lurker

joined 4 months ago
[–] lurker@awful.systems 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Then hand me that hammer and let’s get to smashing those data centres

[–] lurker@awful.systems 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

“We have to pick between the climate or AI”

No we don’t??? One problem directly affects the other. Stopping AI data centre build-out helps with stopping climate change.

[–] lurker@awful.systems 5 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I could’ve sworn I posted this here but apparently not: the first AI winter in the 1960s-70s which is pretty relevant to today

[–] lurker@awful.systems 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

well great now I’m thinking about this

[–] lurker@awful.systems 6 points 4 days ago (4 children)

You’re telling me that the Autism Spectrum is a spectrum and not just the quirky thing people have?

[–] lurker@awful.systems 12 points 5 days ago

The AI safety company when they actually have to make their AIs safe instead of just making vague suggestions

[–] lurker@awful.systems 12 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

AGI’s ETA: Delayed (again) due to technical difficulties

came across this one when doomscrolling, pretty good article with healthy doses of skepticism. out of three commenters, one appears to be a rationalist (based off the “empirical evidence” and “instrumental convergence” they mention) who tries to argue that we don’t actually need human-like AI for paperclip maxxing, even though every single AI doom argument is about smart-as-a-human and better AIs. Just comes off as goalpost moving

[–] lurker@awful.systems 5 points 1 week ago

Appears so. Their doomposting shot them in the foot so they have to backpeddle

[–] lurker@awful.systems 8 points 1 week ago (4 children)

that the level of capability displayed there is widely available from other models (including OpenAI’s GPT-5.5)

please god let them block ChatGPT access like they did with Fable. it would be so fucking funny

[–] lurker@awful.systems 4 points 1 week ago

Dude why do we even need or want AGI?

MONAAYYY

Gary’s been on a sneering spree this whole week. While good for him and everything, I truly could not care less for his neurosymbolic AI rambles and mostly read the stuff where he dunks on the current state of AI

[–] lurker@awful.systems 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Aren’t they still labeled a supply chain risk to the US? Feels like the US having their cake and eating it too

Although it is satisfying to see Anthropic’s methods come to bite them.

 

Originally posted in the Stubsack, but decided to make it its own post because why not

 

this was already posted on reddit sneerclub, but I decided to crosspost it here so you guys wouldn’t miss out on Yudkowsky calling himself a genre savy character, and him taking what appears to be a shot at the Zizzians

 

originally posted in the thread for sneers not worth a whole post, then I changed my mind and decided it is worth a whole post, cause it is pretty damn important

Posted on r/HPMOR roughly one day ago

full transcript:

Epstein asked to call during a fundraiser. My notes say that I tried to explain AI alignment principles and difficulty to him (presumably in the same way I always would) and that he did not seem to be getting it very much. Others at MIRI say (I do not remember myself / have not myself checked the records) that Epstein then offered MIRI $300K; which made it worth MIRI's while to figure out whether Epstein was an actual bad guy versus random witchhunted guy, and ask if there was a reasonable path to accepting his donations causing harm; and the upshot was that MIRI decided not to take donations from him. I think/recall that it did not seem worthwhile to do a whole diligence thing about this Epstein guy before we knew whether he was offering significant funding in the first place, and then he did, and then MIRI people looked further, and then (I am told) MIRI turned him down.

Epstein threw money at quite a lot of scientists and I expect a majority of them did not have a clue. It's not standard practice among nonprofits to run diligence on donors, and in fact I don't think it should be. Diligence is costly in executive attention, it is relatively rare that a major donor is using your acceptance of donations to get social cover for an island-based extortion operation, and this kind of scrutiny is more efficiently centralized by having professional law enforcement do it than by distributing it across thousands of nonprofits.

In 2009, MIRI (then SIAI) was a fiscal sponsor for an open-source project (that is, we extended our nonprofit status to the project, so they could accept donations on a tax-exempt basis, having determined ourselves that their purpose was a charitable one related to our mission) and they got $50K from Epstein. Nobody at SIAI noticed the name, and since it wasn't a donation aimed at SIAI itself, we did not run major-donor relations about it.

This reply has not been approved by MIRI / carefully fact-checked, it is just off the top of my own head.

 

I searched for “eugenics” on yud’s xcancel (i will never use twitter, fuck you elongated muskrat) because I was bored, got flashbanged by this gem. yud, genuinely what are you talking about

view more: next ›