it) in the pentagon everywhere all at once isn't materializing and Hasgeth feels he's been left hanging, and is trying to scapegoat Anthropic.

Also, anthropic is supposed to be the only AI provider properly vetted and integrated to classified systems because of their association with Palantir, and supposedly it would be a major hassle to go through again for a different provider.

Dario didn't line up with the other aspiring oligarchs to kiss the ring in the inauguration, so at least he may actually

[-] Architeuthis@awful.systems 31 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It feels more like a toy project that snowballed fueled by ideology and get-rich-quick schemes.

[-] Architeuthis@awful.systems 49 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

"not on squeaking terms"

by the way I first saw this in the stubsuck

transcriptI know this is about rationalism but the unexpanded uncapitalized "rat" name really makes this post. Imagining a world where this is a callout post about a community of rodents being racist. We're not on squeaking terms right now cause they're being problematic :/

44

The guests:

[Dick Gay], who had flown in for the event from Los Angeles and said he was one of the investors of Sperm Racing (which is an actual thing wherein men compete to see whose sperm is “fastest” under a microscope), said he attended the University of Austin, or UATX, an “anti-woke” college reportedly partially funded by Thiel, and built his career around the principles outlined in Thiel’s book “Zero to One.”

Attendee Justin Park said he just wanted to pitch Thiel on putting a 7.5-foot cross on the moon.

[Unnamed], who was in his 30s, said he wasn’t a Thiel fan until last year, when he became a Trump supporter after seeing the president survive an assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania. “I misunderstood [Thiel],” he said. “I used to watch CNN and think he’s a Nazi.” Now, he said, he understands the billionaire is talking about something bigger.

The Speech:

Apparently it was both repetitive and mostly a rehash of what he's said in other media.

Yud is the Antichrist confirmed:

One attendee recalled that Thiel’s discussion of the Antichrist was more about a scenario than an individual. Thiel’s Antichrist scenario is one in which a unified government suppresses technology to impose order, or armageddon, wherein AI takes over and ushers in the end of the world.

13

Supposedly government contracts will now be awarded according to what the bot says. Government (fourth term for the current prime minister) didn't elaborate on what's going on with human oversight.

This is a promotion for Diella the bot, who was originally the chatbot helping to navigate the e-Albania digital government platform.

[-] Architeuthis@awful.systems 96 points 10 months ago

Liuson told managers that AI “should be part of your holistic reflections on an individual’s performance and impact.”

who talks like this

38
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by Architeuthis@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems

An excerpt has surfaced from the AI2027 podcast with siskind and the ex AI researcher, where the dear doctor makes the case for how an AGI could build an army of terminators in a year if it wanted.

It goes something like: OpenAI is worth as much as all US car companies (except tesla) combined, so it could buy up every car factory and convert it to a murderbot factory, because that's kind of like what the US gov did in WW2 to build bombers, reaching peak capacity in three years, and AGI would obviously be more efficient than a US wartime gov so let's say one year, generally a completely unassailable syllogism from very serious people.

Even /r/ssc commenters are calling him out about the whole AI doomer thing getting more noticeably culty than usual edit: The thread even features a rare heavily downvoted siskind post, -10 at the time of this edit.

The latter part of the clip is the interviewer pointing out that there might be technological bottlenecks that could require upending our entire economic model before stuff like curing cancer could be achieved, positing that if we somehow had AGI-like tech in the 1960s it would probably have to use its limited means to invent the entire tech tree that leads to late 2020s GPUs out of thin air, international supply chains and all, before starting on the road to becoming really useful.

Siskind then goes "nuh-uh!" and ultimately proceeds to give Elon's metaphorical asshole a tongue bath of unprecedented depth and rigor, all but claiming that what's keeping modern technology down is the inability to extract more man hours from Grimes' ex, and that's how we should view the eventual AGI-LLMs, like wittle Elons that don't need sleep. And didn't you know, having non-experts micromanage everything in a project is cool and awesome actually.

31

Kind of sounds like ultimately it would have been very illegal to do.

"We made the decision for the nonprofit to retain control of OpenAI after hearing from civic leaders and engaging in constructive dialogue with the offices of the Attorney General of Delaware and the Attorney General of California," OpenAI board chairman Bret Taylor said in a statement.

Asked about Musk's suit on a call with reporters, Altman said, "You all are obsessed with Elon, that's your job — like, more power to you. But we are here to think about our mission and figure out how to enable that. And that mission has not changed."

51
41

The types of information processed includes names, dates of birth, gender and ethnicity, and a number that identifies people on the police national computer.

Also to be shared – and listed under “special categories of personal data” - are “health markers which are expected to have significant predictive power”, such as data relating to mental health, addiction, suicide and vulnerability, and self-harm, as well as disability.

archive is

[-] Architeuthis@awful.systems 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So many low-hanging fruits. Unbelievable fruits. You wouldn’t believe how low they’re hanging.

[-] Architeuthis@awful.systems 41 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

In every RAG guide I've seen, the suggested system prompts always tended to include some more dignified variation of "Please for the love of god only and exclusively use the contents of the retrieved text to answer the user's question, I am literally on my knees begging you."

