No no no it's fine! You get the word shuffler to deshuffle the—eloquently—shuffled paragraphs back into nice and tidy bullet points. And I have an idea! You could get an LLM to add metadata to the email to preserve the original bullet points, so the recipient LLM has extra interpolation room to choose to ignore the original list, but keep the—much more correct and eloquent, and with much better emphasis—hallucinated ones.
Image description
Image shows user joined two weeks ago.
.
Yikes. Could be a troll (I hope it's a troll)
The video about Anime and Propanganda is very good and reccomended. As a progressive weeb living in Japan, a very cathartic watch.
SaaS = Storage as a Service Sneer as a Service
Pedantic note: Yes, Meditations (a phisosophical treatise) was written in Koine, Commentarii de Bello Gallico (veni, vedi, vici—self-aggrandizing combat-reports meant for the senate and propaganda) or other "published" works from Caesar were not.
Although bonus points, the ancient sources portray Caesar (a proper educated major family Patrician) as speaking his dying words—if reported saying anything at all—in Greek, not in Latin: "Καὶ σὺ τέκνον" (Even you, child) rendered in Shakespeare as "Et tu, Brute".
- First furious madman scribbling: I had a toy was a "quizz" machine with "A, B, C, D" buttons, that read colorful perforated cards and a speaker of a "ding-dong" sound for a correct answer, I worked out what set of holes corresponded to what answer (which to the toymaker's credit, each card with the same answer did not have exactly the same holes) so I could always answer correctly. [The way I remember it I wanted to make custom cards, but maybe I was just a little cheater ^^]
- First program: One fond memory from middle-school, where our introduction to programming was writing GCM and LCM programs using TI-BASIC (or Casio, but the school really pushed the TI models forward). Also having access to a "worms" (somehow in basic and not assembly) clone copied from a friend's calculator, I reverse engineered the more easy aspects of graphical display, and input handling make a tic-tac-toe program. Since I didn't know about lists yet, inspired by the GCM and LCM bits, I used prime numbers to store the state of the board, and used divisibility tests to check it. (Some years later i would refactor it, to discover that lists are much much slower in non-assembly TI-BASIC, so it was accidental optimization) I also miscoded the bot, which was vulnerable to exactly one fork attack, but decided to leave it in because it was more fun that way.
- First hack: Discovering that the highschool's poorly designed web portal, for sharing homework and assignments, allowed forced browsing, which the files uploaded by anyone was fun. [I reported it to the school's sysadmin team, I swear]
- Cringe blog: Following in my geeky dad's footsteps I had a very teenager cringe website, that I look fondly on, with garish colors, self-made HTML, css and animated gifs.
And also closing with:
Nvidia insists that it “wins on merit, as reflected in our benchmark results and value to customers.” And Nvidia does have the best stuff — but that’s not what the DOJ, Warren, or France are concerned about, is it?
To tie the bow nicely.
I should have used the preview ^_^
PS: Again!
Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending Sunday 15 September 2024
Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
> The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be) > > Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Semi-obligatory thanks to @dgerard for starting this)
Reading about the hubris of young Yud is a bit sad, a proper Tragedy. Then I have to remind myself that he remains a manipulator, and that he should be old enough to stop believe—and promote—in magical thinking.
Also a subjectively bad one at that—given his america-brained position on wanting to maintain a single executive not that suprising but:
- Why do you even need to default to winner-take-all?
- Under winner-take-all dont you inherit most of the downside of FPTP? Sure there might be less wasted votes, but doesn't actually make harder for 5% parties to get representation, since dominant parties have less of an incentive to negotiate and/or coallition build. (Though I guess subjective given Yud's apparent dislike of many party working together in a coalition)
- For a "runoff" system, the STAR system has the dubious distinction of allowing the condorcet loser—a candidate that would lose 1 vs 1 matchup against every other candidate in the field—to win, because a very enthiusastic minority can give a bunch of 5-star ratings.
- At least FPTP has simplicity going for it, and not trying to arbitrarily compare not completely informed star ratings from voters.
Haven't read the whole thing but I do chuckle at this part from the synopsis of the white paper:
[...] Our results suggest that AlphaProteo can generate binders "ready-to-use" for many research applications using only one round of medium-throughput screening and no further optimization.
