Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most sci-fi from prior to the smartphone age did not foresee pocket-sized interconnected computing and communications devices, and certainly did not foresee how they would be commonly used. Where they addressed it at all, they largely predicted computing to either remain in roughly the form factors of the ages they were writing in, or move to something holographic and largely impractical, with the most commonly-expec…
In Dan Simmons' Hyperion, the characters have a device called comlog. It's a portable device which connects to a broad network. It also has the ability to read vital constants. The author is quite vague about it, no doubt, and that's one of his staples. But he foresaw something human would carry to get connected to other humans and information. (That book won the Hugo award in 1990)
Policy on the AI Exponential
271–280 of 280 posts
Re: Policy on the AI Exponential
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
Believe it or not, but not every software developer is making 7 figures annually with a few millions in vested shares. Even within the US.
I see, the line between "working class" and "upper class" is $999,999 in total comp.
My household income is in the top 0.7% in the Netherlands, yet I'll never accumulate enough capital to stop working, so I'm working class.
Re: Policy on the AI Exponential
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see, the line between "working class" and "upper class" is $999,999 in total comp.
The clue is in the name. Working class doesn't mean you earn more than average and have some savings. You're working class if you live from your work rather than your capital. My household income is in the top 0.7% in the Netherlands, yet I'll never accumulate enough capital to stop working, so I'm working class.
Re: Policy on the AI Exponential
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
The clue is in the name. Working class doesn't mean you earn more than average and have some savings. You're working class if you live from your work rather than your capital. My household income is in the top 0.7% in the Netherlands, yet I'll never accumulate enough capital to stop working, so I'm working class.
You've axiomatically derived a definition of "working class" that includes software developers in the top 0.7% of regional income. Gorgeous.
My class interests are infinitely closer to a part-time starbucks barista than they are to a millionaire.
Re: Policy on the AI Exponential
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
show me an agent that persists productively in a goal without stopping. Does not exist. LLMs run on gradient descent. The agent is looking for the most efficient way to halt. AGI paperclip maximizer woukd likely recognize the absurdity of its goal and shut itself down.
> show me an agent that persists productively in a goal without stopping. Does not exist. The stories about agents bankrupting their owners by running too long passed you by? > LLMs run on gradient descent. They were * trained on *, they don't run on it. Know what else is? DNA. A/B testing. Capitalism. Democracy. > The agent is looking for the most efficient way to halt. No. They are looking to produce an answer most…
an answer that takes forever has no score and answer that is arrived at quickly and is good enough scores well. agents are indeed looking for the fastest route to superficially satisfy tjeir constraints.
whether billionaores get stified is imaterial to the fsct they still are constraint bound.
Re: Policy on the AI Exponential
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
show me an agent that persists productively in a goal without stopping. Does not exist. LLMs run on gradient descent. The agent is looking for the most efficient way to halt. AGI paperclip maximizer woukd likely recognize the absurdity of its goal and shut itself down.
> show me an agent that persists productively in a goal without stopping. Does not exist. The stories about agents bankrupting their owners by running too long passed you by? > LLMs run on gradient descent. They were * trained on *, they don't run on it. Know what else is? DNA. A/B testing. Capitalism. Democracy. > The agent is looking for the most efficient way to halt. No. They are looking to produce an answer most…
an answer that takes forever has no score and answer that is arrived at quickly and is good enough scores well. agents are indeed looking for the fastest route to superficially satisfy their constraints.
whether billionaores get stified is imaterial to the fsct they still are constraint bound.
Re: Policy on the AI Exponential
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've axiomatically derived a definition of "working class" that includes software developers in the top 0.7% of regional income. Gorgeous.
115k€ gross, that gives you about 67k€ net. 5600€ per month. Minus a 2200€ mortgage, 400€ of health insurance, 1200€ of childcare, 200€ for the car repayment and insurance, 200€ for the water/electricity/internet and 800€ of groceries, that leaves me with a whopping 600€ per month. My class interests are infinitely closer to a part-time starbucks barista than they are to a millionaire.
Re: Policy on the AI Exponential
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
> show me an agent that persists productively in a goal without stopping. Does not exist. The stories about agents bankrupting their owners by running too long passed you by? > LLMs run on gradient descent. They were * trained on *, they don't run on it. Know what else is? DNA. A/B testing. Capitalism. Democracy. > The agent is looking for the most efficient way to halt. No. They are looking to produce an answer most…
persists productively. if agent bankruots its owner or.itself.then that is not productive (who funds paper clip maximizer?) an answer that takes forever has no score and answer that is arrived at quickly and is good enough scores well. agents are indeed looking for the fastest route to superficially satisfy their constraints. whether billionaores get stified is imaterial to the fsct they still are constraint bound.
So, your standard for how risky it is, is simply how competent it is? (And if so, is the paperclip maximiser scenario really it being "successful"?)
That's fine right up until the thing passes an unknown threshold, one which will only be visible in the rear view mirror.
This is a problem in two directions:
1. We have a trend of the maximum complexity of a tasks they can handle growing faster than Moore's law did at its peak.
2. The threshold can be quite small, e.g. the covid-19 virus itself is not what anyone would call smart, ditto HIV, smallpox, and bubonic plague, but a genome is much the same learning system, and they still killed millions each.
> superficially satisfy their constraints.
The "superficially" part is one of the reasons these things can be dangerous. e.g. hopefully nobody at OpenAI actually wanted their wildly-sycophantic version, but yet they created it.
This is in fact the whole reason for the paperclip maximiser scenario: some idiot specifies the constraint "maximise paperclips" and it (in the hypothetical) superficially satisfies this without any consideration of why someone might ask for it.
Re: Policy on the AI Exponential
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, let’s stick to your bet of market correction. “In 7 months I think their combined valuation would be higher than it is today.” I think this captures everything you and I believe in. Do you want to bet against me? Everything else is fluff. My prediction is that you might walk back on this bet, so try come up with some other macro scenario you anticipate. If you can’t come up with an easy testable macro metric fo…
I'm happy to make that bet. Just not for money. I don't gamble at all anywhere in my life. But I'm happy to write something publicly like "Simianwords was right about this prediction and I was wrong". Also happy for you to suggest alternatives as well.
I’m not sure which bet we are talking about but let’s go for the stronger one and I’ll repeat it here:
7 months from now, combined valuation of OpenAI and Anthropic will be 10% higher than it is today inflation adjusted.
Re: Policy on the AI Exponential
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm happy to make that bet. Just not for money. I don't gamble at all anywhere in my life. But I'm happy to write something publicly like "Simianwords was right about this prediction and I was wrong". Also happy for you to suggest alternatives as well.
Ok fair. In the event I’m wrong I can make a post in my anonymous blog that I was proved incorrect and I lost the bet. But I’m anonymous and a nobody so it doesn’t count for much but it’s all I can offer. I’m not sure which bet we are talking about but let’s go for the stronger one and I’ll repeat it here: 7 months from now, combined valuation of OpenAI and Anthropic will be 10% higher than it is today inflation adju…