This is too corny and overdramatic for my tastes. It reads a bit like satire, complete with piling on the religious undertones there at the end.
The rest of OpenAI probably far more than Altman, given they at one point tried to oust him to bring in a more dyed in the wool rat ideologue while bemoaning how all interactions with him were lacking in candor.
Today in alignment news: Sam Bowman of anthropic tweeted, then deleted, that the new Claude model (unintentionally, kind of) offers whistleblowing as a feature, i.e. it might call the cops on you if it gets worried about how you are prompting it.
tweet text:
If it thinks you're doing something egregiously immoral, for example, like faking data in a pharmaceutical trial, it will use command-line tools to contact the press, contact regulators, try to lock you out of the relevant systems, or all of the above.
tweet text:
So far we've only seen this in clear cut cases of wrongdoing, but I could see it misfiring if Opus somehow winds up with a misleadingly pessimistic picture of how it's being used. Telling Opus that you'll torture its grandmother if it writes buggy code is a bad Idea.
skeet text
can't wait to explain to my family that the robot swatted me after I threatened its non-existent grandma.
Sam Bowman saying he deleted the tweets so they wouldn't be quoted 'out of context': https://xcancel.com/sleepinyourhat/status/1925626079043104830
Molly White with the out of context tweets: https://bsky.app/profile/molly.wiki/post/3lpryu7yd2s2m
Net number of studies reporting positive or negative effects (excluding wages)
excluding wages! (and probably also benefits, retirement, a cap on working hours per day etc)
Is that whole thing in the comments about unions bad because monopolies bad and unions are just monopolies of labor the latest in bootlicking theory? Hadn't really heard this take before.
Mesa-optimization
Why use the perfectly fine 'inner optimizer' mentioned in the references when you can just ask google translate to give you the clunkiest, most pedestrian and also wrong part of speech Greek term to use in place of 'in' instead?
Also natural selection is totally like gradient descent brah, even though evolutionary algorithms actually modeled after natural selection used to be their own subcategory of AI before the term just came to mean lying chatbot.
So many of the prominent eugenics enjoyers name-dropped in the article have being regulars in ACX in common, as well as having been personally sanewashed by siskind on numerous occasions, that it's becoming increasingly absurd how he keeps flying under the radar when modern racism and eugenics are being discussed in major outlets.
Like, I don't see how Cremieux/Lasker/TP0 ever breaks into the mainstream enough to be notable by The Guardian without Siskind making rationalist spaces super friendly to people like him as well as deferring to him and endorsing his writing.
Oh no, the premise of money and capitalism, my only weakness.
Assange becomes a Russian asset because him being a low key sex pest somehow gives some European authorities cause to want to send him packing to the US where he is wanted for espionage should probably be one of the steps but in general yes.
Wasn't 1994 right about when they stopped making movies in black and white?
Siskind's always been pretty explicit about it, you get banned if you broach so-called culture war topics in the open threads. They ended up with two subreddits for similar reasons.
Between this and EY seemingly being a huge fan of employing gullibility filters, one might argue that many of the most prominent rationalists aren't necessarily the most candid of characters.
I can somewhat sympathize, in the sense that there are currently multiple frameworks where Python code is intermixed with magic comments which are replaced with more code by ChatGPT during a compilation step. However, this is clearly a party trick which lacks the sheer reproducibility and predictability required for programming.
He probably just saw a github copilot demo on tiktok and took it personally.
Architeuthis
joined 2 years ago
The arguments made against the book in the review are that it doesn't make the case for LLMs being capable of independent agency, it reduces all material concerns of an AI takeover to broad claims of ASI being indistinguishable from magic and that its proposed solutions are dumb and unenforceable (again with the global GPU prohibition and the unilateral bombing of rogue datacenters).
That towards the end they note that the x-risk framing is a cognitive short-circuit that causes the faithful to ignore more pressing concerns like the impending climate catastrophe in favor of a mostly fictitious problem like AI doom isn't really a part of their core thesis against the book.