computerphage

Geoffrey Hinton quit google.

> borderline offensive to question them

I would be happy to politely discuss any proposition regarding AI Risk. I don't think any claim should go unquestioned.

I can also point you to much longer-form discussions. For example, this post, which has 670 comments, discussing various aspects of the argument: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a...

Neither ChatGPT nor GPT-4 pose an existential risk nor are they superintelligent in the sense that Eliezer or Bostrom mean.

I say this as a "doomer" who buys the whole argument about AI X-risk.

I mean there's https://meaningness.com/ which is pretty central in post-rationalist thought if you ask me, but maybe it's less central these days.

How can you tell whether something is a better reasoning framework for big ideas? Seems like that's the step that does all the work.

It's possible that all of our big ideas are just us being along for the ride with broad historical and social trends. -me, a rationalist

Great. So how does this help me reason better?

I wouldn't travel far, but if you're near SF anyway, then it's a nice stop. It's pretty small, just two rooms, so it's not a big thing. I found it interesting to see Audrey Kim (the curator)'s perspective through the exhibit and I also enjoyed meeting fellow museum goers and chatting with them

Yes. AMA

That's just wrong? 6 sigma would be IQ 100 + 6 * 15 = 190. 6 sigma is 1 in 506,797,346. So there should be 16 people with IQs that extreme if intelligence is normally distributed.

(There's a factor of two somewhere in here for the two tailed nature, but the point stands)

It was required for me, but that didn't mean anything real. We "learned" it for like two weeks then I never used it again.

I don't know why you're downvoted. I think it's not unusual given the field. Certainly some fields have much larger average number of authors than others

Like what?

I downvoted because your comment struck me as not caring at all about the facts.

Just because something is dismissed today as a promising candidate doesn't prove it'll never be used for something else in the far future. Many toxic drugs later found use in chemotherapy for cancer; it was suddenly good they were toxic

I'll take the bet. I pay you when it "never" does, and you pay me if it ever does. How does $1 and $100 sound?

And it should therefore be pointed out every time.

Sounds like it comes in the first half of the paragraph then

Genius! VPNs would get a lot more useful

I couldn't load any *.google.com sites for a solid 10 min window, basically trying constantly, while able to load facebook, amazon, bing, twitter, etc in less than 1 sec each.

Problem resolved for me at 2:07 pm Pacific time.

(the author is a woman: https://acesounderglass.com/about-me-2/ )

Selection bias?

"not only [not] growing"

Can I have it please? I feel like I could put it to good use

There have always been 80 and 90 year olds in society.

It would be bad.

Why is Yale unique here?

Well, I'm actually fascinated and wish to hear more. How did you figure out that the cops were funneling people?

Why do you think they're immoral?

(2019)

My "by definition" detector has fired. It says: that's not true by definition. Ads could instead also be things that users want.

I do actually think you have a good point.