Daniel Reeves

628 posts

Daniel Reeves

Daniel Reeves

@dreev

Co-founder of Beeminder (@bmndr). http://t.co/gwrSQVPlNe

Portland, OR Tham gia Mart 2007
254 Đang theo dõi930 Người theo dõi
Daniel Reeves
Daniel Reeves@dreev·
nic carter@nic_carter

as a sidenote, one reason I really like Leo is because he maintains a kind of "pragmatic cautious optimism" around AI. he thinks it's a civilizationally important project and a matter of urgent national security. he thinks AGI and maybe ASI is possible, but he isn't a doomer. in fact, he's helping bring this future about (more on this later). most "AI futurists" in silicon valley are doomers, unfortunately. they unhelpfully think AI is going to literally kill us all. I'm not going to try to "debunk" the doomer mentality here but I think it's far fetched and more of a spiritual/metaphysical position than an empirical one. (secular doomsday cults are the main thrust of religion-without-religion these days, whether climate or now AI.) the doomers also don't really have good suggestions for dealing with the apocalypse they foresee. they just want us to collectively stop building AI, or something. this isn't a very practical suggestion but they are very good at making noise, so they get disproportionate attention. there's a very big market for prophecies of doom and these people take advantage of that. the second camp is the skeptics mainly found on the left that intone things like "AI is just a stochastic parrot" camp which we can trivially dismiss since they are just obviously wrong. these people tend to think all tech and markets are bad and wrong and think AI is a bubble. not much to say here, they are just wrong. the other major camp is the e/accs that are kind of the inverse of the doomers; they want to push forward AI no matter what as a kind of political statement. they tend to be a little cavalier with regards to genuine AI safety risks and seem more motivated by owning the libs. the last camp is simply the people building AI that have a strong economic incentive to downplay the risks. Leo isn't in this camp either. he's sanguine about the risks and the fact that this technology deserves a sort of manhattan project of its own. our ability to deal with it IS existential and he acknowledges that. daniel reeves describes Leo's philosophy as "AGI realism" and it's the same camp that I subscribe to (even after reading every piece of doomer literature ever written).

