Yeah I pretty much agree. Penrose compares favorably to other cases of noble disease because the bar is so low (the Wikipedia page has got examples of racism, eugenics, homeopathy, astrology), not because his ideas about Quantum consciousness are actually good. It's not good to cite Penrose as someone notable who disagrees with the possibility of AGI because the reason he disagree is because he believes in Quantum mysticism and misunderstands Godel’s theorem and computer science.
scruiser
joined 2 years ago
Yeah it's really not productive to engage directly.
I'd almost categorize Penrose as a borderline case of noble disease himself for stuff he's said about Quantum Consciousness and relatedly the halting problem and Godel's incompleteness theorem. But he actually has a proposed mechanism (involving microtubules) that is testable and falsifiable and the physics half of what he is talking about is within his domain of expertise.
Stephen Hawking was starting to promote AI doomerism in 2014. But he's not a Nobel prize winner. Yoshua Bengio is a doomer, but no Nobel prize either, although he is pretty decorated in awards. So yeah looks like one winner and a few other notable doomers that aren't actually Nobel Prize winners somehow became winners plural in Scott's argument from authority. Also, considering the long list of example of Noble Disease, I really don't think Nobel Prize winner endorsement is a good way to gauge experts' attitudes or sentiment.
He claims he was explaining what others believe not what he believes, but if that is so, why are you so aggressively defending the stance?
Literally the only difference between Scott's beliefs and AI:2027 as a whole is his ~~prophecy~~ estimate is a year or two later. (I bet he'll be playing up that difference as AI 2027 fails to happen in 2027, then also doesn't happen in 2028.)
Elsewhere in the thread he whines to the mods that the original poster is spamming every subreddit vaguely lesswrong or EA related with engagement bait. That poster is katxwoods... as in Kat Woods... as in a member of Nonlinear, the EA "organization" whose idea of philanthropic research was nonstop exotic vacations around the world. And, iirc, they are most infamous among us sneerer for "hiring" an underpaid (really underpaid, like couldn't afford basic necessities) intern they also used as a 24/7 live-in errand girl, drug runner, and sexual servant.
Yeah, allowing the framing that blog post uses is already conceding a lot to EA and overlooking the bigger problems they have.
Yeah I think long term Trump wrecking US soft power might be good for the world. There is going to be a lot of immediate suffering because a lot of those programs were also doing good things (in addition to strengthening US soft power or pushing a neocolonial agenda or whatever else).
I was just about to point out several angles this post neglects but it looks like from the edit this post is just intended to address a narrower question. Among the angles outside the intended question: philanthropy by the ultra-wealthy often serves as a tool for reputation laundering and influence building. I guess the same criticism can be made about a lot of conventional philanthropy, but I don't think that should absolve EA.
This post somewhat frames the question as a comparison between EA and conventional philanthropy and foreign aid efforts... which okay, but that is a low bar especially when you look at some of the stuff the US has done with it's foreign aid.
The prompt's random usage of markup notations makes obtuse black magic programming seem sane and deterministic and reproducible. Like how did they even empirically decide on some of those notation choices?
You can make that point empirically just looking at the scaling that's been happening with ChatGPT. The Wikipedia page for generative pre-trained transformer has a nice table. Key takeaway, each model (i.e. from GPT-1 to GPT-2 to GPT-3) is going up 10x in tokens and model parameters and 100x in compute compared to the previous one, and (not shown in this table unfortunately) training loss (log of perplexity) is only improving linearly.
He also wants instant gratification, so taking months to have a team put together a racist data set is a lot of effort for him.
This is especially ironic with all of Elon's claims about making Grok truth seeking. Well, "truth seeking" was probably always code for making an LLM that would parrot Elon's views.
Elon may have failed at making Grok peddle racist conspiracy theories like he wanted, but this shouldn't be taken as proof that LLMs can't be manipulated that way. He probably went with the laziest option possible of directly prompting it as opposed to fine tuning it on racist content or anything more advanced.
LLM agents can beat Pokemon... if you give them enough customized tools and prompting that with the same number of lines of instruction you could just directly code a bot that beats Pokemon without an LLM in the first place. And you don't mind the LLM agent playing much much worse than literal children.