Moving towards a world where the majority of industry is in space. Irish and nomading atm.
Joined May 2023
- Tweets1.1K
- Following1.3K
- Followers188
- Likes1.6K
Not sure how I feel about the Red Rising movie announcement.
On one hand, great to have amazing sci fi on the big screen.
On the other, kinda wish we were getting a tv show.
Your prospects are too busy at work to read your emails.
You need to reach them somewhere they feel relaxed. Somewhere they can switch off.
For me, that’s World of Warcraft.
If you have three hours to clear a dungeon, you have 15 minutes to discuss your workflow.
China are funding pro-WoW Forever propaganda to incentivise the west to spend time in Azeroth so they can win the AI race.
They’re calling it the media-pincer-manoeuvre.
Anti-AI sentiment on one side, pro-gaming sentiment on the other.
And it’s working.
I desperately need to rethink what work is.
It used to be much more weighted towards execution. Working deep on one task for a few hours at a time.
Now, it is much more weighted towards judgement. Spend some time to plan out what I need, spin up multiple agents to get different vibes on the task, and judge the output.
There's something missing in this new paradigm of work that I haven't yet figured out how to fill in. Without it, the work feels a little meaningless..
There's this attitude recently of any tv shows, video games or watching live streams is bad behaviour.
Nothing wrong with a bit of rec provided your time isn't being consumed by that rec.
Unwinding after a day of good work with something you love shouldn't be frowned upon.
There's nothing you can say against this. Pure goodness. Love it.
Through the VOICE trial, Terry is using his Neuralink implant to help fine-tune a brain-to-voice interface for himself and others who can’t speak. He trained the algorithm first by miming speech as best he could, then by simply thinking the words and hearing them come out in his own natural voice.
Powered by Grok Voice from @spacexai
Peter Healy retweeted
>be me
>discover effective altruism
>apparently normal charity is inefficient
>why donate to random sad thing when spreadsheet can tell you optimal sad thing
>fair enough
>buy mosquito nets
>save lives
>numbers look good
>feel powerful
>couple years later
>someone asks an innocent question
>why only count people alive today
>huh
>future people matter too
>obviously
>my grandchildren shouldn't matter less just because they haven't spawned yet
>reasonable.jpg
>keep following logic
>what about their grandchildren
>also yes
>what about people in 500 years
>sure
>5000 years
>why not
>500 million years
>starting to get weird but morality is morality
>open calculator
>humanity could survive for an astronomically long time
>could colonize galaxy
>could have trillions upon trillions of descendants
>maybe digital people too
>maybe simulated civilizations
>maybe dyson spheres full of happy uploaded minds
>calculator starts smoking
>realize currently living humans are rounding error
>8 billion people suddenly looking extremely beta
>future contains potentially 10^something people
>can't even fit beneficiaries in google sheets
>new moral priority unlocked
>protect the long-term future
>stop thinking in units of "people helped"
>start thinking in "fraction of cosmic endowment preserved"
>malaria?
