Even Scott’s fantasy dream scenario for what prediction markets could be like and what questions they could answer feels… … deliberately naive? …like libertarian brainrot? …disconnected from reality?

That’s mostly because outright admitting that the point of prediction markets was to make having the prediction gene profitable so they could get on with breeding a rationailst kwisatz haderach to fight the robot god on more equal terms wouldn’t fly with the lower level thetans and other exoterics.

Well, you could maybe sort of train it not to generate “all men are cats”, but then that might also prevent it from making the more correct generalization “all cats are mortal” or even completely valid generalizations like combing “all men are mortal” and “Socrates is man” to get “Socrates is mortal”.

Just wanted to say that that ‘tal’ comes after ‘mor’ when ‘soc-rate-s’ is in the near context and in agreement with the attention mechanism is a very different type of logic than what this phrasing implies. This is also in combination with the peculiarities of word embeddings (the technique by which the tokens are translated to numeric vectors) like how it has a hard time making something useful out of numbers, it uh gets uh complicated.

The monofacts thing seems very post hoc and way too abstracted in comparison, and also the amount of text that can be categorized as strictly true or false isn’t that big all things considered.

Still if the point was to formalize the very no-duh observation that a neural net isn’t supposed to output it’s dataset verbatim at all times hence hallucinations, then fine, I guess. Their proposed sort of solution (controlled miscalibration) even amounts to forcing the model to generalize less by memorizing more, which used to be the opposite of why you would choose to use this type of topography.

The newest addition to her polycule

Isn’t this mostly a pretentious way of saying someone I recently fucked?

I feel like a lot of my writing on rationality would be a lot more popular if I could go back in time to the 1960s and present it there. “Twelve Virtues of Rationality” is what people could’ve been reading instead of Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land

This is someone nakedly fantasizing about being L. Ron Hubbard.

Also an email came up where Demis Hassabis tried to convince Elon to stop insisting on open sourcing OpenAI for AI safety reasons by sending him a 2015 scott alexander blogpost.

Last summer the Web Speech API got incorporated into browser standards, it’s supposed to offer in-browser speech-to-text and the like, and full support of the API requires the browser vendor to offer the ability to download a language appropriate model for autonomous inference.

Going from this to deciding that it’s now ok to side load unspecified 4GB models without telling the user is why we should never give these people an inch.

Theoretically if the people responsible for that training and reinforcement did their jobs well then those patterns should only include true statements

That would only work if inference were some sort of massive if-the-else process. Hallucinations are downstream of neural networks’ ability to generalize from the dataset examples, they aren’t going anywhere even if you train on a corpus of perfectly correct statements.

I like Evans’ take that since there’s bound to be oodles of cult related literature and interactions and also tons of self help and guru stuff in the training datasets, it stands to reason that if you interact with a chatbot in a way that indicates vulnerability to these things there’s a considerable chance that it will decide the expected response is to prey on you.

Also Scott Aaronson jump scare near the beginning, apparently he was blurbed for something.

He absolutely does. No idea if it’s supposed to be a bit.

Is that the guy who’s always trying to use LessWrong as preemptive conversion therapy to cure him of having trans thoughts, and they’re actually having none of it?

I mean it’s so cut and dried you had to invent a disadvantage for pushing the red button.

Maybe the catch is that picking red means you are basically ok with offing people who don’t think like you do en masse, even though it’s posited like a dilemma between securing the lives of your family vs giving a chance to hypothetical people who are heavily OCD in favor of blue buttons.

If this isn’t pure engagement bait, what’s the real world situation this is supposed to map to? Pressing red means you always live, and if everyone pushes red everyone lives so…

I mean if blue is supposed to be a proxy for altruism, that usually doesn’t come with a certain death conditional.

Apparently, you buy some currency type thing called AI Units and this is the rate the different LLMs consume them. The multipliers used to represent requests I think, i.e. times you triggered inference, but ai units are a proxy for token burn in a somewhat vague way, which makes me think there will be rate limit related controversies similar to what’s now happening with anthropic.

Existing enterprise users will get double the AIUs for three months to ease them to the new pricing model, so autumn (when the enterprise AIU pools get effectively halved) is gonna be fun.

New copilot pricing just dropped, takes effect after June 1:

Some highlights for copilot pro and pro+:

ZSNES makes a comeback, has No Vibe Coding stipulation front and center.

I use AI sparingly to make sure the company-paid subscription is a net loss for the AI vendor.

Hey, it could happen.

Overall, I think it was a bit cookie cutter for an article of this type, but maybe It’s just the preaching to the choir effect. Even the fact that he ostensibly quit his job over this stuff doesn’t hit as hard as it should, it comes off as if he could have done so at any time but this way he gets to grandstand about it.

Also stuff like this:

It wasn’t a bad job, not by most metrics. It ticked the boxes a job is supposed to tick: good pay. Health insurance. Remote work. Time off. Nice coworkers.

sounds like it should be in a how do you do, fellow workers copypasta.

The poster goes on to whine about how it sucks it’s not the same as solving puzzles and they’re just QAing all day now and calls the LLM a slot machine, so at least they’re not boosting.

Still, they don’t go so far as to say they were forced to work this way, so their not even looking at the code either means they’re a lazy bum or that it’s too far past incoherent to be worth it.

Saw a remarkable take on the pro-AI parts of bsky, that since DeepSeek420.69 can offer the model at like 15% of Claude’s pricing, that must mean that Anthropic is operating at an at least 80% positive margin on inference, so things will work out.

In the same thread they complained about Zitron’s math being dodgy.

Nadella told colleagues he has started testing Clawdbot

Nadella? Satya I run ten agents to read the news and my mails and explain them to me before sending answers in my place Nadella? Weird he’s still around, thought he’d be a bot by now.

Clawpilot sounds completely cursed, can’t wait.