And a corresponding anti-sneer from Yud (xcancel.com):
@ESYudkowsky: DeepMind just published AlphaProteo for de novo design of binding proteins. As a reminder, I called this in 2004. And fools said, and still said quite recently, that DM's reported oneshot designs would be impossible even to a superintelligence without many testing iterations.
Now medium-throughput is not a commonly defined term, but it's what DeepMind seems to call 96-well testing, which wikipedia just calls the smallest size of high-throughput screening—but I guess that sounds less impressive in a synopsis.
Which as I understand it basically boils down to "Hundreds of tests! But Once!".
Does 100 count as one or many iterations?
Also was all of this not guided by the researchers and not from-first-principles-analyzing-only-3-frames-of-the-video-of-a-falling-apple-and-deducing-the-whole-of-physics path so espoused by Yud?
Also does the paper not claim success for 7 proteins and failure for 1, making it maybe a tad early for claiming I-told-you-so?
Also real-life-complexity-of-myriads-and-myriads-of-protein-and-unforeseen-interactions?
Another dumb take from Yud on twitter (xcancel.com):
@ESYudkowsky: The worst common electoral system after First Past The Post - possibly even a worse one - is the parliamentary republic, with its absurd alliances and frequently falling governments.
A possible amendment is to require 60% approval to replace a Chief Executive; who otherwise serves indefinitely, and appoints their own successor if no 60% majority can be scraped together. The parliament's main job would be legislation, not seizing the spoils of the executive branch of government on a regular basis.
Anything like this ever been tried historically? (ChatGPT was incapable of understanding the question.)
- Parliamentary Republic is a government system not a electoral system, many such republics do in fact use FPTP.
- Not highlighted in any of the replies in the thread, but "60% approval" is—I suspect deliberately—not "60% votes", it's way more nebulous and way more susceptible to Executive/Special-Interest-power influence, no Yud polls are not a substitute for actual voting, no Yud you can't have a "Reputation" system where polling agencies are retro-actively punished when the predicted results don't align with—what would be rare—voting.
- What you are describing is just a monarchy of not wanting to deal with pesky accountability beyond fuzzy exploitable popularity contest (I mean even kings were deposed when they pissed off enough of the population) you fascist little twat.
- Why are you asking ChatGPT then twitter instead of spending more than two minutes thinking about this, and doing any kind of real research whatsoever?
BasicSteps™ for making cake:
- Shape: You should chose one of the shapes that a cake can be, it may not always be the same shape, depending on future taste and ease of eating.
- Freshness: You should use fresh ingredients, bar that you should choose ingredients that can keep a long time. You should aim for a cake you can eat in 24h, or a cake that you can keep at least 10 years.
- Busyness: Don't add 100 ingredients to your cake that's too complicated, ideally you should have only 1 ingredient providing sweetness/saltyness/moisture.
- Mistakes: Don't make mistakes that results in you cake tasting bad, that's a bad idea, if you MUST make mistakes make sure it's the kind where you cake still tastes good.
- Scales: Make sure to measure how much ingredients your add to your cake, too much is a waste!
Any further details are self-evident really.
Quinn enters the dark and cold forest, crossing the threshold, an omnipresent sense of foreboding permeates the air, before being killed by a grue.
Actually reading the python discussion boards, what's striking is the immense volume of chatter produced by Tim, always in couched in:
- "Hypothetically"
- "Everyone tells me they are terrified of inclusivity, you wouldn't know because they are terrified of admitting it to YOU"
- "I'm not saying that you are an awful person 😉" (YMMV: But I find his use of the winking face emoji truly egregious)
- "Hey I'm liberal like you, let me explain everything wrong with it"
- "Hey we were inclusive before any of this PC bullshit" proceeds to use unpleasant descriptors of marginalized individuals, and how very welcome they were, despite what he seems to see as "shortcomings"
In his heart he must understand how bad he his, or he wouldn't couch his discourse in so much bad faith, and he wouldn't make so much of a stink out of making removing Python Fellow status more easy to remove.
AGI Sparklings proponents rejoice! Finding a literal map(*) means LLMs have a world model.
