id stringlengths 17 17 | body stringlengths 0 19.5k | posted_at stringlengths 24 24 | karma int64 -6 185 | parent_comment_id stringlengths 17 17 ⌀ | post_id stringlengths 17 17 | post_title stringlengths 2 127 | post_slug stringlengths 2 61 | post_url stringlengths 20 146 | post_author stringclasses 214
values | post_posted_at stringlengths 24 24 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
vn3MygSgdH2QQTjZ4 | FWIW, I'm a commenter here and I disagree with the exact thesis you stated:
> that this paper is a representative example of a field that is "more advocacy than science", in which a large network of Open Philanthropy Project-funded advocates cite each other in a groundless web of footnotes which "vastly misrepresents ... | 2023-11-05T19:16:34.611Z | 19 | xDkQmKyKQ238Fff9X | ztXsmnSdrejpfmvn7 | Propaganda or Science: A Look at Open Source AI and Bioterrorism Risk | propaganda-or-science-a-look-at-open-source-ai-and | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ztXsmnSdrejpfmvn7/propaganda-or-science-a-look-at-open-source-ai-and | 1a3orn | 2023-11-02T18:20:29.569Z |
8M2n6amBvhruXFHGR | [Constellation](https://www.constellation.org/#about-us) used to legally be part of Redwood Research. (I believe this is no longer true or will soon no longer be true?) | 2023-11-05T20:20:52.115Z | 4 | Nbg6qtKbXX3tHyXdP | XvEJydHAHk6hjWQr5 | EA orgs' legal structure inhibits risk taking and information sharing on the margin | ea-orgs-legal-structure-inhibits-risk-taking-and-information | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XvEJydHAHk6hjWQr5/ea-orgs-legal-structure-inhibits-risk-taking-and-information | Elizabeth | 2023-11-05T19:13:56.135Z |
H4sbbyi3hworxtqKm | This is super late, but I recently posted: [Improving the Welfare of AIs: A Nearcasted Proposal](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/F6HSHzKezkh6aoTr2/improving-the-welfare-of-ais-a-nearcasted-proposal) | 2023-11-06T02:28:49.102Z | 4 | CJKqhEsQYgX643TDF | fkqvztgszJpqmDHom | GovAI: Towards best practices in AGI safety and governance: A survey of expert opinion | govai-towards-best-practices-in-agi-safety-and-governance-a | https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.07153.pdf | Zach Stein-Perlman | 2023-05-15T01:42:41.012Z |
S5frJQfc2tHJP3hES | Ambitious mechanistic interpretability is quite unlikely[^unlikely] to be able to confidently assess[^assess] whether AIs[^whichais] are deceptively aligned (or otherwise have dangerous propensities) in the next 10 years.
[^unlikely]: greater than 90% failure
[^assess]: likelihood ratio of 10
[^whichais]: I'm refer... | 2023-11-08T04:52:43.861Z | 64 | NtsPs9wcwrpeK6KYL | hc9nMipTXy2sm3tJb | Vote on Interesting Disagreements | vote-on-interesting-disagreements | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hc9nMipTXy2sm3tJb/vote-on-interesting-disagreements | Ben Pace | 2023-11-07T21:35:00.270Z |
srCReSLKzZz24mBPQ | I strongly disagree. The underlying reason is that an actual singularity seems reasonably likely.
This involves super-exponential growth driven by vastly superhuman intelligence.
Large scale fusion or literal dyson spheres are both quite plausible relatively soon (<5 years) after AGI if growth isn't restricted by pol... | 2023-11-12T05:33:58.343Z | 32 | D2QaTjcqxkuoxayFt | K2D45BNxnZjdpSX2j | AI Timelines | ai-timelines | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/K2D45BNxnZjdpSX2j/ai-timelines | habryka | 2023-11-10T05:28:24.841Z |
PNr6dDet5uyjmEjXp | (I wish this was a top level comment.) | 2023-11-15T18:55:10.806Z | 2 | aT3x9x9FNhdxqAFGT | SCqDipWAhZ49JNdmL | Paper: LLMs trained on “A is B” fail to learn “B is A” | paper-llms-trained-on-a-is-b-fail-to-learn-b-is-a | https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.12288 | [deleted] | 2023-09-23T19:55:53.427Z |
35trYkWZjPquk2nKR | Some notes on this post:
- I think the Tom Cruise example from the paper is bad due to his mother being refered to by different names. However, I think most of the other examples work.
- The key adjustment in this post is that they train on the entire sequence "One fact about A is B" rather than spliting into prompt (... | 2023-11-15T18:59:08.987Z | 4 | aT3x9x9FNhdxqAFGT | SCqDipWAhZ49JNdmL | Paper: LLMs trained on “A is B” fail to learn “B is A” | paper-llms-trained-on-a-is-b-fail-to-learn-b-is-a | https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.12288 | [deleted] | 2023-09-23T19:55:53.427Z |
KceAZaTyXtLdNB2xa | (Note that in this work, we're just doing supervised probing though we do use models to generate some of the training data.) | 2023-11-18T17:37:15.530Z | 3 | JBom7jFsWqmHbiAq2 | WCj7WgFSLmyKaMwPR | Coup probes: Catching catastrophes with probes trained off-policy | coup-probes-catching-catastrophes-with-probes-trained-off | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WCj7WgFSLmyKaMwPR/coup-probes-catching-catastrophes-with-probes-trained-off | Fabien Roger | 2023-11-17T17:58:28.687Z |
GFr8GgJ4hBbHsFd2o | I don't see why you can't just ask at each point in time "Which action would maximize the expected value of X". It seems like asking once and asking many times as new things happen in reality don't have particularly different properties.
## More detailed comment
Paul noted:
> It's pretty unclear if a system that is ... | 2023-11-25T00:52:43.712Z | 18 | x9injsKcoggrfJjf5 | AWoZBzxdm4DoGgiSj | Ability to solve long-horizon tasks correlates with wanting things in the behaviorist sense | ability-to-solve-long-horizon-tasks-correlates-with-wanting | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AWoZBzxdm4DoGgiSj/ability-to-solve-long-horizon-tasks-correlates-with-wanting | So8res | 2023-11-24T17:37:43.020Z |
9mLLgPfqC5yF2buHJ | More generally, it seems like we can build systems that succeed in accomplishing long run goals without having the core components which are doing this actually 'want' to accomplish any long run goal.
It seems like this is common for corporations and we see similar dynamics for language model agents.
(Again, efficien... | 2023-11-25T01:03:19.439Z | 15 | GFr8GgJ4hBbHsFd2o | AWoZBzxdm4DoGgiSj | Ability to solve long-horizon tasks correlates with wanting things in the behaviorist sense | ability-to-solve-long-horizon-tasks-correlates-with-wanting | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AWoZBzxdm4DoGgiSj/ability-to-solve-long-horizon-tasks-correlates-with-wanting | So8res | 2023-11-24T17:37:43.020Z |
xb3XxtD2TjtQQESCE | I agree that there is want, but it's very unclear if this needs to be long run 'want'.
(And for danger, it seems the horizon of want matters a lot.) | 2023-11-26T06:55:59.677Z | 11 | B66cXLLsjB4MmbQQq | AWoZBzxdm4DoGgiSj | Ability to solve long-horizon tasks correlates with wanting things in the behaviorist sense | ability-to-solve-long-horizon-tasks-correlates-with-wanting | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AWoZBzxdm4DoGgiSj/ability-to-solve-long-horizon-tasks-correlates-with-wanting | So8res | 2023-11-24T17:37:43.020Z |
qKHXpjKBDsXkuWfLw | What do you think about the recent [Open Phil RFP on LLM benchmarks and forecasting](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ccNggNeBgMZFy3FRr/open-phil-releases-rfps-on-llm-benchmarks-and-forecasting)? | 2023-11-27T18:52:19.442Z | 2 | null | jPb2QMvK9qvs3a4ru | There is no IQ for AI | there-is-no-iq-for-ai | https://cognition.cafe/p/there-is-no-iq-for-ai | Gabriel Alfour | 2023-11-27T18:21:26.196Z |
vZGkg4g9h9qgqEd6S | I don't think I understand the "AI IQ" argument (or I disagree somewhere).
