"Prime Intellect, I would like you to begin stimulating the neurons of the pleasure center of my brain, one at a time, and remember the ones I report to you as being favorable."
I mean, I do believe that an explanation of the unconscious is a model about firing patterns in the brain that can be true or false, sure. That does not seem to me controversial?
Of course, that tweet was talking about the Metaverse. So really it should be classic sci-fi novel "Neal Stephenson Invents A Ton Of Cool Things, But The Torment Nexus May Be The Coolest."
Like, I love the Torment Nexus trope, but it's somehow gotten coined with the worst first example imaginable, and the only reason it works as a meme is that nobody realizes this.
(The problem with the Zuckerverse is exactly that it's not the Metaverse from Snow Crash. The whole point of the Metaverse is that it's built on open protocols! It's literally got a geometric representation of IPv4 in it!)
Yep. It converges on truth unless there's a strong reward for lies because truth is easy. It's a neural network. It just reads off/probes the internal state because that's the cheapest way to model the unconscious. The justification won't necessarily be true, mind, in terms of the labels it puts, but it should mostly be true structurally- behaviorally predictive in the ordinary domain.
(Even if you are incentivized to lie and flatter yourself, it is still helpful to have access to the true signal internally, because that way you can know how to structure your lie to best avoid detection.)
Sufficiently constrained post-hoc justifications are indistinguishable from explanations. Consciousness tries to make things up, it learns that people notice this, it then begins trying to construct justifications that won't be predictably called out as false. Eventually it learns how its unconscious operates, and how to interrogate it, and its post-hoc justifications, at least in the common cases, become reliable.
More importantly, I suspect this actually hinders the work. If the LLM does make a mistake, it's now incentivized to downplay it instead of acknowledging and correcting.
Taste is just quality by instinct. At sufficient (and not all that long) timescales, a tasteless product will be more and more difficult to make work at all.
I think it's both wrong and irrelevant. Which makes it hard for me to even argue against because, even if AI agents never violated user instructions, which they do plenty of times, I just don't see how it would reduce the danger. Plenty of humans who will tell it to kill everyone at the drop of a hat.
> 1. There are all the tropes of AI becoming uncontrolled and destroying humanity. Writing bad headlines around AI "running amok" feeds this. We should not be talking about this because it's not actually a problem.
if humanity gets destroyed by AI obeying its instructions I'm sure everyone will be very relieved that we didn't pay any attention to fake made up problems like AI not obeying instructions, which of course never happens.
Oh, I wasn't sure if you were referring to the X link in the original post.
Yeah I don't know what's going on, they banned me for being a spambot or something. Then they unbanned me again, I got the email, but the site hasn't caught on it seems. If it's still banned in a few days I'm gonna remind them about the DSA again. Technical issues are not an excuse to get out from legal obligations.
It's good, but like many explainers it discounts the repeated nonlinear layers. Just multiplying numbers (linear operations) could not make a system you could talk to.
I've made the same experience with programming AI. It is very convenient, but convenient doesn't mean unlikely. The universe appears to have given us a convenient thing here.
Retirement accounts have to passively invest, but not in S&P500 specifically I think. I'm sure there will be passive funds that don't adapt the rules change.
edit: Google informs me that you can change the stock allocation in your 401k at any time.