Transcribed: > Max Tegmark (@tegmark): > No, LLM's aren't mere stochastic parrots: Llama-2 contains a detailed model of the world, quite literally! We even discover a "longitude neuron" >> Wes Gurnee (@wesg52): >> Do language models have an internal world model? A sense of time? At multiple spatiotemporal scales? >> In a new paper with @tegmark we provide evidence that they do by finding a literal map of the world inside the activations of Llama-2! >> [image with colorful dots on a map]
__________________________________________________________________ With this dastardly deliberate simplification of what it means to have a world model, we've been struck a mortal blow in our skepticism towards LLMs; we have no choice but to convert surely!
(*) Asterisk: Not an actual literal map, what they really mean to say is that they've trained "linear probes" (it's own mini-model) on the activation layers, for a bunch of inputs, and minimizing loss for latitude and longitude (and/or time, blah blah).
And yes from the activations you can get a fuzzy distribution of lat,long on a map, and yes they've been able to isolated individual "neurons" that seem to correlate in activation with latitude and longitude. (frankly not being able to find one would have been surprising to me, this doesn't mean LLM's aren't just big statistical machines, in this case being trained with data containing literal lat,long tuples for cities in particular)
It's a neat visualization and result but it is sort of comically missing the point
__________________________________________________________________
Bonus sneers from @emilymbender:
- You know what's most striking about this graphic? It's not that mentions of people/cities/etc from different continents cluster together in terms of word co-occurrences. It's just how sparse the data from the Global South are. -- Also, no, that's not what "world model" means if you're talking about the relevance of world models to language understanding. (source)
- "We can overlay it on a map" != "world model" (source)
Humble EY can move goalposts in long format.
With interspaced sneerious rephrasing:
> In the close vicinity of sorta-maybe-human-level general-ish AI, there may not be any sharp border between levels of increasing generality, or any objectively correct place to call it AGI. Any process is continuous if you zoom in close enough.
The profound mysteries of reality carving, means I get to move the goalposts as much as I want. Besides I need to re-iterate now that the foompocalypse is imminent!
> Unless, empirically, somewhere along the line there's a cascade of related abilities snowballing. In which case we will then say, post facto, that there's a jump to hyperspace which happens at that point; and we'll probably call that "the threshold of AGI", after the fact.
I can't prove this, but it's the central tenet of my faith, we will recognize the face of god when we see it. I regret that our hindsight 20-20 event is so conveniently inconveniently placed in the future, the bad one no less.
> Theory doesn't predict-with-certainty that any such jump happens for AIs short of superhuman.
See how much authority I have, it is not "My Theory" it is "The Theory", I have stared into the abyss and it peered back and marked me as its prophet.
> If you zoom out on an evolutionary scale, that sort of capability jump empirically happened with humans--suddenly popping out writing and shortly after spaceships, in a tiny fragment of evolutionary time, without much further scaling of their brains.
The forward arrow of Progress™ is inevitable! S-curves don't exist! The y-axis is practically infinite! We should extrapolate only from the past (eugenically scaled certainly) century! Almost 10 000 years of written history, and millions of years of unwritten history for the human family counts for nothing!
> I don't know a theoretically inevitable reason to predict certainly that some sharp jump like that happens with LLM scaling at a point before the world ends. There obviously could be a cascade like that for all I currently know; and there could also be a theoretical insight which would make that prediction obviously necessary. It's just that I don't have any such knowledge myself.
I know the AI god is a NeCeSSarY outcome, I'm not sure where to plant the goalposts for LLM's and still be taken seriously. See how humble I am for admitting fallibility on this specific topic.
> Absent that sort of human-style sudden capability jump, we may instead see an increasingly complicated debate about "how general is the latest AI exactly" and then "is this AI as general as a human yet", which--if all hell doesn't break loose at some earlier point--softly shifts over to "is this AI smarter and more general than the average human". The world didn't end when John von Neumann came along--albeit only one of him, running at a human speed.
Let me vaguely echo some of my beliefs:
- History is driven by great men (of which I must be, but cannot so openly say), see our dearest elevated and canonized von Neumann.
- JvN was so much above the average plebeian man (IQ and eugenics good?) and the AI god will be greater.
- The greatest single entity/man will be the epitome of Intelligence™, breaking the wheel of history.