What goes wrong if we aim to build a series of high-quality benchmarks to assess how good AIs are at various tasks and then use these to track AI progress? (Tasks such as coding, small research projects, persuasion and manipulation, bioweapons,... | 2023-11-27T18:58:28.208Z | 4 | null | jPb2QMvK9qvs3a4ru | There is no IQ for AI | there-is-no-iq-for-ai | https://cognition.cafe/p/there-is-no-iq-for-ai | Gabriel Alfour | 2023-11-27T18:21:26.196Z |
EjMRdKyFwqbuok4rv | Yep, indeed I would consider "control evaluations" to be a method of "AI control". I consider the evaluation and the technique development to be part of a unified methodology (we'll describe this more in a forthcoming post).
(I work at RR) | 2023-11-27T21:27:30.693Z | 4 | dumisscCZfjqS68P6 | zaaGsFBeDTpCsYHef | Shallow review of live agendas in alignment & safety | shallow-review-of-live-agendas-in-alignment-and-safety | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zaaGsFBeDTpCsYHef/shallow-review-of-live-agendas-in-alignment-and-safety | technicalities | 2023-11-27T11:10:27.464Z |
8f2BiQHg6C698vfo2 | Explicitly noting for the record we have some forthcoming work on AI control which should be out relatively soon.
(I work at RR) | 2023-11-27T21:28:48.661Z | 4 | rSFkCusXoadY9j9Eq | zaaGsFBeDTpCsYHef | Shallow review of live agendas in alignment & safety | shallow-review-of-live-agendas-in-alignment-and-safety | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zaaGsFBeDTpCsYHef/shallow-review-of-live-agendas-in-alignment-and-safety | technicalities | 2023-11-27T11:10:27.464Z |
qTMwDftmYG23rLt4N | (Agreed except that "inference-time safety techiques" feels overly limiting. It's more like purely behavioral (black-box) safety techniques where we can evaluate training by converting it to validation. Then, we imagine we get the worst model that isn't discriminated by our validation set and other measurements. I hope... | 2023-11-28T00:25:32.705Z | 6 | DZpygCue5giXtwPqq | zaaGsFBeDTpCsYHef | Shallow review of live agendas in alignment & safety | shallow-review-of-live-agendas-in-alignment-and-safety | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zaaGsFBeDTpCsYHef/shallow-review-of-live-agendas-in-alignment-and-safety | technicalities | 2023-11-27T11:10:27.464Z |
YdyAiyEdSAgHMQnTj | > Helen Toner was apparently willing to let OpenAI be destroyed because of a general feeling that the organization was moving too fast or commercializing too much.
The source you linked doesn't seem to support the claim you made. It supports that Helen was willing to let the organization be destroyed, but not that thi... | 2023-11-28T16:10:53.458Z | 15 | null | 7iPFiMvFeZgFEgJuw | Neither EA nor e/acc is what we need to build the future | neither-ea-nor-e-acc-is-what-we-need-to-build-the-future | https://rootsofprogress.org/neither-ea-nor-e-acc | jasoncrawford | 2023-11-28T16:04:16.803Z |
eguJJMaCrNy2HaeCn | > The glorious abundant technological future is waiting. Let’s muster the best within ourselves—the best of our courage and the best of our rationality—and go build it.
I'm confused about exactly what this post is arguing we should be trying to build. AI? Other technology which would independently result in a singular... | 2023-11-28T16:23:17.497Z | 13 | null | 7iPFiMvFeZgFEgJuw | Neither EA nor e/acc is what we need to build the future | neither-ea-nor-e-acc-is-what-we-need-to-build-the-future | https://rootsofprogress.org/neither-ea-nor-e-acc | jasoncrawford | 2023-11-28T16:04:16.803Z |
KNKfsAtMSMGEwGa8c | This is generally my overall objection to progress: it seems unclear if generally pushing technological progress is good and minimally I would guess that there are much better things to be pushing (under my empirical views about the likelihood of an AI related singularity in the next 100 years). | 2023-11-28T16:26:59.801Z | 8 | eguJJMaCrNy2HaeCn | 7iPFiMvFeZgFEgJuw | Neither EA nor e/acc is what we need to build the future | neither-ea-nor-e-acc-is-what-we-need-to-build-the-future | https://rootsofprogress.org/neither-ea-nor-e-acc | jasoncrawford | 2023-11-28T16:04:16.803Z |
duzExKyAoB4gqyh2B | > While the community sees the potential of, and earnestly hopes for, a glorious abundant technological future, it is mostly focused not on what we can build but on what might go wrong. The overriding concern is literally the risk of extinction for the human race. Frankly, it’s exhausting.
It might be exhausting, but ... | 2023-11-28T16:31:05.544Z | 15 | eguJJMaCrNy2HaeCn | 7iPFiMvFeZgFEgJuw | Neither EA nor e/acc is what we need to build the future | neither-ea-nor-e-acc-is-what-we-need-to-build-the-future | https://rootsofprogress.org/neither-ea-nor-e-acc | jasoncrawford | 2023-11-28T16:04:16.803Z |
X8sw4xwks4eLqJ86B | (I'm obviously not Paul)
> What do you think is the sense of "wanting" needed for AI risk arguments? Why is the sense described above not enough?
In the case of *literal current LLM agents with current models*:
- Humans manually engineer the prompting and scaffolding (and we understand how and why it works)
- We can... | 2023-11-28T21:59:13.553Z | 4 | qfSrvukmBgS9KSw2S | AWoZBzxdm4DoGgiSj | Ability to solve long-horizon tasks correlates with wanting things in the behaviorist sense | ability-to-solve-long-horizon-tasks-correlates-with-wanting | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AWoZBzxdm4DoGgiSj/ability-to-solve-long-horizon-tasks-correlates-with-wanting | So8res | 2023-11-24T17:37:43.020Z |
aJTJxFBjn8FStEPP3 | > Anyhow I think this is mostly just a misunderstanding of Nate and my position. It doesn't contradict anything we've said.
I think it contradicts things Nate says in this post directly. I don't know if it contradicts things you've said.
To clarify, I'm commenting on the following chain:
First Nate said:
> This obs... | 2023-11-29T01:22:44.169Z | 2 | LDLFxYMhHMKnsajzg | AWoZBzxdm4DoGgiSj | Ability to solve long-horizon tasks correlates with wanting things in the behaviorist sense | ability-to-solve-long-horizon-tasks-correlates-with-wanting | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AWoZBzxdm4DoGgiSj/ability-to-solve-long-horizon-tasks-correlates-with-wanting | So8res | 2023-11-24T17:37:43.020Z |
zHf68yYhoGnQ3wo35 | To clarify I don't think that LLM agents are necessarily or obviously safe. I was just trying to argue that it's plausible that they could achieve long terms objectives while also not having "wanting" in the sense necessary for (some) AI risk arguments to go through. (edited earlier comment to make this more clear) | 2023-11-29T01:25:46.090Z | 4 | awFcXxWwhwvh4dmHQ | AWoZBzxdm4DoGgiSj | Ability to solve long-horizon tasks correlates with wanting things in the behaviorist sense | ability-to-solve-long-horizon-tasks-correlates-with-wanting | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AWoZBzxdm4DoGgiSj/ability-to-solve-long-horizon-tasks-correlates-with-wanting | So8res | 2023-11-24T17:37:43.020Z |
Aqa4pPbcSv3vixxLf | > It sounds like you are saying "In the current paradigm of prompted/scaffolded instruction-tuned LLMs, we get the faithful CoT property by default. Therefore our systems will indeed be agentic / goal-directed / wanting-things, but we'll be able to choose what they want (at least imperfectly, via the prompt) and we'll ... | 2023-11-29T01:28:34.421Z | 8 | LDLFxYMhHMKnsajzg | AWoZBzxdm4DoGgiSj | Ability to solve long-horizon tasks correlates with wanting things in the behaviorist sense | ability-to-solve-long-horizon-tasks-correlates-with-wanting | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AWoZBzxdm4DoGgiSj/ability-to-solve-long-horizon-tasks-correlates-with-wanting | So8res | 2023-11-24T17:37:43.020Z |
zwNFfRQ6b2McJw3Yy | > Anyhow I think this is mostly just a misunderstanding of Nate and my position. It doesn't contradict anything we've said. Nate and I both agree that if we can create & maintain some sort of faithful/visible thoughts property through human-level AGI and beyond, then we are in pretty good shape & I daresay things are l... | 2023-11-29T01:33:29.921Z | 2 | Aqa4pPbcSv3vixxLf | AWoZBzxdm4DoGgiSj | Ability to solve long-horizon tasks correlates with wanting things in the behaviorist sense | ability-to-solve-long-horizon-tasks-correlates-with-wanting | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AWoZBzxdm4DoGgiSj/ability-to-solve-long-horizon-tasks-correlates-with-wanting | So8res | 2023-11-24T17:37:43.020Z |
ouzjYjBBekaTiyhMa | I think there isn't an issue as long as you ensure property rights for the entire universe now. Like if every human is randomly assigned a silver of the universe (and then can trade accordingly), then I think the rising tide situation can be handled reasonably. We'd need to ensuring that AIs as a class can't get away w... | 2023-12-01T01:03:42.577Z | 4 | TRgN64wspg7wDHJ9J | mSeesg7i4d9scWAet | Apocalypse insurance, and the hardline libertarian take on AI risk | apocalypse-insurance-and-the-hardline-libertarian-take-on-ai | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mSeesg7i4d9scWAet/apocalypse-insurance-and-the-hardline-libertarian-take-on-ai | So8res | 2023-11-28T02:09:52.400Z |
xB6TpkDsJscrB8tZy | Why is this a problem? People who are interested in the long run can buy these property rights while people who don't care can sell them.