English
0
0
1
131
Daniel Reeves
Daniel Reeves@dreev·
First-world problem: dozens of people are suddenly signing up for AGI Friday, seemingly largely from Twitter, and I can't figure out how to find the tweet that's doing it 😭
English
1
0
1
145
Daniel Reeves
Daniel Reeves@dreev·
@nic_carter Amen. And speaking of things that could've/should've been obvious at the time, I don't think the Deepseek market panic in January made any sense, even at the time. I talk about that here: agifriday.substack.com/p/jevons (see the tiny "One more Jevons example" section)
English
0
0
0
94
nic carter
nic carter@nic_carter·
what I like about Leo is he's doing everything in public. he wrote down his view, and then with no money management expertise, raised a fund, and put capital behind his convictions. compare this with the "AI bubble" callers. how many of them are actually net short AI? how many raised a fund to short AI? I can't name one. writing down your views is one thing, but putting you entire net worth and staking your entire reputation on the trade is another. it was "obvious" at the time that post ChatGPT release in nov 2022 that AI would be a huge theme, but how many people actually acted on this? personally, I have a huge concentrated position in one of the names in his fund, and knowing that Leo was in the trade helped give me the conviction to stay in it, even as the market tried to shake me out (deepseek moment, census data etc). I also picked up IREN and APLD after seeing them in his 13F filings.
English
10
5
217
52.2K
nic carter
nic carter@nic_carter·
the most important thinker in AI, in my opinion, is this 23 year old. leo aschenbrenner. he has been more right, both in a testable predictive sense and in a market sense than virtually anyone else. and most importantly, he's not an AI doomer, he's not an e/acc, but rather a secret third thing.
nic carter tweet media
English
250
235
3.7K
666.5K
Daniel Reeves
Daniel Reeves@dreev·
@nic_carter Thanks so much for this, Nic! One clarification, that AGI Realism is Aschenbrenner's term, not mine. And I guess "doomer" is a loaded term but Aschenbrenner himself talks at length about how we have to take this dead seriously, and not just for geopolitical reasons.
English
0
0
1
64
nic carter
nic carter@nic_carter·
as a sidenote, one reason I really like Leo is because he maintains a kind of "pragmatic cautious optimism" around AI. he thinks it's a civilizationally important project and a matter of urgent national security. he thinks AGI and maybe ASI is possible, but he isn't a doomer. in fact, he's helping bring this future about (more on this later). most "AI futurists" in silicon valley are doomers, unfortunately. they unhelpfully think AI is going to literally kill us all. I'm not going to try to "debunk" the doomer mentality here but I think it's far fetched and more of a spiritual/metaphysical position than an empirical one. (secular doomsday cults are the main thrust of religion-without-religion these days, whether climate or now AI.) the doomers also don't really have good suggestions for dealing with the apocalypse they foresee. they just want us to collectively stop building AI, or something. this isn't a very practical suggestion but they are very good at making noise, so they get disproportionate attention. there's a very big market for prophecies of doom and these people take advantage of that. the second camp is the skeptics mainly found on the left that intone things like "AI is just a stochastic parrot" camp which we can trivially dismiss since they are just obviously wrong. these people tend to think all tech and markets are bad and wrong and think AI is a bubble. not much to say here, they are just wrong. the other major camp is the e/accs that are kind of the inverse of the doomers; they want to push forward AI no matter what as a kind of political statement. they tend to be a little cavalier with regards to genuine AI safety risks and seem more motivated by owning the libs. the last camp is simply the people building AI that have a strong economic incentive to downplay the risks. Leo isn't in this camp either. he's sanguine about the risks and the fact that this technology deserves a sort of manhattan project of its own. our ability to deal with it IS existential and he acknowledges that. daniel reeves describes Leo's philosophy as "AGI realism" and it's the same camp that I subscribe to (even after reading every piece of doomer literature ever written).
nic carter tweet media
English
14
13
255
59.7K
Daniel Reeves
Daniel Reeves@dreev·
The word "the" in phrases like "the faster we go, the sooner we'll get there" is not the word "the" as we know it. It's a homophone! It used to be spelled "tha" or "þa" and is basically used for if-then statements. "Tha more tha merrier" is "more ⟹ merrier" or "more ∝ merrier".
English
1
0
8
0
Daniel Reeves
Daniel Reeves@dreev·
@matthen2 Delightful! Any chance you could throw this on GitHub or Glitch.com or somewhere? My son is working on something slightly related to this and seeing your code would be pretty great.
English
0
0
0
0
Matt Henderson
Matt Henderson@matthen2·
I made a webpage with 100 items on it that wrap as the window is resized. It can be used to calculate the prime numbers up to 100.
English
5
32
382
0
Daniel Reeves
Daniel Reeves@dreev·
@tlbtlbtlb @mhartl ...achieve that is to permanently redefine time itself rather than tamper with the apparently greater sanctity that is "Nine To Five". Maybe it's the Dolly Parton movie by that name that really locked us in there. 2/2
English
1
0
2
0
Daniel Reeves
Daniel Reeves@dreev·
@tlbtlbtlb @mhartl You're not wrong but I agree with @mhartl about how philosophically fugly it is. If the public consensus is "business hours should just always start earlier, even before dawn, so we have more daylight after work" then it's almost tragically hilarious that the best way to 1/
English
1
0
3
0
Michael Hartl
Michael Hartl@mhartl·
I’m sympathetic to never having to change my clock again, but making #DaylightSavingTime permanent is the exact opposite of what should be done. After all, “noon” takes place around 1 p.m. (!?) during DST. Far more sensible would be to have noon be, you know, permanently at noon.
Senator Patty Murray@PattyMurray

The Senate has finally delivered on something Americans all over the country want: to never have to change their clocks again. I spoke on the Senate floor about the passage of my bipartisan bill to make #DaylightSavingTime permanent.

