He's missing the point. The fight against tech is not more tech.
It's regulating tech.
I am retiring from fulltime writing (& pseudonymity) to launch Guardian Angel
211–220 of 264 posts
Re: I am retiring from fulltime writing (& pseudonymity) to launch Guardian Angel
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's novel because previous rounds of automation were about automating specific tasks or well-scoped functions. There was always an implicit understanding that the white-collar worker would be freed to spend their time on more valuable, higher-level problems. But this time is different because of the generality of the technology. Agents promise to automate the process of thinking itself. And in many domains they ca…
The overseas person didn't work out because of time zone and cultural and language barrier friction that wasn't anticipated in the idea. This isn't analogous to the threat of AI.
I’m at a fully remote company with staff in at least 8 countries speaking at least 5 languages. It works out fine. A possible analogy to AI is that a lot depends on how you use it. The “skill issue” doesn’t disappear, at least not yet.
Re: I am retiring from fulltime writing (& pseudonymity) to launch Guardian Angel
#213(I'm not a part of GA.) I've known gwern for the better part of a decade. Working with him has been great. We've done quite a few projects together, including being the first ones to demonstrate that GPT-2 could play chess (or rather, can be used for actual useful work instead of just being an autocomplete). He's a great person. I've wanted to do a writeup on it for some time, but what surprised me the most is his hu…
> How much would you pay to have access to a smarter version of yourself?
How much would you pay to get that sheer monomaniacal narcissism checked out?
Re: I am retiring from fulltime writing (& pseudonymity) to launch Guardian Angel
#214I can't imagine a more attractive target for scammers seeking the most gullible victims.
Re: I am retiring from fulltime writing (& pseudonymity) to launch Guardian Angel
#215It's hard to read Gwern's accompanying article without seeing this for what it is, which is a kind of mania. I'm sure he means well and is genuine in his aspirations, but what's outlined for GA is framing LLM's as quasi-gods, which they absolutely are not. I wish him the best, and look forward to being proven wrong.
> is framing LLM's as quasi-gods, which they absolutely are not Always such certainty in these dismissals. And whenever you dig in, it always seems to be "well my super-human coding assistant made this dumb mistake!", along with a heavy dose of https://mastodon.social/@falseknees/116477394235883790 I don't think anyone who has spent any time around me would describe me as having anything but a pretty clear-eyed view…
Honest question: What _would_ convince you that we are not heading towards a singularity? Like, is this belief falsifiable?
(Secondary question: what do you mean with singularity?)
As an offering of me engaging in good faith, a controversial opinion of mine: I legit think arpanet going online and starting the networking all of humanity into a massive coupled complex system fits the definition of singularity of "the moment after which predicting what will happen becomes hard to impossible", although that of course heavily depends on your definitions of prediction and hard/impossible.
Re: I am retiring from fulltime writing (& pseudonymity) to launch Guardian Angel
#216It's kind of sad to me to see this because I find Gwern's website so fascinating and impressive. But I don't believe that this kind of doubling down on LLMs is a good path forward for humanity.
Basically this is saying we used to have one person, now we have one person and an evil twin, so we should work on having one person and a good twin instead. Why not just kill all the evil twins? (It's not really killing since they're not alive.)
Re: I am retiring from fulltime writing (& pseudonymity) to launch Guardian Angel
#217As exciting as it sounds, but "As a constraint, a GA designer should aim at a system which costs, as of mid-2026, >$1,000⧸month" will make this an elite tool for the privileged. I don't even disagree with the premise that people are shocked if something costs no matter how much value it delivers, nor do I suggest they should make it cheaper. It is just the realization that AI will accelerate the widening of the gap b…
You’re assuming this $1000/mo will buy you something useful.
You can live 3 months where I live with that money.
Re: I am retiring from fulltime writing (& pseudonymity) to launch Guardian Angel
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
> is framing LLM's as quasi-gods, which they absolutely are not Always such certainty in these dismissals. And whenever you dig in, it always seems to be "well my super-human coding assistant made this dumb mistake!", along with a heavy dose of https://mastodon.social/@falseknees/116477394235883790 I don't think anyone who has spent any time around me would describe me as having anything but a pretty clear-eyed view…
Honest question: What _would_ convince you that we are not heading towards a singularity? Like, is this belief falsifiable? (Secondary question: what do you mean with singularity?) As an offering of me engaging in good faith, a controversial opinion of mine: I legit think arpanet going online and starting the networking all of humanity into a massive coupled complex system fits the definition of singularity of "the m…
For falsification, I would take a year in which we don’t see an absolute sea change in capability. The last twelve months were not that, in my opinion, nor were the twelve before it. Hell, I’d even throw in “a year in which capabilities obviously improve but at a cost consumers can’t afford”.
“What LLMs can’t do, only humans can” feels like a God of the Gaps situation: people have to keep moving the goal posts because the more recent models keep unlocking more territory that was previously a “well they’ll never be able to do this!” holdout
Re: I am retiring from fulltime writing (& pseudonymity) to launch Guardian Angel
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can nod along when I hear and read people talking about the dangers of these technologies and the endgame of their creators; and then suddenly very weird when everyone except me is nodding along that the answer must be similar (but different) technology! It's as if technologists are stuck in a room of mirrors, unable to imagine a world in which "solutions" don't ultimately just continue to feed technology's increas…
The LessWrong/“rationality” crowd gwern is part of like to pat themselves on the back for identifying the trend and resulting harms from super intelligent AI going back decades. And yet, the main tangible contribution emerging from this early recognition (and obsession) was to inspire a lot of brilliant CS/math types and billionaires like Peter Thiel or Jaan Tallinn to build and fund companies like OpenAI and Anthrop…
The LessWrong/"rationality" crowd aren't compromising their values; they just have bad values that lead to negative outcomes, masked by high-minded rhetoric that they themselves only half believe.
It's a popular movement that has wound its way through out society, and the fruits are clear: surveillance capitalism, eugenics, fraud. It's honestly quite impressive how consistently you can look at [recent negative trend] and find someone at the bottom calling themselves a rationalist and claiming the same set of influences.
The fundamental tenet of that set isn't rationalism but the belief that they are superior to the exploitable masses. That does not lead anywhere good.
Re: I am retiring from fulltime writing (& pseudonymity) to launch Guardian Angel
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imagine an LLM which actually sounded like you, and to an extent, thought like you. How much would you pay to have access to a smarter version of yourself? I find the idea dehumanizing and revolting. The notion of then selling it is the spoiled cream on top.
After reading some of the outraged comments here, I'm even more excited.
I do think it's significant that the supporters of this kind of technology seem to be unusually spiteful.
This doesn't happen with all tech; people who like VR don't like it because they want to hurt others, for example. But consistently, whenever AI is discussed, it becomes clear that some people support it just out of malevolence.