If AIs respect these property rights[^ensure] but systematically care more about the long run future, then so be it. I expect that in practice some people will explicitly care about... | 2023-12-01T18:54:40.730Z | 2 | XtJdofEg2GuhntKZQ | mSeesg7i4d9scWAet | Apocalypse insurance, and the hardline libertarian take on AI risk | apocalypse-insurance-and-the-hardline-libertarian-take-on-ai | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mSeesg7i4d9scWAet/apocalypse-insurance-and-the-hardline-libertarian-take-on-ai | So8res | 2023-11-28T02:09:52.400Z |
hucYGSxgXBLSXPScD | I agree that there is a concern due to an AI monopoly on certain goods and services, but I think this should be possible to handle via other means. | 2023-12-01T18:58:27.317Z | 2 | xB6TpkDsJscrB8tZy | mSeesg7i4d9scWAet | Apocalypse insurance, and the hardline libertarian take on AI risk | apocalypse-insurance-and-the-hardline-libertarian-take-on-ai | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mSeesg7i4d9scWAet/apocalypse-insurance-and-the-hardline-libertarian-take-on-ai | So8res | 2023-11-28T02:09:52.400Z |
sykRaWaT5734CYiSe | > As an example, I remember a while ago there was some paper that claimed to have found a way to attribute NN outputs to training data points, and it claimed that LLM power-seeking was mainly caused by sci-fi stories and by AI safety discussions. I didn't read the paper so I don't know whether it's legit, but that sort... | 2023-12-01T22:21:43.922Z | 9 | hEBeWq2DbiHbFY3Sr | YyosBAutg4bzScaLu | Thoughts on “AI is easy to control” by Pope & Belrose | thoughts-on-ai-is-easy-to-control-by-pope-and-belrose | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/YyosBAutg4bzScaLu/thoughts-on-ai-is-easy-to-control-by-pope-and-belrose | Steven Byrnes | 2023-12-01T17:30:52.720Z |
YQC5JwLwAHJJGtkDy | > I expect an AI, being smarter than a human, can just talk you into signing away the stuff you care about. It'll be like money-naive people vs loan sharks, times 1000.
I think this is just a special case of more direct harms/theft? Like imagine that some humans developed the ability to mind control others, this can p... | 2023-12-01T22:39:58.399Z | 2 | nDJjvK2wJfGzKkbFp | mSeesg7i4d9scWAet | Apocalypse insurance, and the hardline libertarian take on AI risk | apocalypse-insurance-and-the-hardline-libertarian-take-on-ai | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mSeesg7i4d9scWAet/apocalypse-insurance-and-the-hardline-libertarian-take-on-ai | So8res | 2023-11-28T02:09:52.400Z |
rtTk6nC96uJAaCS9Z | > * I’m not sure we’re worrying about the same regimes.
> * The regime I’m most worried about is:
> * AI systems which are much smarter than the smartest humans
> * ...
> * It’s unclear to me whether the authors are discussing alignment in a regime like the one above, or a regime like ... | 2023-12-01T23:06:36.738Z | 17 | 6X5SQ4eisJ6Acch3w | YyosBAutg4bzScaLu | Thoughts on “AI is easy to control” by Pope & Belrose | thoughts-on-ai-is-easy-to-control-by-pope-and-belrose | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/YyosBAutg4bzScaLu/thoughts-on-ai-is-easy-to-control-by-pope-and-belrose | Steven Byrnes | 2023-12-01T17:30:52.720Z |
4dtrs3DQMngexHnZs | > If you imagine a hard lock on these and other such things, well that seems unrealistic to me.
I'm just trying to claim that this is possible in principle. I'm not particularly trying to argue this is realistic.
I'm just trying to argue something like "If we gave out property right to the entire universe and backcha... | 2023-12-01T23:19:32.540Z | 2 | oQZHsJrYExDtKTLbB | mSeesg7i4d9scWAet | Apocalypse insurance, and the hardline libertarian take on AI risk | apocalypse-insurance-and-the-hardline-libertarian-take-on-ai | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mSeesg7i4d9scWAet/apocalypse-insurance-and-the-hardline-libertarian-take-on-ai | So8res | 2023-11-28T02:09:52.400Z |
cBRqd6gE63dzXjm5C | > Plans that rely on aligned AGIs working on alignment faster than humans would need to ensure that no AGIs work on anything else in the meantime.
This isn't true. It could be that making an arbitrarily scalable solution to alignment takes X cognitive resources and in practice building an uncontrollably powerful AI ta... | 2023-12-02T17:46:54.187Z | 5 | qnR6xxan4r2yeQ7TN | YyosBAutg4bzScaLu | Thoughts on “AI is easy to control” by Pope & Belrose | thoughts-on-ai-is-easy-to-control-by-pope-and-belrose | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/YyosBAutg4bzScaLu/thoughts-on-ai-is-easy-to-control-by-pope-and-belrose | Steven Byrnes | 2023-12-01T17:30:52.720Z |
EbK4hHdkEwPEWDvrP | I'm generally reasonably optimistic about using human level-ish systems to do a ton of useful work while simultaneously avoiding most risk from these systems. But, I think this requires substantial effort and won't clearly go well by default. | 2023-12-02T17:49:14.679Z | 12 | gKc7HtqhFGFwE2iTd | YyosBAutg4bzScaLu | Thoughts on “AI is easy to control” by Pope & Belrose | thoughts-on-ai-is-easy-to-control-by-pope-and-belrose | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/YyosBAutg4bzScaLu/thoughts-on-ai-is-easy-to-control-by-pope-and-belrose | Steven Byrnes | 2023-12-01T17:30:52.720Z |
5hQzrDpaHRibaiDx5 | The "AI is easy to control" piece does talk about scaling to superhuman AI:
> In what follows, we will argue that AI, even superhuman AI, will remain much more controllable than humans for the foreseeable future. Since each generation of controllable AIs can help control the next generation, it looks like this process... | 2023-12-03T04:12:38.144Z | 5 | 6X5SQ4eisJ6Acch3w | YyosBAutg4bzScaLu | Thoughts on “AI is easy to control” by Pope & Belrose | thoughts-on-ai-is-easy-to-control-by-pope-and-belrose | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/YyosBAutg4bzScaLu/thoughts-on-ai-is-easy-to-control-by-pope-and-belrose | Steven Byrnes | 2023-12-01T17:30:52.720Z |
YD8YEmDGkgTGTZnxP | > that public key
should be "private key" | 2023-12-05T02:32:26.588Z | 6 | null | uojSbSav3dtEJvctz | n of m ring signatures | n-of-m-ring-signatures | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uojSbSav3dtEJvctz/n-of-m-ring-signatures | DanielFilan | 2023-12-04T20:00:06.580Z |
7QQXXXEJv3Ccs9BAz | > Preliminary Voting Phase (2 weeks, Dec 4 — 17): We identify posts especially worthy of consideration in the review casting preliminary votes. Posts with 2 preliminary votes move into the Discussion Phase
>
> [...]