>terrible
>but only kills existing humans
>AI extinction could delete the entire light cone
>nuclear war could permanently derail civilization
>bad institutions could lock in terrible values for ten million years
>someone invents wrong constitution in 2140
>quadrillions suffer
>better fund governance workshop now
>friend says maybe we should improve hospitals
>explain opportunity cost
>friend says hospitals are full of actual sick people
>explain scope sensitivity
>friend stops inviting me to dinner
>need to decide what to fund
>easy
>expected value
>suppose project has one in a million chance of preventing extinction
>sounds tiny
>but extinction destroys 10^50 future lives
>multiply
>mother of god
>$10 million project has expected value of several galaxies
>charity evaluation complete
>someone asks where the one-in-a-million number came from
>expert judgement
>which expert
>us
>how calibrated
>extremely thoughtfully
>reduce estimate to one in ten million to be conservative
>still beats curing cancer by 38 orders of magnitude
>epistemic robustness achieved
>someone says maybe project doesn't work
>assign 20% chance
>still astronomical
>maybe project makes problem worse
>assign 5% chance
>still astronomical
>why 5
>because 30 felt pessimistic
>publish 46-page report
>contains seventeen sensitivity analyses
>every sensitivity analysis begins after assuming intervention has positive sign
>critic says you're multiplying enormous hypothetical stakes by extremely uncertain probabilities
>yes
>that's literally why it's important
>critic says the uncertainty might be structural rather than numerical
>make probability smaller
>critic says no, I mean maybe your model is wrong
>make probability smaller again
>critic begins rubbing temples
>discover AI safety
>perfect longtermist cause
>AI might kill everyone
>or create utopia
>or seize galaxy
>or tile universe with paperclips
>or create billions of conscious software minds
>finally a problem with numbers big enough for me
>start AI safety nonprofit
>mission: prevent dangerous AI
>hire smartest people available
>smartest people immediately start building better AI to understand dangerous AI
>interesting
>we must understand capabilities to understand safety
>we must scale models to study alignment
>we must race ahead so less responsible actors don't get there first
>we must deploy systems to learn how deployment can go wrong
>we must build the thing quickly because building the thing quickly is dangerous
>outsider asks why the people most worried about AI apocalypse all work at AI companies
>complicated field
>company releases stronger model
>very concerned
>company begins training even stronger model
>extremely concerned
>company raises $14 billion
>concern reaches unprecedented levels
>need to influence government
>future is at stake
>normal democratic process too slow
>politicians don't understand exponential curves
>public doesn't understand x-risk
>experts must guide them
>who counts as expert
>people who understand x-risk
>who understands x-risk
>our friends
>someone objects that this seems politically convenient
>explain we're representing future generations
>future generations unavailable for comment
>develop concept of value lock-in
>terrifying possibility that one ideology controls civilization forever
>therefore extremely important that civilization adopts correct values before lock-in
>whose values
>let's circle back
>begin with impartial morality
>end with small group of people deciding what quadrillions of hypothetical beings would want
>beautiful arc
>meanwhile actual humans keep doing annoying things
>voting wrong
>having parochial attachments
>loving family more than strangers
>caring about local community
>getting upset when told their suffering is cosmically negligible
>evolutionary biases everywhere
>explain that moral intuition cannot be trusted
>except intuition that future digital people count
>and intuition that extinction is uniquely bad
>and intuition that our probability estimates are sane
>and intuition that our institutional choices improve the future
>those intuitions survived peer review
>someone donates $5k to local homeless shelter
>inefficient
>could have funded 0.0000000000003% of an AI governance researcher
>think of all the simulated people you just killed
>okay maybe don't phrase it that way publicly
>PR team says "future generations deserve a voice"
>much better
>journalist asks what longtermism means
>say "future people matter"
>everyone agrees
>great
>journalist asks what follows from that
>well technically we should redirect enormous resources toward low-probability interventions affecting astronomical futures
>journalist raises eyebrow
>return to "future people matter"
>motte has entered the chat
>critic: of course future people matter
>me: glad we agree
>critic: I don't agree that your institute knows how to help them
>me: why do you hate our grandchildren
>eventually notice uncomfortable implication
>if future value dominates everything
>then helping people today mostly matters through effects on future
>education matters because future institutions
>health matters because future productivity
>democracy matters because future trajectory
>human beings slowly become instrumental variables in their own moral philosophy
>see starving child
>feel compassion
>check spreadsheet
>child's direct welfare contribution negligible
>but perhaps childhood nutrition improves national institutional quality
>compassion restored
>tell myself this is impartial altruism
>one day assistant asks obvious question
>"how do you know your intervention actually improves the far future?"
>silence
>open spreadsheet
>increase column width
>add confidence interval
>assistant asks again
>"no, I mean how do you know the sign is positive?"
