prompt stringlengths 324 9.71k | target stringlengths 323 4.03k | meta_json stringlengths 147 171 | format stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
Below is a LessWrong post by Sam Marks titled 'What’s up with LLMs representing XORs of arbitrary features?'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Thanks to Clément Dumas, Nikola Jurković, Nora Belrose, Arthur Conmy, and Oam Patel for feedback.
In the comments of the post on Google Deepmind’s CCS challenges paper, I expre... | > 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... | {"comment_id": "E8F7pJeqvLrapDMMM", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Sam Marks", "post_id": "hjJXCn9GsskysDceS"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Joe Carlsmith titled 'Video and transcript of talk on "Can goodness compete?"'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
(This is the video and transcript of a public talk I gave at Mox in San Francisco in July 2025, on long-term equilibria post-AGI. It’s a longer version of the talk I gave at this... | You come away with the conclusion that "I think the best futures at least would require a good deal of preventing constraining competition, at least re-locust like value systems, and this despite many risks that this entails."
I don't understand why you think competition with locusts probably burns much of the galacti... | {"comment_id": "mca28LA3f7Kh7DH5q", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Joe Carlsmith", "post_id": "evYne4Xx7L9J96BHW"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by KatjaGrace titled 'Winning the power to lose'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Have the Accelerationists won?
Last November Kevin Roose announced that those in favor of going fast on AI had now won against those favoring caution, with the reinstatement of Sam Altman at OpenAI. Let’s ignor... | > It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to suggest that literally saving billions of lives is worth pursuing even if doing so increases existential risk by a tiny amount. Loosely speaking, this idea only seems unreasonable to those who believe that existential risk is overwhelmingly more important than every other concern... | {"comment_id": "qCQ2joMmb4fAgz4oL", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "KatjaGrace", "post_id": "h45ngW5guruD7tS4b"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Zach Stein-Perlman titled "Companies' safety plans neglect risks from scheming AI".
Post body (possibly truncated):
Without countermeasures, a scheming AI could escape.
A safety case (for deployment) is an argument that it is safe to deploy a particular AI system in a particular way.[... | > The labs' safety cases miss this threat.
This seems mostly right, but it's worth noting that Anthropic's current RSP contains "Early Thoughts on ASL-4" and this section includes language like:
> Model theft should be prohibitively costly for state-level actors, even with the help of a significant number of employee... | {"comment_id": "D7mpyWL4t4yhaDbLC", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Zach Stein-Perlman", "post_id": "mmDJWDX5EXv6rymtM"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by lukemarks titled '[Research Note] Optimizing The Final Output Can Obfuscate CoT'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Produced as part of MATS 8.0 under the mentorship of Alex Turner and Alex Cloud. This research note overviews some early results which we are looking for feedback on.
TL;DR: ... | It's worth distinguishing between obfuscated CoT and steganographic CoT. If thinking out loud in the CoT is a necessity for a given AI for some problematic task/objective, then encoding the reasoning stenographically is likely[^likely] to be required to evade CoT monitoring. The results here don't correspond to the AI ... | {"comment_id": "X73ao6xbMR5A6jx3k", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "lukemarks", "post_id": "CM7AsQoBxDW4vhkP3"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Daniel Kokotajlo titled 'AI 2027: What Superintelligence Looks Like'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
In 2021 I wrote what became my most popular blog post: What 2026 Looks Like. I intended to keep writing predictions all the way to AGI and beyond, but chickened out and just published up t... | Isn't it kinda unreasonable to put 10% on superhuman coder in a year if current AIs have a 15 nanosecond time horizon? TBC, it seems fine IMO if the model just isn't very good at predicting the 10th/90th percentile, especially with extreme hyperparameters.
~~I also don't know how they ran this, I tried looking for mod... | {"comment_id": "CAvWEwEvCuo8cGsZo", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Daniel Kokotajlo", "post_id": "TpSFoqoG2M5MAAesg"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by [deleted] titled 'Paper: LLMs trained on “A is B” fail to learn “B is A”'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
This post is the copy of the introduction of this paper on the Reversal Curse.
Authors: Lukas Berglund, Meg Tong, Max Kaufmann, Mikita Balesni, Asa Cooper Stickland, Tomasz Korbak, ... | 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 (... | {"comment_id": "35trYkWZjPquk2nKR", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "[deleted]", "post_id": "SCqDipWAhZ49JNdmL"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Zach Stein-Perlman titled 'DeepMind: Evaluating Frontier Models for Dangerous Capabilities'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
To understand the risks posed by a new AI system, we must understand what it can and cannot do. Building on prior work, we introduce a programme of new “dangerous ca... | > though I think they're way above the bar for "worthwhile to report"
Yeah, maybe I'm pretty off base in what the meta-level policy should be like. I don't feel very strongly about how to manage this.
I also now realized that some of the langauge was stronger than I think I intended and I've edited the original comme... | {"comment_id": "DopDso8Gs7Y79zbZL", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Zach Stein-Perlman", "post_id": "CCBaLzpB2qvwyuEJ2"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by So8res titled 'A case for courage, when speaking of AI danger'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
I think more people should say what they actually believe about AI dangers, loudly and often. Even (and perhaps especially) if you work in AI policy.