>
> These will be your preliminary votes for the 2022 review. Posts need to get at least 2 preliminary ... | 2023-12-08T00:17:22.803Z | 4 | null | B6CxEApaatATzown6 | The LessWrong 2022 Review | the-lesswrong-2022-review | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/B6CxEApaatATzown6/the-lesswrong-2022-review | habryka | 2023-12-05T04:00:00.000Z |
Sbc7XhonbbyPkkqcr | Presumably you agree this would become false if the system was deceptively aligned or otherwise scheming against us? Perhaps the implicit claim is that we should generalize from current evidence toward thinking the deceptive alignment is very unlikely?
I also think it's straightforward to construct cases where goodhar... | 2023-12-08T02:39:44.579Z | 2 | KhipDBFzPFhcxgN46 | Wr7N9ji36EvvvrqJK | Response to Quintin Pope's Evolution Provides No Evidence For the Sharp Left Turn | response-to-quintin-pope-s-evolution-provides-no-evidence | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Wr7N9ji36EvvvrqJK/response-to-quintin-pope-s-evolution-provides-no-evidence | Zvi | 2023-10-05T11:39:02.393Z |
DsEYC8KMkE9Y2K5ja | > I genuinely don’t understand why a group which is highly truth-seeking and dispassionately interested in the validity of their very consequential arguments feels so little reason to engage with counter-arguments to their core claims which have been well-received.
A bunch of the more pessimistic people have in practi... | 2023-12-08T21:34:24.755Z | 6 | xbwoa8aAuk46FmsRw | 9Jgtkw8CD6kndyCcD | AI #41: Bring in the Other Gemini | ai-41-bring-in-the-other-gemini | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9Jgtkw8CD6kndyCcD/ai-41-bring-in-the-other-gemini | Zvi | 2023-12-07T15:10:05.552Z |
DAPh4X2tCnE9XzxLd | > I have to say, it does seem a bit implausible to me that even GPT-3.5-turbo is unable to do so when GPT-3.5 is so powerful and your steganography instance is such a simple one.
The "poor man's RL" scheme I used here is quite weak (and perhaps poorly tuned). I suspect this is the primary issue, though limitations on ... | 2023-12-09T23:18:06.509Z | 5 | tqnCnfg8vfTcvvXA4 | EEvsL9cpgDAxAhTzt | Some negative steganography results | some-negative-steganography-results | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/EEvsL9cpgDAxAhTzt/some-negative-steganography-results | Fabien Roger | 2023-12-09T20:22:52.323Z |
3xzxsX759JCxoFjYD | Insofar as you are particularly interested in the plausibility of literal human extinction, you might find the discussion [here](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2NncxDQ3KBDCxiJiP/cosmopolitan-values-don-t-come-free?commentId=ofPTrG6wsq7CxuTXk), [here](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/87EzRDAHkQJptLthE/but-why-would-the-... | 2023-12-09T23:42:12.237Z | 8 | null | HaGTQcxqjHPyR9Ju6 | Unpicking Extinction | unpicking-extinction | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HaGTQcxqjHPyR9Ju6/unpicking-extinction | ukc10014 | 2023-12-09T09:15:41.291Z |
DKTbhJy6DLMfxFw2L | I think this dramatically understates the total damages of 9/11. [This source claims around $35 billion for New York City alone](https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/epr/02v08n2/0211rapa/0211rapa.html). I think the damages are higher if you include (e.g.) the longer term effects on air travel including the TSA. | 2023-12-11T18:29:54.757Z | 6 | kKtJ32fdpmuaSzhLA | tQNfNCdWB5dboRNoZ | Principles For Product Liability (With Application To AI) | principles-for-product-liability-with-application-to-ai | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tQNfNCdWB5dboRNoZ/principles-for-product-liability-with-application-to-ai | johnswentworth | 2023-12-10T21:27:41.403Z |
52qrZzQebwRK8pkje | I like this post and I agree with almost all the claims it makes. But I think it underestimates the potential of approaches other than adversarial robustness for effectively mitigating catastrophic misuse done via an API[^altruistic].
*[Thanks to Buck Shlegeris, Fabien Roger, and GPT-4 for help editing this comment. I... | 2023-12-12T04:40:29.339Z | 34 | null | timk6zHDTFdrHYLmu | Adversarial Robustness Could Help Prevent Catastrophic Misuse | adversarial-robustness-could-help-prevent-catastrophic | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/timk6zHDTFdrHYLmu/adversarial-robustness-could-help-prevent-catastrophic | aog | 2023-12-11T19:12:26.956Z |
kgjcmzu3t5awFyci3 | In this comment, I'll discuss why I'm somewhat skeptical of the best altruistic option being to focus on misuse done via an API for many people[^lab]. (As mentioned in a footnote to the prior comment.) Part of my perspective is that the safeguards are relatively doable, as I discussed in the parent comment, but even if... | 2023-12-12T04:41:57.348Z | 5 | 52qrZzQebwRK8pkje | timk6zHDTFdrHYLmu | Adversarial Robustness Could Help Prevent Catastrophic Misuse | adversarial-robustness-could-help-prevent-catastrophic | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/timk6zHDTFdrHYLmu/adversarial-robustness-could-help-prevent-catastrophic | aog | 2023-12-11T19:12:26.956Z |
CKNJnpAgpfjM3crbm | Agreed, I should have been more clear. Here I'm trying to argue about the question of whether people should work on research to mitigate misuse from the perspective of avoiding misuse through an API.
There is a separate question of reducing misuse concerns either via:
- Trying to avoid weights being stolen/leaking
- ... | 2023-12-14T05:37:33.449Z | 2 | TKsQoXkJsgXxy9nr6 | timk6zHDTFdrHYLmu | Adversarial Robustness Could Help Prevent Catastrophic Misuse | adversarial-robustness-could-help-prevent-catastrophic | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/timk6zHDTFdrHYLmu/adversarial-robustness-could-help-prevent-catastrophic | aog | 2023-12-11T19:12:26.956Z |
LhQoGruRmCvQLDjPk | > Since DPO is not considered reinforcement learning
Depending on the sampling process you use, I think you should consider this the same as RL. | 2023-12-14T22:56:03.985Z | 2 | o7ofkzcmKHEBREm5X | rmfjo4Wmtgq8qa2B7 | Think carefully before calling RL policies "agents" | think-carefully-before-calling-rl-policies-agents | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/rmfjo4Wmtgq8qa2B7/think-carefully-before-calling-rl-policies-agents | TurnTrout | 2023-06-02T03:46:07.467Z |
kCmJHeiNPdBGoH7fn | See also: ["Aligned" shouldn't be a synonym for "good"](https://www.planned-obsolescence.org/aligned-vs-good/) | 2023-12-15T16:40:34.671Z | 18 | null | sy4whuaczvLsn9PNc | "AI Alignment" is a Dangerously Overloaded Term | ai-alignment-is-a-dangerously-overloaded-term | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sy4whuaczvLsn9PNc/ai-alignment-is-a-dangerously-overloaded-term | Roko | 2023-12-15T14:34:29.850Z |
s85aAZtxAFgNRiBLB | I think the overloading is actually worse than is discussed in this post, because people also sometimes use the term AI alignment to refer to "ensuring that AIs don't cause bad outcomes via whatever means".
For this problematic definition, it is possible to ensure "alignment" by using approaches like [AI control](http... | 2023-12-15T16:44:49.243Z | 21 | null | sy4whuaczvLsn9PNc | "AI Alignment" is a Dangerously Overloaded Term | ai-alignment-is-a-dangerously-overloaded-term | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sy4whuaczvLsn9PNc/ai-alignment-is-a-dangerously-overloaded-term | Roko | 2023-12-15T14:34:29.850Z |
ponxMRXsnDJNyY4YX | Here are two specific objections to this post[^edit]:
[^edit]: I edited this comment from "I have two main objections to this post:" because that doesn't quite seem like a good description of what this comment is saying. See [this other comment](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HmQGHGCnvmpCNDBjc/current-ais-provide-nea... | 2023-12-15T22:02:35.176Z | 69 | null | HmQGHGCnvmpCNDBjc | Current AIs Provide Nearly No Data Relevant to AGI Alignment | current-ais-provide-nearly-no-data-relevant-to-agi-alignment | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HmQGHGCnvmpCNDBjc/current-ais-provide-nearly-no-data-relevant-to-agi-alignment | Thane Ruthenis | 2023-12-15T20:16:09.723Z |
RgebYf6epKcCEbCNi | This post seemed overconfident in a number of places, so I was quickly pushing back in those places.
