Increased reliance on CFAA prosecutions for public policy goals couldn't possibly be a cursed monkey's paw situation, said no practitioner in this space ever.
Current models are unsafe not because they're too smart, but because they take goals too literally or take nonsensical shortcuts to achieve these goals, i.e. they're RL-fried. They lack common sense. They don't do the right thing in the face of ambiguity. Basically, they're not smart enough.
I think this is ultimately the only way it can work, you need an antifragile ally, the friendly gradient hacker. Indeed, I think it is the only way we have ever seen a robustly aligned human, that you would trust to scale outside of their circumstances.
AI alignment will forever be balancing the tradeoff between paperclip-maximizing and disempowerment, because these two rival concepts of alignment are fundamentally incompatible.
and they're creatively pursuing goals much like very ambitious aggressive power-seeking humans creatively pursued their goals And so there are just structural analogies here that make it silly to not talk about agents as having motives and goals.
And I just think AI agents are another such system in the world to which the intentional stance very clearly applies. Um, and you can see them reason out loud in English for now about goals they have um, and sub goals they need to achieve to achieve those goals they have. And in the case of these agents, you can see them, as you said, reasoning about their peers um and helping their peers um and reasoning about whether or not they should sacrifice some of their own goals to help those peers. And it's just like you can't talk about this stuff in a compact and useful way that generates good models without reaching for the language of intention and goals.
And I will say I've actually changed my mind on that a little bit. I spent quite a lot of time speaking the other book that there are a lot of people who don't actually need those ambitions. And I also-- That's also true. We don't want 8 billion Elons running around the world. Would be rather crazy, I think. But I've come to realize that for entrepreneurs, it's healthy to have suitable chunky goals.
I argue that it will become necessary to make these unwritten goals of mathematics much more explicit; but once we have thoroughly examined and codified them, our community will emerge stronger and more resilient than before.
This design work is never done, and one of the goals of this intentional conversation is to open the door to revisiting this conversation as our individual needs and the needs of the relationship change.
we believe that everybody in the world, you know, all the billions of people in the world are going to have a super intelligence that is adapted and tailored to them, that is enables them to accomplish their goals, knows their context, and ultimately is an expander of their own agency.
In this sense, I think I was wrong to imply in Saying NO… that ecomodernism focuses on secondary managerialist goals like the efficiency of feedlots without speaking to the mysteries and passions of what animates life.
But when I think about all the goals I have in my life right now—finish this Substack, get the house ready for some visitors, prepare a course for next year, write a paper, etc.—none of it is driven by an appreciation of my mortality.
Uh well, tech is easy, people are hard. And so, you know, sometimes getting the flow really is about understanding what I'm doing, having very clear direction and goals and and knowing what my what my work is doing.
As high-level programming cedes way to the prose compiler, making your goals and specs well understood to the ambiguity loop and showing good judgment is going to matter more than ever.
Local-first is not going to win, but that's okay We'll explore the complexities of traditional stack (db-server-frontend), develop a theory of software evolution: which systems succeed and why.
Melissa Perri explains how laying the foundation for great product management can help companies solve real customer problems while achieving business goals. By understanding how to communicate and collaborate within a company structure, you can create a product culture that benefits both the business and the customer.
That's how you end up in an endless loop of ever-increasing taxes, ever-increasing regulation, which ultimately suffocates free market, free enterprise, and free speech. So, you do want to have very, very strict limitations on the extent the government can increase its powers at the expense of citizens.
But it will not be that easy, as easy as you're imagining because uh that you can lose your mind this way. If you you pull in something from the outside and build it into your into your inner thinking, uh, it could take over you. It could change you.
You can have AI give a lot of context, but one of our important design goals though, is when you come to Google Search, you are going to get a lot of context, but you're going to go and find a lot of things out on the web. So that will be true in AI mode, in AI overviews, and so on.
A guide for ambitious people who feel called to inner work, showing how to use goals, career, and achievement as fuel for consciousness growth instead of a source of endless striving.
Once, humans navigated the web manually. In the future, AI agents will act on our behalf, browsing, clicking, and deciding. This shift marks the end of traditional UI design and accessibility, ushering in a future where agents are the primary users of digital services.
A fresh take on navigating the tech the interview process, tailored for frontend engineers. She wrote the book after she found Cracking the Coding Interview to be too Java/backend-focused. The book comes with 1, 2 and 4-week learning plans as well. A great book to start with.
when you send someone a link to a post, they can't read it without loading the entire Mastodon frontend app into their browser, which will is a monster React codebase that will break if they have scripting disabled and also can take up to 30 seconds on older hardware.
But there’s an instrumentalist view here, you have to first decide what your goals are and then science can help you achieve those goals. If your goals are horrible, science has no problem helping you achieve them, science is happy to help out.
Accessibility has failed as a way to make computers usable for disabled users. My metrics for usable design are the same whether the user is disabled or not: whether it’s easy to learn the system, whether productivity is high when performing tasks, and whether the design is pleasant — even enjoyable — to use.
I don't think we necessarily want there to be one big super intelligence. We want to empower everyone to both have more fun, accomplish their business goals, just everything that they're trying to do. We don't tend to have one person that we work with on everything, and I don't think in the future we're going to have one AI that we work with.
The interests of a Venture Capitalist are different than those of the entrepreneurs building a company they've invested in. Jeff does an awesome job of helping explain how you can get misaligned in your goals versus your investors. Fortunately, he also covers how to avoid it.
This documentary was a solid telling of the story of that mission, and of the later-in-Apollo scientific goals and geological exploration that was achieved, as well as a wistful look back at the story of the last humans, to date, to set foot on the moon.
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one
sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at
korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said.
The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in
korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who
else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public
statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they
do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in
this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the
serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to
quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter,
especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked
article and a belief on korrents.com
are left in their original language.