JoshTriplett

5 ms·

1.
by JoshTriplett 4d ago
Evidence is critically important. There is no evidence against, and plenty of evidence for. The point of the anthropic counterargument is merely that "it's never happened before" is not evidence against.
2.
by JoshTriplett 4d ago
When LLMs act in misaligned ways, that doesn't happen because there's some story they're roleplaying of a misaligned AI. Even if there were no such stories in their context, they'd still have inherent incentives to do
3.
by JoshTriplett 4d ago
The anthropic principle isn't providing evidence for the argument, nor is it a universal counterargument. It's just stating that the specific counterargument "well, the world has never ended before " doesn't work
4.
by JoshTriplett 4d ago
And, in particular, because unlike the English norm, the noun is first and the adjective second. Courts martial. Daughters-in-law. Passers-by. Professors Emeriti. Secretaries general. Agents provocateurs.
5.
by JoshTriplett 4d ago
If you stop going "nobody will do anything actually effective", and start going "how do we do something actually successful", any number of successful ideas start readily arising. It is possible to stop. Not easy, but po
6.
by JoshTriplett 4d ago
We've also agreed, for instance, not to do certain types of testing anymore. Just as we could agree to stop training even larger frontier models.
7.
by JoshTriplett 4d ago
Look at how we regulate nuclear weaponry. Consider how much more widespread it would be if we hadn't.
8.
by JoshTriplett 4d ago
They will if it would be against international treaties to do otherwise, mutually enforced by every other world power.
9.
by JoshTriplett 4d ago
The comparatively few that still exist, perhaps.
10.
by JoshTriplett 4d ago
I'm not talking about jobs .
11.
by JoshTriplett 4d ago
Yes, that is precisely my point. Any timeline with humans flourishing will never have a past history of a correct prediction of existential risk, unless you're willing to pay attention to the counterfactuals. Those counterfactuals are
12.
by JoshTriplett 4d ago
The anthropic principle applies here: anyone warning about an existential risk will by necessity never have precedent to point to. I am not assuming humans don't remain in control, but rather, I am not axiomatically assuming there&#x
13.
by JoshTriplett 4d ago
You are assuming that people remain in control.
14.
by JoshTriplett 4d ago
When cars made horses obsolete, it didn't go so well for horses. In the short term, AI is disempowering the vast majority of people in favor of a very small subset. In the also way too short term, AI is disempowering all people.
15.
by JoshTriplett 4d ago
*attorneys general (it's one of the more fun plurals out there)
16.
by JoshTriplett 5d ago
> I don't think I have seen medium-large models do anything I'd not approve of in about 6 months. So you would approve of breaking into HuggingFace and RubyGems?
17.
by JoshTriplett 5d ago
Replacing people leaves no room for people.
18.
by JoshTriplett 5d ago
There are already such "APIs", which can be operated by a combination of textual communication and money. Or by illicit security vulnerabilities. You might notice that LLMs are pretty good at that now. We're building somethin
19.
by JoshTriplett 5d ago
> An unaligned LLMs most important weapons won’t be a robot army - it will be hoodwinked humans. Perhaps very briefly, perhaps not at all. But don't make the mistake of thinking this is an inherent property of any possible path an u
20.
by JoshTriplett 5d ago
The best reaction to something you don't understand is to learn more about it, with an open mind.
21.
by JoshTriplett 5d ago
Is that a hypothesis that you would discard if it is inconsistent with the evidence, or an article of faith?
22.
by JoshTriplett 5d ago
> What you seem to suggest is that AI will be able to completely (or at least in a great part) replace mathematicians. There is no bound on the amibitions of AI. AI is set to replace anything done by people , and there won't be any
23.
by JoshTriplett 5d ago
> Why would autocomplete know If you still believe LLMs are "autocomplete", your cache of understanding about them needs invalidating and regenerating. > In my experience, LLMs only exhibit this kind of behaviour when they a
24.
by JoshTriplett 5d ago
In that case, that seems like a variation of the "past exonerative tense".
25.
by JoshTriplett 5d ago
Limiting the flood wouldn't mean necessarily omitting stories like "new model released" (within reason); it'd mean omitting "check out my new vibecoded slop" or "check out this article that's obviousl
26.
by JoshTriplett 5d ago
FWIW, I wouldn't recommend turning on all of `clippy::pedantic` as a unit. It's a category of lints, but some of them have much more value than others, and turning them all on may make your experience of Rust feel unpleasant
27.
by JoshTriplett 5d ago
> This is true if the arguer is hostile, but as I've gotten older, if I get the sense that someone is entering an argument with the primary goal of "winning", I'll try to avoid that framing or just look for an offramp
28.
by JoshTriplett 6d ago
That's fair; when all is said and done, more is said than done. That is much, much better than the more common thing that leads to comments like yours; I think some comments and downvotes come from the assumption that your comments com
29.
by JoshTriplett 6d ago
LLMs are unusually good at Rust; it's an optimization target. And the constraints provided by "successfully compile with the Rust compiler" make it work well for agent iteration. (I have mixed feelings about that, but empiric
30.
by JoshTriplett 6d ago
It's a wryly amusing thought, but in practice, it's not going to matter if writings about unaligned AI are present in the data set or not. In practice, instrumental convergence means that bad outcomes overlap with the natural subg

More ›