I also think the conclusion of "Nearly No Data" is pretty overstated. I think it should be possible to obtain significant data relevant to AGI alignment with current AIs (though various interpretations of current evide... | 2023-12-15T23:53:58.309Z | 28 | t4QhB5qpWW82yk6Xh | HmQGHGCnvmpCNDBjc | Current AIs Provide Nearly No Data Relevant to AGI Alignment | current-ais-provide-nearly-no-data-relevant-to-agi-alignment | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HmQGHGCnvmpCNDBjc/current-ais-provide-nearly-no-data-relevant-to-agi-alignment | Thane Ruthenis | 2023-12-15T20:16:09.723Z |
cdBHgrvykKHs6qgBa | > On my inside model of how cognition works, I don't think "able to automate all research but can't do consequentialist reasoning" is a coherent property that a system could have.
I actually basically agree with this quote.
Note that I said "incapable of doing non-trivial consequentialist reasoning **in a forward pas... | 2023-12-16T05:24:53.834Z | 20 | hLeNbyp6hfP4puu53 | HmQGHGCnvmpCNDBjc | Current AIs Provide Nearly No Data Relevant to AGI Alignment | current-ais-provide-nearly-no-data-relevant-to-agi-alignment | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HmQGHGCnvmpCNDBjc/current-ais-provide-nearly-no-data-relevant-to-agi-alignment | Thane Ruthenis | 2023-12-15T20:16:09.723Z |
h4ovgDeBAhFrz5T2D | Doing multiple rounds of DPO where you sample from the LLM to get comparison pairs seems totally possible and might be the best way to use DPO in many cases.
You can of course use DPO on data obtained from sources other than the LLM itself. | 2023-12-16T20:55:29.566Z | 2 | EzoBpyGQ7TLvkYowg | rmfjo4Wmtgq8qa2B7 | Think carefully before calling RL policies "agents" | think-carefully-before-calling-rl-policies-agents | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/rmfjo4Wmtgq8qa2B7/think-carefully-before-calling-rl-policies-agents | TurnTrout | 2023-06-02T03:46:07.467Z |
gwnEGJdjQefswhCCT | > manually annotating the data over multiple rounds is possible (cheap)
I intended this.
This is the same as normal RLHF. In practice the sample efficiency of DPO might be higher or lower than (e.g.) PPO based RLHF in various different cases. | 2023-12-16T23:57:00.781Z | 2 | 8cD6rjcjuBaQMP2TJ | rmfjo4Wmtgq8qa2B7 | Think carefully before calling RL policies "agents" | think-carefully-before-calling-rl-policies-agents | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/rmfjo4Wmtgq8qa2B7/think-carefully-before-calling-rl-policies-agents | TurnTrout | 2023-06-02T03:46:07.467Z |
FNLygknxzwJKP6Dqe | > Assume a model takes 3e9 flops to infer the next token, and these chips run as fast as H100s, i.e. 3e15 flops/s. A single chip can infer 1e6 tokens/s. If you have 10M active users, then 100 chips can provide each user a token every 10ms, around 600wpm.
These numbers seem wrong. I think inference flops per token for... | 2023-12-17T01:09:59.764Z | 2 | HTjkn5DJrNExLqQaz | cB2Rtnp7DBTpDy3ii | Memory bandwidth constraints imply economies of scale in AI inference | memory-bandwidth-constraints-imply-economies-of-scale-in-ai | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cB2Rtnp7DBTpDy3ii/memory-bandwidth-constraints-imply-economies-of-scale-in-ai | Ege Erdil | 2023-09-17T14:01:34.701Z |
egNhjp7aMtAycemkf | More generally, I think expecting a similar amount of money spent on training as on inference is broadly reasonable. So, if a future powerful model is trained for $1 billion, then spending $1 million to design custom inference chips is fine (though I expect the design cost is higher than this in practice). | 2023-12-17T01:12:16.846Z | 5 | FNLygknxzwJKP6Dqe | cB2Rtnp7DBTpDy3ii | Memory bandwidth constraints imply economies of scale in AI inference | memory-bandwidth-constraints-imply-economies-of-scale-in-ai | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cB2Rtnp7DBTpDy3ii/memory-bandwidth-constraints-imply-economies-of-scale-in-ai | Ege Erdil | 2023-09-17T14:01:34.701Z |
KLq5uuzTneCeWMveJ | > it assumes that real AGIs or future AGIs will confidently have certain properties like having deceptive alignment
The post doesn't claim AGIs will be deceptive aligned, it claims that AGIs will be *capable of implementing deceptive alignment* due to internally doing large amounts of consequentialist-y reasoning. Thi... | 2023-12-17T03:16:35.021Z | 9 | fAbzxfusyEtqyhs7K | HmQGHGCnvmpCNDBjc | Current AIs Provide Nearly No Data Relevant to AGI Alignment | current-ais-provide-nearly-no-data-relevant-to-agi-alignment | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HmQGHGCnvmpCNDBjc/current-ais-provide-nearly-no-data-relevant-to-agi-alignment | Thane Ruthenis | 2023-12-15T20:16:09.723Z |
BTsvuEKNDYSquRTDT | It seems more informative to just look at top (inflation adjusted) karma for 2022 (similar to what habryka noted in the sibling). AI posts **in bold**.
- **AGI Ruin: A List of LethalitiesΩ**
- **Where I agree and disagree with EliezerΩ**
- **SimulatorsΩ**
- **What an actually pessimistic containment strategy looks lik... | 2023-12-17T19:39:51.721Z | 11 | WjAGzaKimgwAuWGiy | WYqixmisE6dQjHPT8 | 2022 (and All Time) Posts by Pingback Count | 2022-and-all-time-posts-by-pingback-count | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WYqixmisE6dQjHPT8/2022-and-all-time-posts-by-pingback-count | Raemon | 2023-12-16T21:17:00.572Z |
recvsY9zs6ffshKLc | > I'd like to point out that this plan still uses automated monitoring systems, and to the extent these systems aren't adversarially robust, the plan will be more expensive and/or less effective.
I agree that additional adversarial robustness (for both the policy and the monitor) helps considerably, but I think that ... | 2023-12-18T19:05:43.187Z | 6 | CuFzotayhvHJFmJP5 | timk6zHDTFdrHYLmu | Adversarial Robustness Could Help Prevent Catastrophic Misuse | adversarial-robustness-could-help-prevent-catastrophic | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/timk6zHDTFdrHYLmu/adversarial-robustness-could-help-prevent-catastrophic | aog | 2023-12-11T19:12:26.956Z |
6cenBuMzDkCY3DNzh | [Minor correction to notes]
> There's some commitment that the Board will be in the loop. To my knowledge, this is the first commitment by a frontier lab to give their Board specific information or specific power besides removing-the-CEO.
The Anthropic RSP has a bunch of stuff along these lines:
> Follow an "Update ... | 2023-12-18T19:21:43.985Z | 9 | null | oPbiQfRotHYuC3wfE | OpenAI: Preparedness framework | openai-preparedness-framework | https://openai.com/safety/preparedness | Zach Stein-Perlman | 2023-12-18T18:30:10.153Z |
EhAYJawZn3thLpfjC | > If causing catastrophes is difficult, this should reduce our concern with both misuse and rogue AIs causing sudden extinction. Other concerns like military arms races, lock-in of authoritarian regimes, or Malthusian outcomes in competitive environments would become relatively more important.
I agree that "causing c... | 2023-12-18T19:35:04.863Z | 4 | qwEiZmCAKyB7SgDyJ | timk6zHDTFdrHYLmu | Adversarial Robustness Could Help Prevent Catastrophic Misuse | adversarial-robustness-could-help-prevent-catastrophic | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/timk6zHDTFdrHYLmu/adversarial-robustness-could-help-prevent-catastrophic | aog | 2023-12-11T19:12:26.956Z |
5Jeeptso3Q4DYbXRQ | I agree with basically all of this and apologies for writing a comment which doesn't directly respond to your post (though it is a relevant part of my views on the topic). | 2023-12-18T19:45:30.701Z | 2 | TCPeNsGTzipY2GLNY | timk6zHDTFdrHYLmu | Adversarial Robustness Could Help Prevent Catastrophic Misuse | adversarial-robustness-could-help-prevent-catastrophic | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/timk6zHDTFdrHYLmu/adversarial-robustness-could-help-prevent-catastrophic | aog | 2023-12-11T19:12:26.956Z |
BxgA6cLaA6nhEvqZX | [Mostly unimportant/nitpicking specific claim]
> Perhaps a bigger challenge is the growth of multimodal systems.
