FairlyInvolved

8 ms·

1.
by FairlyInvolved 1y ago
I realise no one is infallible but do you not think Daniel Kokotajlo's integrity is now pretty well established with regard to those incentives?
2.
by FairlyInvolved 1y ago
We are going to scale up GPT4 by a factor of ~10,000 and that will result in getting an accurate summary of your daily schedule?
3.
by FairlyInvolved 1y ago
There's a pretty good summary of how well it has held up here, by the significance of each claim: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/u9Kr97di29CkMvjaj/evaluating...
4.
by FairlyInvolved 3y ago
Outside of a few retail investors institutional buyers are no so naïve that they take a loss-making company paying out a dividend as a measure of good financial health. Long Intel but as Dylan (and many others) noted they should have stoppe
5.
by FairlyInvolved 3y ago
Writing down a merger/acquisition is probably the main scenario where this could extend to the billions. I don't have an exact list but I think you'll see differences of that order in the years following big acquisitions like
6.
by FairlyInvolved 4y ago
I don't think debris 'going higher' isn't much of a problem. Whenever this happens the orbit is going to be more eccentric - meaning a lower periapsis, and consequentially lots of drag that will cause a rapid deorbit. On
7.
by FairlyInvolved 4y ago
I think that's just a scaling issue, fundamentally there's no reason why a model trained on video couldn't come to create coherent motion in the same way that image models can now product coherent lighting/themes. Smalle
8.
by FairlyInvolved 4y ago
I'm not saying they are doing a good enough job, but that doesn't mean their approach isn't entirely without merit. Even ignoring the infohazard angle if they published everything immediately that would escalate the race. By
9.
by FairlyInvolved 4y ago
Nuclear warfare is much less concerning than misaligned AI. Take a look into scaling laws and alignment concerns, this is a very real challenge and existential risk not some crackpot theory.
10.
by FairlyInvolved 4y ago
I kind of get the sentiment about openness but I think it's way more nuanced than you are making out. There are very good reasons for withholding SOTA models, primarily from the info hazard angle and avoiding escalating the capabilitie
11.
by FairlyInvolved 4y ago
I wouldn't necessarily say a major breakthrough as such but I do think some architectural change is needed. There are concepts in images that we don't rely on purely visual understanding for - like words, we have a language model
12.
by FairlyInvolved 4y ago
And N7 is almost certainly cheaper (holistically) than Intel 7, from an economic perspective AMD have done more with less.
13.
by FairlyInvolved 4y ago
They hold a monopoly of merit, many tried EUV and they succeeded in doing something that others were calling impossible even 5 years before they shipped it, not by shutting down competition but simply because no one else could. The idea tha
14.
by FairlyInvolved 4y ago
Several people have answered this from the angle of why the cost is large, but missed the other (necessary) angle - the benefits are also massive and well understood. Plenty of potential projects have huge costs but they don't exist be
15.
by FairlyInvolved 5y ago
I think that's well-understood and the existence of the F-35 evidences the perceived threat from nations with more advanced militaries.
16.
by FairlyInvolved 5y ago
It does if the reward is sufficiently large. If BTC mining relied on pieces of litter being collected you'd get people spending $millions on factories to produce litter and vehicles to distribute it just so more could be collected. Tha
17.
by FairlyInvolved 5y ago
I really don't see how the current hashrate is required to prevent a 51% attack, that seems way beyond what is necessary. These Proof of Waste systems aren't really a negative feedback loop, ultimately asset prices determine minin
18.
by FairlyInvolved 5y ago
They sort of have to, you can't selectively enforce trademarks like you can with other IP