Blake Borgeson

@CJHandmer Thank you, super cool! I have nature on my mind atm, and wonder--is there a nature angle here too? Eg could this work in a scheme to compete with (marginally) saving nature in the Amazon (or other lush+vanishing places), for instance, by making new wild forest in Nevada?

New blog on desalination. I think solar plus matched desal can get below 10c/m^3, cheap enough that we can put 5 million acre feet into Nevada, terraforming about 1500 miles of valleys and waterways in that state (>90% remains unchanged though) and creating space for tens of millions of people to find wealth and opportunity in the process.

I get excited seeing two sides of a disagreement get together and come up with a new proposal that works for both! Thank you @deanwball and @DKokotajlo67142. The proposal: much more transparency in advanced AI development.

@weidai11 So in some sense, I disagree: we did the best with what we had, as far as we knew at the time. In another sense, I agree: I think we have more ability to affect global trajectories than we realized, but doing so means giving up a sense of control, maybe losing a "hope of glory"

@weidai11 3) we don't yet know if we can find technical breakthroughs that make alignment and maybe even coordination dramatically easier. We were great at technical thinking, inexperienced at political thinking, so we went with our strengths and explored technical research.

"Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return. Since our research is free from financial obligations, we can better focus on a positive human impact."

@wolflovesmelon @thegartsy Ah yeah, I think I get you that, given the system how it is, you don't trust developers, and don't want the public to trust them. I'm saying I want the system to change (eg. via this bill) so that the public, accurately not mistakenly, can trust developers more.

@thegartsy @blakeweb Oh man Tess why do you want trust between the public and the people working to murder the public? I’m asking this in all seriousness. The only thing AI developers need to do is stop risking my life and my children’s lives. Serious case of mass Stockholm syndrome going on here.

California's big AI bill SB1047 is on Gov. Newsom's desk to veto or sign. The compromises made between Anthropic and authors are the best we'll get for now. If it will bring more mutual trust between AI creators and the public, sign it, that's what we need. I think it does.

@thegartsy I appreciate the reflection, thanks!

@blakeweb Yes, I do think it brings more trust between the public and AI developers. Which is in rather short supply IMO. Thanks for the pragmatism in realizing that’s important.

@mkraft5 Hey! Nice to see you! Thanks :)

@blakeweb Thanks for the insights @blakeweb

AI will advance massively again in the coming 5 years. We need more trust between AI creators and the public to keep the creation flowing. SB1047 looks like a step in that direction.

3 trusts we must increase for AI to advance well: 1. Public trust, that AI creators will protect the good we have. 2. Creator trust, that the public won't kill creation. 3. Creator trust, that their work will be used wisely. This bill will affect all 3 of these, over years.

5 of 5 stars to The Neverending Story by Michael Ende goodreads.com/review/show/36…

@jalammar in jalammar.github.io/illustrated-gp… there's a typo (homonym) that kinda makes sense on its own but makes the sentence have a different meaning from what you intended: "peak" should be "peek" in "A normal self-attention block allows a position to peak at tokens to its right."

4 of 5 stars to Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari goodreads.com/review/show/29…