> There isn't any objective fact about whether or not GPT-4 is a dumber-than-human "Artificial General Intelligence"; just a question of where you draw an arbitrary line about using the word "AGI". Albeit that itself is a drastically different state of affairs than in 2018, when there was no reasonable doubt that no publicly known program on the planet was worthy of being called an Artificial General Intelligence.
No no no, General (or Super) Intelligence is not an completely un-scoped metric. Again it is merely a fuzzy boundary where I will be able to arbitrarily move the goalposts while being able to claim my opponents are!
> We're now in the era where whether or not you call the current best stuff "AGI" is a question of definitions and taste. The world may or may not end abruptly before we reach a phase where only the evidence-oblivious are refusing to call publicly-demonstrated models "AGI".
Purity-testing ahoy, you will be instructed to say shibboleth three times and present your Asherah poles for inspection. Do these mean unbelievers not see these N-rays as I do ? What do you mean we have (or almost have, I don't want to be too easily dismissed) is not evidence of sparks of intelligence?
> All of this is to say that you should probably ignore attempts to say (or deniably hint) "We achieved AGI!" about the next round of capability gains.
Wasn't Sam the Altman so recently cheeky? He'll ruin my grift!
> I model that this is partially trying to grab hype, and mostly trying to pull a false fire alarm in hopes of replacing hostile legislation with confusion. After all, if current tech is already "AGI", future tech couldn't be any worse or more dangerous than that, right? Why, there doesn't even exist any coherent concern you could talk about, once the word "AGI" only refers to things that you're already doing!
Again I reserve the right to remain arbitrarily alarmist to maintain my doom cult.
> Pulling the AGI alarm could be appropriate if a research group saw a sudden cascade of sharply increased capabilities feeding into each other, whose result was unmistakeably human-general to anyone with eyes.
Observing intelligence is famously something eyes are SufFicIent for! No this is not my implied racist, judge someone by the color of their skin, values seeping through.
> If that hasn't happened, though, deniably crying "AGI!" should be most obviously interpreted as enemy action to promote confusion; under the cover of selfishly grabbing for hype; as carried out based on carefully blind political instincts that wordlessly notice the benefit to themselves of their 'jokes' or 'choice of terminology' without there being allowed to be a conscious plan about that.
See Unbelievers! I can also detect the currents of misleading hype, I am no buffoon, only these hypesters are not undermining your concerns, they are undermining mine: namely damaging our ability to appear serious and recruit new cult members.
If learning incorrect things is EY's only definition of trauma, his existence must be eternal torment.
> @EY > This advice won't be for everyone, but: anytime you're tempted to say "I was traumatized by X", try reframing this in your internal dialogue as "After X, my brain incorrectly learned that Y".
I have to admit, for a brief moment i thought he was correctly expressing displeasure at twitter.
> @EY > This is of course a dangerous sort of tweet, but I predict that including variables into it will keep out the worst of the online riff-raff - the would-be bullies will correctly predict that their audiences' eyes would glaze over on reading a QT with variables.
Fool! This bully (is it weird to speak in the third person ?) thinks using variables here makes it MORE sneer worthy, especially since this appear to be a general advice, but i would struggle to think of a single instance in my life where it's been applicable.
Eliezer reveals his inner chūnibyō and inability to do math.
> @ESYudkowsky: > Remember when you were a kid and thought you might have psychic powers, so you dealt yourself face-down playing cards and tried to guess whether they were red or black, and recorded your accuracy rate over several batches of tries?
|
> And then remember how you had absolutely no idea to do stats at that age, so you stayed confused for a while longer? -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apologies for the usage of the japanese; but it is a very apt description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chūnibyō,
The atom bomb was summoned by wizards and pure thought.
And of course no experiments whatsoever, the cost of the Manhattan project, the hundreds of thousands of employees were merely a "focusing" magick, a sacrifice to re-enforce the greater powers of our handful of esteemed and glorious thinking men, who wrought the power of destruction from the æther.
> @ESYudkowsky: > Yes, but because the first nuclear weapon makers knew what the duck they were doing - analytic precise prediction of desired outcomes and of each intervening step. AGI makers lack similar mastery or anything remotely close, and have a much harder problem; that's the big issue. >> @EigenGender: >> seems pretty noteworthy that the first nuclear weapons were made under conditions where they couldn’t do any experiments and they involved a lot of math but still worked on the first try.