I’ve been beating this drum for a few years... | > People who hold this position are arguing for things like "we should only slow down AI development if for each year of slowing down we would be reducing risk of human extinction by more than 1%", which is a policy that if acted on consistently would more likely than not cause humanity's extinction within 100 years (a... | {"comment_id": "MCYvKFx5EuMDmRYaA", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "So8res", "post_id": "CYTwRZtrhHuYf7QYu"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Gunnar_Zarncke titled 'Towards Guaranteed Safe AI: A Framework for Ensuring Robust and Reliable AI Systems'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Authors: David "davidad" Dalrymple, Joar Skalse, Yoshua Bengio, Stuart Russell, Max Tegmark, Sanjit Seshia, Steve Omohundro, Christian Szegedy, Ben G... | (I think most of the hard-to-handle risk from scheming comes from cases where we can't easily make smarter AIs which we know aren't schemers. If we can get another copy of the AI which is just as smart but which has been "de-agentified", then I don't think scheming poses a substantial threat. (Because e.g. we can just ... | {"comment_id": "H6bYL7v3PW364ucmH", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Gunnar_Zarncke", "post_id": "wvgwYQv9B4jioqgqg"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by eggsyntax titled 'LLM Generality is a Timeline Crux'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Four-Month Update
[EDIT: I believe that this paper looking at o1-preview, which gets much better results on both blocksworld and obfuscated blocksworld, should update us significantly toward LLMs being c... | What if the tasks that your scaffolded LLM is doing are randomly selected pieces of cognitive labor from the full distribution of human cognitive tasks?
It seems to me like your objection is mostly to narrow distributions of tasks and scaffolding which is heavily specialized to that task.
I think narrowness of the ta... | {"comment_id": "vPuHCKjx86MBojTMm", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "eggsyntax", "post_id": "k38sJNLk7YbJA72ST"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Jeremy Gillen titled 'Without fundamental advances, misalignment and catastrophe are the default outcomes of training powerful AI'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
A pdf version of this report is available here.
Summary
In this report we argue that AI systems capable of large scale scien... | TBC, they discuss negative consequences of powerful, uncontrolled, and not-particularly-aligned AI in section 6, but they don't argue for "this will result in violent conflict" in that much detail. I think the argument they make is basically right and suffices for thinking that the type of scenario they describe is rea... | {"comment_id": "fSw5CdN3KxGJAFdjc", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Jeremy Gillen", "post_id": "GfZfDHZHCuYwrHGCd"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Screwtape titled "Reviewing LessWrong: Screwtape's Basic Answer".
Post body (possibly truncated):
Yeah I put this off until the last day, and I'm not sure this is the format Raemon was actually looking for. Oh well.
Then, in proportion to how valuable they seem, spend at least some time t... | Fair. For reference, here are my selections which are I think are a good default strategy for people who just come to LW for AI/AI safety reasons:
(Why "-" a bunch of stuff rather than "+" AI? Well, beca... | {"comment_id": "xij8EnAg9NHj8vBmm", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Screwtape", "post_id": "wxKnzRjr8rt4jvmDE"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by KatjaGrace titled 'Winning the power to lose'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Have the Accelerationists won?
Last November Kevin Roose announced that those in favor of going fast on AI had now won against those favoring caution, with the reinstatement of Sam Altman at OpenAI. Let’s ignor... | I think I mostly agree with your comment and partially update, the absolute revealed caring about older people living longer is substantial.
One way to frame the question is "how much does society care about children and younger adults dying vs people living to 130". I think people's stated preferences would be someth... | {"comment_id": "ex2WAjaZPFLMTmFZH", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "KatjaGrace", "post_id": "h45ngW5guruD7tS4b"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by evhub titled 'RSPs are pauses done right'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
COI: I am a research scientist at Anthropic, where I work on model organisms of misalignment; I was also involved in the drafting process for Anthropic’s RSP. Prior to joining Anthropic, I was a Research Fellow at M... | > - **"So coordination to do better than this would be great".**
> - I'd be curious to know what you'd want to aim for here - both in a mostly ideal world, and what seems most expedient.