For cases like bio, I don't think multimodal is that much of a threat because it should be possible to identify text outputs from the model as problematic without needing the context from the input in most... | 2023-12-18T21:27:09.008Z | 4 | nKvctKktMYYukngD8 | timk6zHDTFdrHYLmu | Adversarial Robustness Could Help Prevent Catastrophic Misuse | adversarial-robustness-could-help-prevent-catastrophic | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/timk6zHDTFdrHYLmu/adversarial-robustness-could-help-prevent-catastrophic | aog | 2023-12-11T19:12:26.956Z |
zBHjrZTqqA64b3TL6 | > You didn't mention the policy implications, which I think are one of if not the most impactful reason to care about misuse. Government regulation seems super important long-term to prevent people from deploying dangerous models publicly, and the only way to get that is by demonstrating that models are actually scary.... | 2023-12-18T21:28:51.889Z | 4 | WB89j88PtDWu64HEW | timk6zHDTFdrHYLmu | Adversarial Robustness Could Help Prevent Catastrophic Misuse | adversarial-robustness-could-help-prevent-catastrophic | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/timk6zHDTFdrHYLmu/adversarial-robustness-could-help-prevent-catastrophic | aog | 2023-12-11T19:12:26.956Z |
YfWaTGdYZgkGKXexM | I think the claim might be: models can't compute more than O(number_of_parameters) useful and "different" things.
I think this will strongly depend on how we define "different".
Or maybe the claim is something about how the residual stream only has d dimensions, so it's only possible to encode so many things? (But we... | 2023-12-20T19:34:03.203Z | 2 | v4KkRcCBDEvHE82He | L4anhrxjv8j2yRKKp | How "Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervision" Fits Into a Broader Alignment Scheme | how-discovering-latent-knowledge-in-language-models-without | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/L4anhrxjv8j2yRKKp/how-discovering-latent-knowledge-in-language-models-without | Collin | 2022-12-15T18:22:40.109Z |
wGfdYXJNvPCv5HPJ2 | Thanks for the story!
As far as
> Their message contains all the software that was too large for me to carry on board originally.
Is this actually plausible? I think it should be possible for data to be extremely dense to a point where a kilogram is easily sufficient for all the necessary software (other than update... | 2023-12-20T22:15:28.190Z | 12 | null | CAzntXYTEaNfC9nB6 | Succession | succession | https://www.narrativeark.xyz/p/succession | Richard_Ngo | 2023-12-20T19:25:03.185Z |
BYYPtbtRbtBmgtCs3 | > Why smaller probes end up more vulnerable to collisions?
Smaller probes are probably more vulnerable to collisions per unit mass. (Unsure if this was the intention in the story.)
In particular, suppose the probability of collisions is proportional to total surface area. Then, if our probe is spherical, collisions a... | 2023-12-21T03:57:34.067Z | 3 | aAMnLx9P2tLdyXLCd | CAzntXYTEaNfC9nB6 | Succession | succession | https://www.narrativeark.xyz/p/succession | Richard_Ngo | 2023-12-20T19:25:03.185Z |
Es8ZP54CeNvb4PasZ | > To what extent setups of this type can in practice preserve nice features, both in alignment and other capabilities, and how much those results will then generalize and survive out of distribution as capabilities of the underlying systems scale higher, is a key question. If we can get nice enough properties, we can d... | 2023-12-21T18:34:18.760Z | 10 | null | WaDFCrd6KEwojLXgj | AI #43: Functional Discoveries | ai-43-functional-discoveries | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WaDFCrd6KEwojLXgj/ai-43-functional-discoveries | Zvi | 2023-12-21T15:50:04.442Z |
8sS7ayKsgbeKJu6kh | \[Not relevant to the main argument of this post\]
> They do so because they think x-risk, which (if it occurs) involves the death of everyone
I'd prefer you not fixate on literally everyone dying because it's actually pretty unclear if AI takeover would result in everyone dying. (The same applies for misuse risk, bi... | 2023-12-21T21:58:33.281Z | 4 | null | 5rexNxtZgkEQBi3Sd | Attention on AI X-Risk Likely Hasn't Distracted from Current Harms from AI | attention-on-ai-x-risk-likely-hasn-t-distracted-from-current | https://www.erichgrunewald.com/posts/attention-on-existential-risk-from-ai-likely-hasnt-distracted-from-current-harms-from-ai/ | Erich_Grunewald | 2023-12-21T17:24:16.713Z |
7AaFjgXzEshrYJLw5 | You might find Appendix G in the paper worth reading. | 2023-12-22T02:12:28.248Z | 6 | PfQ6gfFLRo6Tqmuok | 9W8roCAeEccSa3Chz | Weak-to-Strong Generalization: Eliciting Strong Capabilities With Weak Supervision | weak-to-strong-generalization-eliciting-strong-capabilities | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9W8roCAeEccSa3Chz/weak-to-strong-generalization-eliciting-strong-capabilities | leogao | 2023-12-16T05:39:10.558Z |
5beXsJPmpKNrybbsi | > About a year ago, Cotra proposed a different class of problem factorization experiments: “sandwiching”. We start with some ML model which has lots of knowledge from many different fields, like GPT-n. We also have a human who has a domain-specific problem to solve (like e.g. a coding problem, or a translation to anoth... | 2023-12-22T05:11:29.246Z | 11 | null | tmuFmHuyb4eWmPXz8 | Rant on Problem Factorization for Alignment | rant-on-problem-factorization-for-alignment | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tmuFmHuyb4eWmPXz8/rant-on-problem-factorization-for-alignment | johnswentworth | 2022-08-05T19:23:24.262Z |
viMBErGZmD2TmHbkf | (Agreed, I was just trying to describe the spherical cow of probe designs, a spherical probe.) | 2023-12-22T19:59:27.497Z | 4 | TKhj8Me8AA6GkguAb | CAzntXYTEaNfC9nB6 | Succession | succession | https://www.narrativeark.xyz/p/succession | Richard_Ngo | 2023-12-20T19:25:03.185Z |
oZhif9D7CNyRyfH3v | > A better first choice would be Shannon. In the case of information theory, I'd say the Great Man model is just obviously basically correct.
Hmm, I think information theory was due to the work of only a few people, but I seem to recall that various people at Bell Labs claim that they came up with basically similar st... | 2023-12-22T21:51:49.989Z | 10 | e8BHNma9NiQy8piQ7 | AM38ydkG8qJE2NEGW | The problems with the concept of an infohazard as used by the LW community [Linkpost] | the-problems-with-the-concept-of-an-infohazard-as-used-by | https://www.beren.io/2023-08-09-Strong-Infohazard-Norms-Lead-To-Predictable-Failure-Modes/ | Noosphere89 | 2023-12-22T16:13:54.822Z |
KT9SqdbcMxqscMQcy | I'm missing the context, but I think you should consider naming specific people or organizations rather than saying "LW". | 2023-12-23T19:53:05.363Z | 2 | ZYM8rY3wxhypcrpgs | AM38ydkG8qJE2NEGW | The problems with the concept of an infohazard as used by the LW community [Linkpost] | the-problems-with-the-concept-of-an-infohazard-as-used-by | https://www.beren.io/2023-08-09-Strong-Infohazard-Norms-Lead-To-Predictable-Failure-Modes/ | Noosphere89 | 2023-12-22T16:13:54.822Z |
cjADyqF5Q72bos8yW | > especially before 2012-2015.
Before 2012, it's somewhat notable that AlexNet wasn't published yet.
TBC, I think people savvy enough about AI should have predicted that ML was a pretty plausible path and that "lots of compute" was also plausible. (But it's unclear if they should have put lots of probability on this... | 2023-12-23T20:53:09.277Z | 6 | ajpQJ7kHFZmqXmEwy | AM38ydkG8qJE2NEGW | The problems with the concept of an infohazard as used by the LW community [Linkpost] | the-problems-with-the-concept-of-an-infohazard-as-used-by | https://www.beren.io/2023-08-09-Strong-Infohazard-Norms-Lead-To-Predictable-Failure-Modes/ | Noosphere89 | 2023-12-22T16:13:54.822Z |
AAKJGnmjuywoMnqbx | **Edit**: This comment now seems kinda silly as you basically addressed this in your comment and I missed it, feel free to ignore.
