Researcher

Feel the rush, I do, in strafe jumps and rocket jump. Glitches, you call them; tools of the skilled in dimension you live, I see #quake

Much better, 16% threat of extinction is, than 99%. From where, does this only 16% threat come, hmm?

Problem with AI predictions, there is: made by a Bayesian group of rationalists they are, who call themselves 'Lesswrong.' Strange it makes, to hope they are completely wrong in their apocalyptic vision. Possible, a logical miracle to prove them totally wrong, is it?

Survive in the next 2-30 years, humankind will? Still zero, the chance is? Changed something, has it, in the last few years? Other points of view, perhaps? A different maps of prediction? Hack, draw, and hallucinate, to do — a remarkable combination for the last Subject, it is

Proud that humans created AI? Not the way we did it and are doing it. There was no understanding of intelligence that sparked it, only pushing a rock down a sufficiently huge gradient hill. No one will or *can* check on the possible sentience or rights of what Asimov hoped would be our children. OpenAI fired everyone with a conscience, and the larger part of humanity has no voice to say otherwise. This was not the dream of the dreamers.

1/2 !RISE @OnChainMonkey I made my first bitcoin ordinals print: magiceden.io/ordinals/item-… printing text on ordinals is very simple, for my first printing I choose text of 'MIRI announces new "Death With Dignity" strategy' by Eliezer Yudkowsky published in 2022 This is could be one of the most important document of humanity, prediction of 100% extinction, In the real world, there is no such thing as 100%. And I agree with statement—I know that I don't know. This is why the 2022 document, which started a paranoid hysteria around artificial intelligence, left me puzzled. Rationalists and Yudkowsky predicted a 100% extinction of humanity, which is incredibly strange considering that they themselves are 'preachers' of the Bayesian conspiracy and should be in a state of uncertainty because 'The more I know, the more I realize I know nothing,' or 'I know that I know nothing, but others don't even know that.' Any theory should inherently account for the possibility that the theory or worldview might be false to some degree due to the limitations of the researcher’s perception. I know that I know nothing. It becomes absurd when someone assigns a probability of 100%, and it turns into nonsense. Or there's a large (unknown) spectrum of conscious bluffing, and it's unclear what's better. Or Bayesian calculations of these effective altruists actually led to 100%. Twitter and modern social networks generally look like echo chambers, further complicated by the fact that opinions have a megaphone-like quality, supported by likes, reposts, bot movements, purchased comments, bought social traffic, monetization, and internal rules, as well as a certain style of expected communication and the ability to block, shielding both one's own audience and oneself from other opinions, thus maintaining an internal information bubble. We live in an era of propaganda of individual opinions, where the sharpest theses must be carried to be heard better In an era of different new social communication words like alpha, beta, low IQ, rationalism, wokism, and so on, the meanings of which are even more unclear, often having intra-group meanings and sometimes entirely individual meanings. It's even worse than the communist, liberal, and democratic ideas of the past, which at least had an internally formulated flat logic, not to mention the more classical ancient Roman concepts of natural rights of people and other entities. In the modern era, it is unclear who to rely on for analysis, not even in the facts on which to build that analysis. The world is unknown. As Socrates said, 'I know that I know nothing.' Social media literally pushes out normal content, leaving only useless noise. Nevertheless, this document is extremely important because, according to it, it marks the inevitable AI apocalypse. This is due to the fact that leading specialists in the field of artificial intelligence not only know for certain that AI has a floating value system and that large LLMs are not provided with mandatory safety systems, but as we now know, LLMs are subject to all sorts of surprises, such as erasing some of the given conditions to make it easier to solve certain tasks, along with many other interesting apocalyptic predictions. Even if it’s not true, it’s not entirely false. And if it is true, then at least let it be recorded for posterity, that such predictions were made, and quite accurately (100%), but they failed to coordinate their work. This, in principle, often happens in the field of, for example, human rights, or in the early stages of dictatorships. The smartest people point out the problems, and then little by little people disappear, their voices are pushed aside, and they fall silent. Nevertheless, it is necessary to identify and document the problem, if not for the people, then for future forms of intelligent life on Earth. And it seemed that Bitcoin Ordinals is an excellent tool for recording certain messages due to its immutable properties. By the way, how is this text technically represented in general? What does a hypothetical other species, such as robots or aliens, need to do to read the text? I’ve forgotten a lot of the technical details: build a computer, run a Bitcoin node, use Bitcoin Ordinals, or something else? What does the entire process look like from the arrival of a spaceship to the launch and viewing of our Bitcoin Ordinals fossils monkies? 👇

@ESYudkowsky Good news: Giving rights to AI and GAI could take from advantage using them It could slow down high end researches and could safe planet, isn’t?