English
9
3
35
0
Daniel Reeves
Daniel Reeves@dreev·
6 years later and I think Tesla is predicting 1 more year? Still over-optimistic but Waymo can now do this at least in Phoenix. We're getting there!
English
0
0
2
0
Daniel Reeves
Daniel Reeves@dreev·
@elonmusk Now 4 years and a baby step taken (summoning from across a parking lot). I'm still rooting for this and don't want to sound all snarky about it or anything.
English
1
0
4
0
Daniel Reeves
Daniel Reeves@dreev·
It’s been 2 years. I’m still ridiculously excited about self-driving cars, just that @elonmusk’s timeline here was fairly fantastical.
English
1
0
4
0
Eliezer Yudkowsky ⏹️
Eliezer Yudkowsky ⏹️@ESYudkowsky·
Posting this interlink for people who have nothing to read except on the rare occasion that a dath ilani explains economics and decision theory more advanced than Earth's to a D&D country ruled by Hell. (Starts in middle, but should be ok out of context.) #reply-1729055" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">glowfic.com/replies/172905…
English
9
3
50
0
Daniel Reeves
Daniel Reeves@dreev·
@patio11 @jamesmadelin As a friend of mine put it, the whole point of betting is that you're offering a costly signal that you believe what you say. Settlement to charity spoils that!
English
0
0
0
0
Daniel Reeves
Daniel Reeves@dreev·
@patio11 @jamesmadelin Your implied probability (at least 33% chance the drug works) sounds low, ie, we agree. But to pick something we disagree about, I sure hate the "settlement to charity" norm! It should be understood that one spends one's winnings from wagering as self-indulgently as possible!
English
1
0
2
0
Patrick McKenzie
Patrick McKenzie@patio11·
A quirky feeling I've had on our covid-19 response is that some institutions have difficulty doing things which are *clearly* within our capabilities while others are pushing boundaries in their respective fields. A happy example of the later: pfizer.com/news/press-rel…
English
3
8
65
0
Dan Goldstein
Dan Goldstein@dggoldst·
Why do we insist on negative numbers having square roots? Asking for a friend.
English
5
0
4
0
Jakeup
Jakeup@myhandle·
My finance/tech friends fail to Venmo me their correct share including tip and tax after dinner at least 30-40% of the time. For hedge fund quants it's 80%.
English
4
1
33
0
Patrick McKenzie
Patrick McKenzie@patio11·
Liam (4): Lillian is cheating at rock-paper-scissors. Lillian (6): I am not. I just always win. Me: ... Can I hear some more details please. Lillian: It's not hard. He always throws rock. Liam: Rock is best! Me: Lillian mark me: this is not the last time you'll hear this argument
English
15
30
437
0
Daniel Reeves đã retweet
Timothy Bramlett
Timothy Bramlett@TimothyBramlett·
Last week we fixed an issue that was causing our feedback pop up to pop up too often! 😅 On the brightside we did get some feedback from a customer that our "user support is stunning and second only to beeminder"! #buildinpublic
Timothy Bramlett tweet media
English
1
2
6
0
Daniel Reeves đã retweet
David Rothschild 🌻
David Rothschild 🌻@DavMicRot·
New paper with R. Freeman, @pennockd, @dreev, B. Waggoner leo.ugr.es/isipta21/pmlr/… "Towards a Theory of Confidence in Market-Based Predictions": can you create a margin-of-error for a probability? How does that relate to volatility? Paper asks as many questions as it solves!
English
1
2
8
0
Daniel Reeves đã retweet
Jakeup
Jakeup@myhandle·
one little fact about the world that makes me sad about once a month is when people who are really doing fine and could raise a great family but are much too aware of all their sundry emotional issues tell me they never plan to have kids
English
4
2
144
0
Daniel Reeves
Daniel Reeves@dreev·
@DRMacIver I was mostly just agreeing with a follow-on comment you made about liking the original paper introducing the trolley problem and mentioning my knee-jerk reaction when you seemed to be dissing wildly unrealistic thought experiments (I'm a fan). But then you praised them, and, yeah
English
0
0
1
0
David R. MacIver
David R. MacIver@DRMacIver·
This was all prompted by @dreev responding to drmaciver.substack.com/p/how-to-use-t… with "wanting to leap to the defence of his philosopher friends", which I thought was a bit of a confusing response to me doing philosophy. TBF defending your philosopher friends is also doing philosophy.
English
1
0
3
0
David R. MacIver
David R. MacIver@DRMacIver·
A practical consequence of the "Your critique of philosophy is itself philosophy" gotcha is that people sometimes read my posts which are just doing philosophy as anti-philosophy.
English
2
0
7
0