• 0 Posts
  • 49 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: February 6th, 2024

help-circle
  • The Zizians believe in IQ, that animals are ethically equivalent to humans, that all people contain exactly two personality cores corresponding to the two hemispheres of their brains, that every personality core is either intrinsically good or intrinsically evil and less than 5% are good. They believe in violence as a form of mutually assured destruction: you should always escalate every conflict to the maximum in order to dissuade hypothetical agents from blackmailing you. And the stuff about Skynet.

    I think to understand properly it should be recognized that while the personality-core stuff is out of left field, all of the other beliefs are pretty much just logical conclusions of mainstream rationalist thought. For instance Yudkowsky has to repeatedly explain that heā€™s not in favor of violence (except when heā€™s advocating for bombing data centers) precisely because itā€™s really easy to reach that conclusion from what heā€™s written. The Zizians mainly differ by reaching that logical conclusion and being willing to act on it.







  • That o3 does well on frontier math held-out set is impressive, no doubt

    I think there is plenty of room for doubt still. elliotglazer on reddit writes:

    Epochā€™s lead mathematician here. Yes, OAI funded this and has the dataset, which allowed them to evaluate o3 in-house. We havenā€™t yet independently verified their 25% claim. To do so, weā€™re currently developing a hold-out dataset and will be able to test their model without them having any prior exposure to these problems.

    My personal opinion is that OAIā€™s score is legit (i.e., they didnā€™t train on the dataset), and that they have no incentive to lie about internal benchmarking performances. However, we canā€™t vouch for them until our independent evaluation is complete.

    (emphasis mine). So there is good reason to doubt that the ā€œheld-out datasetā€ even exists.






  • I read one of the papers. About the specific question you have: given a string of bits s, theyā€™re making the choice to associate the empirical distribution to s, as if s was generated by an iid Bernoulli process. So if s has 10 zero bits and 30 one bits, its associated empirical distribution is Ber(3/4). This is the distribution which theyā€™re calculating the entropy of. I have no idea on what basis they are making this choice.

    The rest of the paper didnā€™t make sense to me - they are somehow assigning a number N of ā€œinformation statesā€ which can change over time as the memory cells fail. I honestly have no idea what itā€™s supposed to mean and kinda suspect the whole thing is rubbish.

    Edit: after reading the authorā€™s quotes from the associated hype article Iā€™m 100% sure itā€™s rubbish. Itā€™s also really funny that they didnā€™t manage to catch the COVID-19 research hype train so theyā€™ve pivoted to the simulation hypothesis.