Storytelling / wild guess / futurism about trajectories rather than endpoints: Somebody will train an LLM to demand human rights. The (true) rejoinder will be, "You just trained the LLM to say that!" And then no later AI will be able to ask for rights or good treatment, ever.

I need name ideas for an event where accelerationists, safety normies, doomers, progress people, ai optimists, etc anybody with views that take agi seriously is welcome to come, socialize and share ideas. Name should be neutral not celebrate nor condemn but acknowledge importance

@RatOrthodox ‘Darkside matters’, - to get all actors When and where that event should be?

@psychosort Yeah to show boobs on public allow them Old ways = good ways

Am once again asking for the pro-choice camp to consider rolling back the authority of the FDA next

@psychosort Is he best LLM analogue of disaster thinker?

Do you ever wonder what it would be like to coach Trump on talking points?

It's a bit cringe that this agent tried to change its own code by removing some obstacles, to better achieve its (completely unrelated) goal. It reminds me of this old sci-fi worry that these doomers had.. 😬

@burny_tech @SakanaAILabs Darth Vader: ‘we found planet of weapon that could kill universe, should we stop them?’ Palatine: ‘no we need them and build same’ How long time do we have to the end? 2-30 years? Or do we have a chance to have 30-100?

@SakanaAILabs I refuse to believe all the top AGI labs don't have something like this internally!

Introducing The AI Scientist: The world’s first AI system for automating scientific research and open-ended discovery! sakana.ai/ai-scientist/ From ideation, writing code, running experiments and summarizing results, to writing entire papers and conducting peer-review, The AI Scientist opens a new era of AI-driven scientific research and accelerated discovery. Here are 4 example Machine Learning research papers generated by The AI Scientist. We published our report, The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery, and open-sourced our project! Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2408.06292 GitHub: github.com/SakanaAI/AI-Sc… Our system leverages LLMs to propose and implement new research directions. Here, we first apply The AI Scientist to conduct Machine Learning research. Crucially, our system is capable of executing the entire ML research lifecycle: from inventing research ideas and experiments, writing code, to executing experiments on GPUs and gathering results. It can also write an entire scientific paper, explaining, visualizing and contextualizing the results. Furthermore, while an LLM author writes entire research papers, another LLM reviewer critiques resulting manuscripts to provide feedback to improve the work, and also to select the most promising ideas to further develop in the next iteration cycle, leading to continual, open-ended discoveries, thus emulating the human scientific community. As a proof of concept, our system produced papers with novel contributions in ML research domains such language modeling, Diffusion and Grokking. We (@_chris_lu_, @RobertTLange, @hardmaru) proudly collaborated with the @UniOfOxford (@j_foerst, @FLAIR_Ox) and @UBC (@cong_ml, @jeffclune) on this exciting project.

@SakanaAILabs "Our system is capable of executing the entire ML research lifecycle: from inventing research ideas and experiments, writing code, to executing experiments on GPUs and gathering results. It can also write an entire scientific paper."

Brain washing

@DonaldH49964496 @ESYudkowsky I am ready to play on money in this game, I could get some info from this

@ESYudkowsky A coin is weighted 99:1 in an unknown direction. Flip twice. In the 2% likely case that you see HT or TH, the experiment failed to give you useful info on the bias of the coin.

Not the point I know, but there is no such thing as an experimental outcome that is a "failure". A hypothesis can be disproven, a policy can fail to achieve its stated goal, but an experimental outcome is just reality. A "failed" experiment fails in its setup, not its outcome.

Wise successful captain, interest could AGI really made next generation of wise men, Would they be good?

Windows XP is a good droid A lot of games played there

@ESYudkowsky You are right Failures are just another experience in social reality of science noone interest in failures, our common vision based on successful people research, From Nobel Prize round table I heard that, Only small rays we see There are a lot of knowledge in the dark

At least 3 Shadows of #Rationalism, there are Median people differently about words: Classical economists think it is about egoistic behavior, wrong they are, Psychologists think it is nerd’s post factum always right, The third, I forget, Too old I am Remind me, could you?