> Also, as I predicted, the benefits stack with those of finetuning and in-context learning.
For the task of removing sycophancy this isn't clearly true right? As you note in the linked p... | 2024-01-02T19:39:34.082Z | 2 | CyowdDtuAMHwQDxd9 | raoeNarFYCxxyKAop | Modulating sycophancy in an RLHF model via activation steering | modulating-sycophancy-in-an-rlhf-model-via-activation | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/raoeNarFYCxxyKAop/modulating-sycophancy-in-an-rlhf-model-via-activation | Nina Panickssery | 2023-08-09T07:06:50.859Z |
mfixbQMzhJSNfe9XZ | > Relatedly, I'm pretty confused if the "just train multiple times" is the right way to do this, and if people have thought about ways to do this that don't seem as janky
I think DPO on contrast pairs seems like a pretty natural approach. | 2024-01-02T20:01:39.251Z | 7 | MitGCAzhmrStAssNs | v7f8ayBxLhmMFRzpa | Steering Llama-2 with contrastive activation additions | steering-llama-2-with-contrastive-activation-additions | https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.06681 | Nina Panickssery | 2024-01-02T00:47:04.621Z |
DBSLdN5KSKvHRruZu | > I think the answer turns out to be: "No, the sample efficiency and generalization are better than normal training."
From my understanding of your results, this isn't true for removing sycophancy, the original task I was talking about? My core claim was that removing blatent sycophancy like in this anthropic dataset ... | 2024-01-02T20:08:18.727Z | 2 | CyowdDtuAMHwQDxd9 | raoeNarFYCxxyKAop | Modulating sycophancy in an RLHF model via activation steering | modulating-sycophancy-in-an-rlhf-model-via-activation | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/raoeNarFYCxxyKAop/modulating-sycophancy-in-an-rlhf-model-via-activation | Nina Panickssery | 2023-08-09T07:06:50.859Z |
zJMiewZLcy4jatmeR | On sample efficiency and generalization more broadly, I now overall think something like:
- Using contrast pairs for variance reduction is a useful technique for improving sample efficiency. (And I was foolish to not understand this was part of the method in this post.)
- I'm unsure what is the best way to use contras... | 2024-01-02T20:15:26.804Z | 2 | CyowdDtuAMHwQDxd9 | raoeNarFYCxxyKAop | Modulating sycophancy in an RLHF model via activation steering | modulating-sycophancy-in-an-rlhf-model-via-activation | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/raoeNarFYCxxyKAop/modulating-sycophancy-in-an-rlhf-model-via-activation | Nina Panickssery | 2023-08-09T07:06:50.859Z |
gDJsvJbwgrnTi3vxu | I think the prediction seems false for *increasing sycophancy*, but seems true for *decreasing sycophancy*.
I'm unsure why prompting doesn't work to decrease sycophancy, but maybe it's not sufficiently saliant to work with only a few examples? Maybe if you explicitly said "don't be sycophantic" and gave the examples i... | 2024-01-02T20:34:38.699Z | 2 | 4BMrRzsaCix25JMps | v7f8ayBxLhmMFRzpa | Steering Llama-2 with contrastive activation additions | steering-llama-2-with-contrastive-activation-additions | https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.06681 | Nina Panickssery | 2024-01-02T00:47:04.621Z |
JyosNKYE43yJXHSXz | > If I read this image correctly the "non-sycophantic prompt" increased sycophancy?
That's my understanding.
Probably the increase should be interpreted as noise and doesn't have a good explanation?
> I would really expect you could get a reduction in sycophancy with the right prompt.
Agreed. | 2024-01-02T21:20:51.952Z | 2 | GyjrGk4tcxeqroDYQ | v7f8ayBxLhmMFRzpa | Steering Llama-2 with contrastive activation additions | steering-llama-2-with-contrastive-activation-additions | https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.06681 | Nina Panickssery | 2024-01-02T00:47:04.621Z |
5H64rdESFnCDZ3yez | > I do think it's interesting that activation steering does work on top of finetuning for increasing sycophancy, but that was not what your original comment or Ryan's response was about.
Also note that this is for generalizing from the multiple choice question answering version to the free response version:
> The fin... | 2024-01-02T21:33:16.668Z | 10 | y3jsafAgFmdFKmKWK | v7f8ayBxLhmMFRzpa | Steering Llama-2 with contrastive activation additions | steering-llama-2-with-contrastive-activation-additions | https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.06681 | Nina Panickssery | 2024-01-02T00:47:04.621Z |
XY4zv9yyXmBv3AbpD | Prediction: token level features or other extremely salient features are XOR'd with more things than less salient features. And if you find less salient things which are linearly represented, a bunch of this won't be XOR'd.
This solves the exponential blow up and should also make sense with your experimental results (... | 2024-01-03T21:59:29.362Z | 9 | null | hjJXCn9GsskysDceS | What’s up with LLMs representing XORs of arbitrary features? | what-s-up-with-llms-representing-xors-of-arbitrary-features | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hjJXCn9GsskysDceS/what-s-up-with-llms-representing-xors-of-arbitrary-features | Sam Marks | 2024-01-03T19:44:33.162Z |
KyF9JaYmaZ8TMzXjL | I think that linearly available XOR would occur if the model makes linearly available any boolean function which is "linearly independent" from the two values individually. So, maybe this could be implemented via something other than XOR, which is maybe more natural? | 2024-01-03T22:23:53.121Z | 2 | null | hjJXCn9GsskysDceS | What’s up with LLMs representing XORs of arbitrary features? | what-s-up-with-llms-representing-xors-of-arbitrary-features | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hjJXCn9GsskysDceS/what-s-up-with-llms-representing-xors-of-arbitrary-features | Sam Marks | 2024-01-03T19:44:33.162Z |
E8F7pJeqvLrapDMMM | > I reran my experiments from above on a “reset” version of LLaMA-2-13B. What this means is that, for each parameter in LLaMA-2-13B, I shuffled the weights of that parameter by permuting them along the last dimension
Why do you get <50% accuracy for any of the categories? Shouldn't a probe trained on any reasonable lo... | 2024-01-03T22:26:38.398Z | 16 | null | hjJXCn9GsskysDceS | What’s up with LLMs representing XORs of arbitrary features? | what-s-up-with-llms-representing-xors-of-arbitrary-features | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hjJXCn9GsskysDceS/what-s-up-with-llms-representing-xors-of-arbitrary-features | Sam Marks | 2024-01-03T19:44:33.162Z |
sh2LzFv4LNEq2evhD | Are the training and val sets not IID? Are they small enough that we either get serious overfit or huge error bars? | 2024-01-03T23:55:30.541Z | 2 | EymcPhp6XLrcjsLcp | hjJXCn9GsskysDceS | What’s up with LLMs representing XORs of arbitrary features? | what-s-up-with-llms-representing-xors-of-arbitrary-features | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hjJXCn9GsskysDceS/what-s-up-with-llms-representing-xors-of-arbitrary-features | Sam Marks | 2024-01-03T19:44:33.162Z |
DKJhyqHBebYCNBj8T | I edited my comment. I'm just trying to say that like how you get $a \land b$ for free, you also get XOR for free if you compute anything else which is "linearly independent" frrom the components a and b. (For a slightly fuzzy notion of linear independence where we just need separability.) | 2024-01-03T23:58:55.854Z | 3 | EhNYeDLw5RDwMqBeh | hjJXCn9GsskysDceS | What’s up with LLMs representing XORs of arbitrary features? | what-s-up-with-llms-representing-xors-of-arbitrary-features | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hjJXCn9GsskysDceS/what-s-up-with-llms-representing-xors-of-arbitrary-features | Sam Marks | 2024-01-03T19:44:33.162Z |
Gn9iWpZbPxTuWKgAk | Yes, that's what I'm saying. I think this is right? Note that we only need salience on one side between false and true, so "true vs false" is salient as long as "false" is salient. I would guess that "this is false" is very salient for this type of data even for a normal pretrained LLM.