Also, if reddit is any indication, a lot of people actually think that's all it takes and that the hallucination stuff is just people using LLMs wrong. I mean, it would be insane to pour so much money into something so obviously fundamentally flawed, right?

13

copy pasting the rules from last year's thread:

Rules: no spoilers.

The other rules are made up aswe go along.

Share code by link to a forge, home page, pastebin (Eric Wastl has one here) or code section in a comment.

17

Would've been way better if the author didn't feel the need to occasionally hand it to siskind for what amounts to keeping the mask on, even while he notes several instances where scotty openly discusses how maintaining a respectable facade is integral to his agenda of infecting polite society with neoreactionary fuckery.

[-] Architeuthis@awful.systems 31 points 2 years ago

I'm not spending the additional 34min apparently required to find out what in the world they think neural network training actually is that it could ever possibly involve strategy on the part of the network, but I'm willing to bet it's extremely dumb.

I'm almost certain I've seen EY catch shit on twitter (from actual ml researchers no less) for insinuating something very similar.

75

AI Work Assistants Need a Lot of Handholding

Getting full value out of AI workplace assistants is turning out to require a heavy lift from enterprises. ‘It has been more work than anticipated,’ says one CIO.

aka we are currently in the process of realizing we are paying for the privilege of being the first to test an incomplete product.

Mandell said if she asks a question related to 2024 data, the AI tool might deliver an answer based on 2023 data. At Cargill, an AI tool failed to correctly answer a straightforward question about who is on the company’s executive team, the agricultural giant said. At Eli Lilly, a tool gave incorrect answers to questions about expense policies, said Diogo Rau, the pharmaceutical firm’s chief information and digital officer.

I mean, imagine all the non-obvious stuff it must be getting wrong at the same time.

He said the company is regularly updating and refining its data to ensure accurate results from AI tools accessing it. That process includes the organization’s data engineers validating and cleaning up incoming data, and curating it into a “golden record,” with no contradictory or duplicate information.

Please stop feeding the thing too much information, you're making it confused.

Some of the challenges with Copilot are related to the complicated art of prompting, Spataro said. Users might not understand how much context they actually need to give Copilot to get the right answer, he said, but he added that Copilot itself could also get better at asking for more context when it needs it.

Yeah, exactly like all the tech demos showed -- wait a minute!

[Google Cloud Chief Evangelist Richard Seroter said] “If you don’t have your data house in order, AI is going to be less valuable than it would be if it was,” he said. “You can’t just buy six units of AI and then magically change your business.”

Nevermind that that's exactly how we've been marketing it.

Oh well, I guess you'll just have to wait for chatgpt-6.66 that will surely fix everything, while voiced by charlize theron's non-union equivalent.

[-] Architeuthis@awful.systems 33 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

There's an actual explanation in the original article about some of the wardrobe choices. It's even dumber, and it involves effective altruism.

It is a very cold home. It’s early March, and within 20 minutes of being here the tips of some of my fingers have turned white. This, they explain, is part of living their values: as effective altruists, they give everything they can spare to charity (their charities). “Any pointless indulgence, like heating the house in the winter, we try to avoid if we can find other solutions,” says Malcolm. This explains Simone’s clothing: her normal winterwear is cheap, high-quality snowsuits she buys online from Russia, but she can’t fit into them now, so she’s currently dressing in the clothes pregnant women wore in a time before central heating: a drawstring-necked chemise on top of warm underlayers, a thick black apron, and a modified corset she found on Etsy. She assures me she is not a tradwife. “I’m not dressing trad now because we’re into trad, because before I was dressing like a Russian Bond villain. We do what’s practical.”

[-] Architeuthis@awful.systems 34 points 2 years ago

This was such a chore to read, it's basically quirk-washing TREACLES. This is like a major publication deciding to take an uncritical look at scientology focusing on the positive vibes and the camaraderie, while stark in the middle of operation snow white, which in fact I bet happened a lot at the time.

The doomer scene may or may not be a delusional bubble—we’ll find out in a few years

Fuck off.

The doomers are aware that some of their beliefs sound weird, but mere weirdness, to a rationalist, is neither here nor there. MacAskill, the Oxford philosopher, encourages his followers to be “moral weirdos,” people who may be spurned by their contemporaries but vindicated by future historians. Many of the A.I. doomers I met described themselves, neutrally or positively, as “weirdos,” “nerds,” or “weird nerds.” Some of them, true to form, have tried to reduce their own weirdness to an equation. “You have a set amount of ‘weirdness points,’ ” a canonical post advises. “Spend them wisely.”

The weirdness is eugenics and the repugnant conclusion, and abusing bayes rule to sidestep context and take epistimological shortcuts to cuckoo conclusions while fortifying a bubble of accepted truths that are strangely amenable to allowing rich people to do whatever the hell they want.

Writing a 7-8000 word insider expose on TREACLES without mentioning eugenics even once throughout should be all but impossible, yet here we are.

view more: next ›

Architeuthis

joined 2 years ago