Social media is destroying out society. Quitting doesn't help because everyone else is still on it. It's a bad equilibrium. It needs to be solved with government regulations.
Germany is in trouble. But the trouble goes deep and cannot be addressed by "more of the same" socio-economic measures in the domain of taxes or social spending or regulation.
Right now OpenAI is extremely dependent on CoT monitoring, everyone else depends on it quite a lot as well, and it looks like it may not last much longer, and that Astra already is on the edge of steganographic capabilities and can do substantial obfuscation if and only if it thinks you would think it is up to no good.
Even if everyone tries as hard as is plausible, Chain of Thought monitoring will probably never be easier than it is now and will get harder over time. In a year, chances are very high it will not be able to serve the function it is currently being asked to serve.
I agree with Jakub that alignment is not a side problem, it is the central problem, if you ‘solved alignment’ in the relevant senses the rest becomes easy and if you don’t the rest is impossible or worse
Currently I believe that no lab has solved alignment and monitoring to a sufficient degree to continue responsibly scaling at maximum speed for much longer.
there's still a lot of startups in this batch that are not shipping fast enough. And so obviously there's variation in shipping speed. It's not just the rate at which you can produce things. You have to think of these ideas first, right?
In most of the world there is: no real willingness to solve problems nor an acceptance of people offering to solve their problems (out of pride) simply too much regulation so the problem cannot be solved without a license or long approval time very low standards of what is deemed acceptable so the problem isn't seen as a problem in the first place
I am very much opposed to the view that the AIs are sentient, or might be sentient. I view that as a category error , and the chances of it being true are vanishingly small.
I want to be clear, you can't throw edtech in. You can't take our time back and throw it into a school. It's not going to work cuz you haven't solved any of the other problems. And so edtech is not a magic, you know, it's not a silver bullet.
Ignorance is not a temporary defect that we will eventually eliminate. It's the permanent burden of increasing specialisation and living in a complex world.
if you're looking at the nuclear space today, you don't expect people to have this problem solved in 2031. In fact, I would say even 2035, a lot of these companies are still not going to get there because they have the wrong mindset.
much cultural success is stochastic (the experimental evidence suggests that talent only moderately predicts success in culture markets), and that path dependence shapes chances of success
Maybe I would pick something again that's that's in the category hard and boring because that's usually a category that is a little bit easier to actually find people that will appreciate when you solved something. If you pick something that is fun, even if it's hard, you're gonna have a very tough time, especially in a time where people can just prompt things into existence.
that child who learns about what you say kitty cat would not have the chance to download the internet of images of cat. They likely have seen three cats, 10 cats at most, but yet they're able to identify that tail as a cattail instead of a fox tail through a different kind of learning pathway.
you know, because sometimes if you just squint at a problem and you think about not necessarily being anchored on exactly how that problem is solved today, but how you would solve it from first principles, you can come up with really good ideas that are, you know, maybe not what other people are thinking about.
So coding is solved for the kind of coding that I do. It's not solved for everyone. You know, there's still code bases that are like super deep systems code bases where quad still struggles.
fossil fuel money is an immensely powerful, intensely corrupting force in American politics that limits not only what conversations we can have about massive problems, but what we can do to solve them
Uh but I don't think it's easy but I do think it's something you would have to do in order to uh reward the gawwa like instinct rather than just rewarding have you solved a problem.
it's just right team, right project, cuz if you don't get the right project, there's no way you can prove yourself. You could be a 10x, 100x engineer, and if you're working on relatively easy stuff, you can't really say that you solved like a really hard problem.
So often with new software paradigms, what looks like inevitability turns out to be just design failure that can be solved with the right guardrails or affordances or system instructions.
The thing that I find interesting is that's not novel. This has been the thing we've always been trying to do forever. How do we get a junior engineer to ship code safely without breaking stuff? Right? How do we make patterns in the codebase? How do we make tests? Like it's it's all the old stuff that we've always wanted to do.
The more ants you put in the puzzle, the faster the solution. But the more humans you add, the worse. Unless the humans are very carefully aligned, this is the key lesson for organizational design.
Um So, like with the Erdős problems, you know, like almost all of the 50 problems that were solved by AIs were ones for which basically there was no literature.
I mean, some problems have been basically solved by pure brute force. The four color theorem is is a famous example. Um, we have still not found a conceptually elegant proof of this theorem.
So I think the industry just has to reconfigure in so many ways that's like the customer is not the human anymore. It's like agents who are acting on behalf of humans and this refactoring will be will probably be substantial in a certain sense.
I think the trillions of dollars a year market, maybe all of the national security implications and the safety implications that I wrote about in adolescence of technology can happen without it, but I I I also think we, and I imagine others, are working on it. And I think there's a good chance that that, you know, that we get there within the next year or two.
I sincerely find these blocks to be perfect and transcendent to play with—it's about the dimensions, they all fit together perfectly like you've just beautifully solved a complex math problem.
I just realized the only 2 countries left with actual substantial startup activity now are literally only the US and China The rest of the world can't really do startups, doesn't have the funding, can't grow them and it's more like performative hobby projects for their governments Which might tell us where the future wealth will be concentrated in the world
when you learn to play chess you have the grand the long-term goal is winning the game and yet you you can't you um you want to be able to learn from shorter term things like you know taking the your opponent's pieces um and so you do that by having a value function which predicts the long-term outcome
you are you are a sales operations expert, right? Like what is that? That's that's that that's like a title for a particular way how companies end up solving a particular operational problem they had at some point.
So when you’re talking about Operation Barbarossa, to go back to your original question, Lex, you’re dealing with an operation on such a vast scale, that that operational level of war is absolutely vital to its chances of success or failure. It doesn’t matter how good your individual commanders are at the front. If you haven’t got the backup, it’s not going to work.
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.