(Similarly, "this is english" i... | 2024-01-04T00:00:32.853Z | 4 | hDDCoafbPGk7pREgS | hjJXCn9GsskysDceS | What’s up with LLMs representing XORs of arbitrary features? | what-s-up-with-llms-representing-xors-of-arbitrary-features | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hjJXCn9GsskysDceS/what-s-up-with-llms-representing-xors-of-arbitrary-features | Sam Marks | 2024-01-03T19:44:33.162Z |
xAGYzdYMKyBCM6naA | If the datasets are IID and large and the loss function is reasonable, then if there is just noise, the probe should learn to just always predict the more common class and not have any variance. This should always result in >50% accuracy. | 2024-01-04T00:13:39.717Z | 2 | sh2LzFv4LNEq2evhD | hjJXCn9GsskysDceS | What’s up with LLMs representing XORs of arbitrary features? | what-s-up-with-llms-representing-xors-of-arbitrary-features | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hjJXCn9GsskysDceS/what-s-up-with-llms-representing-xors-of-arbitrary-features | Sam Marks | 2024-01-03T19:44:33.162Z |
YuN4jXJpuyGEapK5C | Yep I think I agree, I didn't understand the point you made about systematic anti-correlation originally.
If I understand correctly the issues is something like:
- There are 10 India related statements, exactly 5 of which are false and 5 of which are true.
- We do a random split of all the data, so if there is more t... | 2024-01-04T22:37:09.151Z | 3 | zXa3gLvDAktdPFLcs | hjJXCn9GsskysDceS | What’s up with LLMs representing XORs of arbitrary features? | what-s-up-with-llms-representing-xors-of-arbitrary-features | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hjJXCn9GsskysDceS/what-s-up-with-llms-representing-xors-of-arbitrary-features | Sam Marks | 2024-01-03T19:44:33.162Z |
sDj4jpPgsfJacApiJ | I think the key thing is that $a \land b$ and $a \lor b$ aren't *separately* linearly represented (or really even linearly represented in some strong sense). The model "represents" these by $a + b$ with different thresholds like this:
![](https://res.cloudinary.com/lesswrong-2-0/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/mirro... | 2024-01-05T17:55:00.227Z | 8 | asTLC3ReGHzu8EEfa | hjJXCn9GsskysDceS | What’s up with LLMs representing XORs of arbitrary features? | what-s-up-with-llms-representing-xors-of-arbitrary-features | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hjJXCn9GsskysDceS/what-s-up-with-llms-representing-xors-of-arbitrary-features | Sam Marks | 2024-01-03T19:44:33.162Z |
iwSgWfGtM4EeDRHBg | More generally, just try to draw the XOR decision boundary on the above diagram! | 2024-01-06T01:17:17.796Z | 2 | sDj4jpPgsfJacApiJ | hjJXCn9GsskysDceS | What’s up with LLMs representing XORs of arbitrary features? | what-s-up-with-llms-representing-xors-of-arbitrary-features | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hjJXCn9GsskysDceS/what-s-up-with-llms-representing-xors-of-arbitrary-features | Sam Marks | 2024-01-03T19:44:33.162Z |
DcBM3w2ZCCsgZPh8r | This is part of the motivation for using the name "[Scheming](https://www.lesswrong.com/s/J7JpFeijCK5urdbzv/p/yFofRxg7RRQYCcwFA)" instead of deceptive alignment.
I'm not sure it's that much better in terms of avoiding confusion though... | 2024-01-07T18:56:14.809Z | 11 | null | a392MCzsGXAZP5KaS | Deceptive AI ≠ Deceptively-aligned AI | deceptive-ai-deceptively-aligned-ai | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/a392MCzsGXAZP5KaS/deceptive-ai-deceptively-aligned-ai | Steven Byrnes | 2024-01-07T16:55:13.761Z |
Z22WF9cR5DeQXcwTS | [It should support spoilers](https://www.lesswrong.com/FAQ#How_do_I_insert_spoiler_protections_)
:::spoiler
My spoiler
::: | 2024-01-07T19:00:24.839Z | 5 | ZvtKypKyXrnNneJtw | q3bJYTB3dGRf5fbD9 | MIRI 2024 Mission and Strategy Update | miri-2024-mission-and-strategy-update | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/q3bJYTB3dGRf5fbD9/miri-2024-mission-and-strategy-update | Malo | 2024-01-05T00:20:54.169Z |
yGp3QbXi7vFqibbqx | By explanations, I think Buck means fully human understandable explanations.
> Do you also think it's infeasible to identify sparse, unlabeled circuits as "the part of the model that's doing the task", like in ACDC, in a way that gets good performance on some downstream task?
Personally, I don't have a strong opinion... | 2024-01-07T20:07:40.281Z | 6 | nW4qv8fgwyokvGCSG | JvZhhzycHu2Yd57RN | Causal Scrubbing: a method for rigorously testing interpretability hypotheses [Redwood Research] | causal-scrubbing-a-method-for-rigorously-testing | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JvZhhzycHu2Yd57RN/causal-scrubbing-a-method-for-rigorously-testing | LawrenceC | 2022-12-03T00:58:36.973Z |
cYbhsiJzeD5hKXLHG | Note that the finetuning for figure 13 is training the model on sycophantic/non-sycophantic *multiple choice question answering* and then generalizing this to free response.
It isn't training more directly on sycophantic responses or performing RL for sycophancy. | 2024-01-08T16:44:38.021Z | 3 | yfDuxKfmcpuQFYCv2 | v7f8ayBxLhmMFRzpa | Steering Llama-2 with contrastive activation additions | steering-llama-2-with-contrastive-activation-additions | https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.06681 | Nina Panickssery | 2024-01-02T00:47:04.621Z |
tqbCGFvGPDsaXpyvh | I was being foolish, the vectors are averaged across a dataset, but there are still positive vs negative contrast pairs, so we should see sample efficiency improvements from contrast pairs (it is generally the case that contrast pairs are more sample efficient). That said, I'm unsure if simple techniques like DPO are j... | 2024-01-08T18:34:04.589Z | 4 | r4ZGs8Jao3YF9kD78 | raoeNarFYCxxyKAop | Modulating sycophancy in an RLHF model via activation steering | modulating-sycophancy-in-an-rlhf-model-via-activation | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/raoeNarFYCxxyKAop/modulating-sycophancy-in-an-rlhf-model-via-activation | Nina Panickssery | 2023-08-09T07:06:50.859Z |
3RAdsjKB7uo4vTrkv | I'm now less sure that contrast pairs are important and I'm broadly somewhat confused about what has good sample efficiency and why. | 2024-01-08T18:37:52.803Z | 4 | tqbCGFvGPDsaXpyvh | raoeNarFYCxxyKAop | Modulating sycophancy in an RLHF model via activation steering | modulating-sycophancy-in-an-rlhf-model-via-activation | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/raoeNarFYCxxyKAop/modulating-sycophancy-in-an-rlhf-model-via-activation | Nina Panickssery | 2023-08-09T07:06:50.859Z |
96mN873CGM8QMfdGb | Due to the results [noted in in TurnTrout's comment here from Liu et al.](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/raoeNarFYCxxyKAop/modulating-sycophancy-in-an-rlhf-model-via-activation?commentId=ZFcCoadnwRms8EPhA), I now don't think the action is mostly coming from contrast pairs (in at least some cases).
So, there is higher... | 2024-01-08T18:54:24.107Z | 4 | zJMiewZLcy4jatmeR | raoeNarFYCxxyKAop | Modulating sycophancy in an RLHF model via activation steering | modulating-sycophancy-in-an-rlhf-model-via-activation | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/raoeNarFYCxxyKAop/modulating-sycophancy-in-an-rlhf-model-via-activation | Nina Panickssery | 2023-08-09T07:06:50.859Z |
df3ed6oLyCuDoZnyE | Thanks for this clarification! | 2024-01-08T19:17:20.416Z | 4 | GqxwhNyNTGYNAHvwK | v7f8ayBxLhmMFRzpa | Steering Llama-2 with contrastive activation additions | steering-llama-2-with-contrastive-activation-additions | https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.06681 | Nina Panickssery | 2024-01-02T00:47:04.621Z |
NQd6AKTPhZ5N9La8v | I've posted a [shortform with a more detailed description of my views on activation additions](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FG54euEAesRkSZuJN/ryan_greenblatt-s-shortform?commentId=qR26xnL6SHyanwx87). | 2024-01-08T23:14:35.979Z | 2 | GqxwhNyNTGYNAHvwK | v7f8ayBxLhmMFRzpa | Steering Llama-2 with contrastive activation additions | steering-llama-2-with-contrastive-activation-additions | https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.06681 | Nina Panickssery | 2024-01-02T00:47:04.621Z |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.