>stare into cosmic light cone
>10^50 people staring back
>none of them exist
>none of them can tell me
>none of them can falsify my assumptions
>realize I have invented the perfect constituency
>infinitely important
>completely silent
>and always represented by me
Let's kill the praise of "one-shot".
Perfection is better than good enough.
The new ExaAI ad gives the same energy as one of my favourite pictures of all time.
Storytelling is only going to grow in popularity.
People who’ve built a brand on just teaching things without telling their story of how they learned it or implemented it will fall away.
The reason people don't see changes in their life from using AI is because they don't actually want to be better.
They just want to be better than the person next to them.
When something like AI is raising the bar for everyone, no one is getting relatively ahead. Some people are even falling relatively behind, despite being better off today than before.
Learn to change your framing or else you'll be very angry.
There was a time when if you needed a lot of money fast it was more probable for you to do something illegal and get away with it than to do something good.
Some year in near history a switch flipped.
If you need $1,000,000 you are far far more likely to achieve that by giving something that someone wants, or better something that someone needs, than by taking it from someone else.
That's magical.
Hasan, socialist, is anti private-enterprise. So he would be so fine with the labs IPOing. Right??
It's so disgusting when this COVID analogy is brought up of the experts being wrong.
Some specific experts said some wrong things. It was a crazy time and people were dying at an alarming rate. Give it a break.
Most of what the overall expert community said was absolutely true and the data shows that following their advice was orders of magnitude safer than all of the pseudo solutions that podcasts like this promoted.
We gotta stop rewriting history. (~7min timestamp)
THE ALL-IN SUMMIT IS LIVE!
@JensenHuang joins The Besties live on stage! (ft. a legendary phone call from @POTUS)
-- The AI Doomer Hoax
-- Superintelligence Has Arrived?
-- What RSI Actually Is
-- The Future of AI: Open Source, China, The Next Industrial Revolution
$NVDA
(0:00) Jensen Huang joins The Besties!
(1:39) Thoughts on Dario's blog, Frontier Labs calling to slow down AI, and Doomer psychology
(9:58) Sensible AI regulation and RSI
(16:05) Hugging Face acquisition, future of Open Source, and the race with China
(22:58) President Trump calls in live to discuss the Doomer Hoax
(31:29) The AI boom and Nvidia's capital allocation strategy
(40:21) Nvidia's Open Source model ambitions, thoughts on Elon's Terafab
“I mean what can I say guys? If we can pace training it means we can pull some profitable months ahead of IPO by only serving our 90% margin inference for a while”
The world deserves confidence that American companies developing increasingly capable AI will act responsibly, especially as the trajectory of progress has steepened. Every frontier lab must deliver on this, and there is no reason any of us should come to work if we cannot.
We welcome a federal framework that sets consistent safety requirements for frontier AI. But we do not believe we need to wait for an anti-trust exemption or legislation to begin the work of providing this confidence. Consistent rules to manage frontier risk so that we can maximize the benefits are a good idea (and we are excited by ideas like independent auditors).
Years ago, companies like ours developed things like Responsible Scaling Policies and Preparedness Frameworks. Those were good for that moment, and focused primarily on the deployment of completed models, not what happens during their development process.
Today's shift to focusing on safe development and evaluation will need new tools. For example, at OpenAI we now formulate explicit safety cases in advance of frontier reinforcement learning runs we expect to significantly increase capability, in addition to the safety work we have long done in advance of model releases.
We hope that other companies will learn from our approaches and propose their own; we think shared standards for misalignment, monitoring, and safety will lead to better outcomes. We look forward to collaborating with our colleagues across the industry to formulate the best version of these.
When we talk about “pacing”, we do not mean “stopping”. Progress has been rapid and will continue to be. But it should be slower than it otherwise could be; interventions like safety cases and monitoring have significant costs.
Pacing will be well worth this cost; no amount of American competitive pressure should justify recklessness, or let capabilities get ahead of alignment and monitoring.
Where we will need the help of our government is for international coordination. But first we should do what we can ourselves.