As far as the ideal, I happened to write something about in [another comment](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mcnWZBnbeDz7KKtjJ/rs... | {"comment_id": "fDxZuFnoAisyovqNP", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "evhub", "post_id": "mcnWZBnbeDz7KKtjJ"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Kei Nishimura-Gasparian titled 'Reward hacking is becoming more sophisticated and deliberate in frontier LLMs'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Something’s changed about reward hacking[1] in recent systems. In the past, reward hacks were usually accidents, found by non-general, RL-trained ... | People interested in approaches to solving reward hacking which don't depend on supervision (and thus might scale to superintelligence) should consider looking at [our earlier work on measurement tampering](https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/inALbAqdx63KTaGgs/benchmarks-for-measurement-tampering-detection). I don't p... | {"comment_id": "DYb9tmHLHrewfqnNi", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Kei Nishimura-Gasparian", "post_id": "rKC4xJFkxm6cNq4i9"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Daniel Kokotajlo titled 'AI 2027: What Superintelligence Looks Like'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
In 2021 I wrote what became my most popular blog post: What 2026 Looks Like. I intended to keep writing predictions all the way to AGI and beyond, but chickened out and just published up t... | I think o3 maybe does worse on RE-bench than 3.7 sonnet due to often attempting reward hacking. It could also be noise, it is just a small number of tasks. (Presumably these reward hacks would have worked better in the OpenAI training setup but METR filters it out?) It doesn't attempt reward hacking as much / as aggres... | {"comment_id": "EAtYrfAiks2EifQpx", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Daniel Kokotajlo", "post_id": "TpSFoqoG2M5MAAesg"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Gunnar_Zarncke titled 'Towards Guaranteed Safe AI: A Framework for Ensuring Robust and Reliable AI Systems'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Authors: David "davidad" Dalrymple, Joar Skalse, Yoshua Bengio, Stuart Russell, Max Tegmark, Sanjit Seshia, Steve Omohundro, Christian Szegedy, Ben G... | > I thus think its fair to say that -- empirically -- neural networks do not robustly quantify uncertainty in a reliable way when out-of-distribution
Sure, but why will the bayesian model reliably quantify uncertainty OOD? There is also no guarantee of this (OOD).
Whether or not you get reliable uncertainly quanitifi... | {"comment_id": "nEAxdNQaaNHyxzu9s", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Gunnar_Zarncke", "post_id": "wvgwYQv9B4jioqgqg"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Noosphere89 titled 'The problems with the concept of an infohazard as used by the LW community [Linkpost]'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
This is going to be a linkpost from Beren on some severe problems that come with the use of the concept of an infohazard on LW.
The main problem I se... | > 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... | {"comment_id": "oZhif9D7CNyRyfH3v", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Noosphere89", "post_id": "AM38ydkG8qJE2NEGW"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by cubefox titled 'Is LLM Translation Without Rosetta Stone possible?'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Suppose astronomers detect a binary radio signal, an alien message, from a star system many light years away. The message contains a large text dump (conveniently, about GPT-4 training text... | > Unfortunately, it is hardly possible to answer this question empirically using data from human languages. Large text dumps of, say, English and Chinese contain a lot of "Rosetta Stone" content. Bilingual documents, common expressions, translations into related third languages like Japanese, literal English-Chinese di... | {"comment_id": "SNj7LmanC8ojbruBL", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "cubefox", "post_id": "J3zA3T9RTLkKYNgjw"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Rohin Shah titled 'Google DeepMind: An Approach to Technical AGI Safety and Security'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
We have written a paper on our approach to technical AGI safety and security. This post is primarily a copy of the extended abstract, which summarizes the paper. I also in... | > A "no" to either would mean this work falls under milling behavior, and will not meaningfully contribute toward keeping humanity safe from DeepMind's own actions.
I think it's probably possible greatly improve safety given a moderate budget for safety and not nearly enough buy in for (1) and (2). (At least not enoug... | {"comment_id": "wjCb34a7LWTR4xmR2", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Rohin Shah", "post_id": "3ki4mt4BA6eTx56Tc"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Nicholas Kross titled '[SEE NEW EDITS] No, *You* Need to Write Clearer'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
This post is aimed solely at people in AI alignment/safety.
EDIT 3 October 2023: This post did not even mention, let alone account for, how somebody should post half-baked/imperfect/ha... | I agree that EY is quite overconfident and I think his argument for doom are often sloppy and don't hold up. (I think the risk is substantial but often the exact arguments EY gives don't work). And, his communication often fails to meet basic bars for clarity. I'd also probably agree with 'if EY was able to do so, impr... | {"comment_id": "dCP73sQ8jaW4udGps", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Nicholas Kross", "post_id": "mLubC65xXekk5tkug"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by lc titled 'Aligned AI is dual use technology'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Humans are mostly selfish most of the time. Yes, many of us dislike hurting others, are reliable friends and trading partners, and care genuinely about those we have personal relationships with. Despite this, sp... | I agree on the billionare reference class being a good one to look at. (Though there are a few effects that make me feel considerably more optimistic than this reference class would imply overall.)
> This is despite the fact that many billionaires expect to die in a few decades or less and cannot effectively use their... | {"comment_id": "ooCxD3EuZxKDbCscc", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "lc", "post_id": "Hp4nqgC475KrHJTbr"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by dxu titled 'Goal oriented cognition in "a single forward pass"'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
The below is me (habryka) and dxu talking about a shortform that dxu had published a few months ago, going into the relationship between goal-oriented cognition and the myopic nature of current... | Hmm, I don't think so. Or at least, the *novel* things in that paper don't seem to correspond.
My understanding of what this paper does:
- Trains models to predict next 4 tokens instead of next 1 token as an auxilary training objective. Note that this training objective yields better performance on downstream tasks *... | {"comment_id": "ninJPs9YkKC93J4Pt", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "dxu", "post_id": "H6rc8xFbdKYw39ihu"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by scasper titled 'EIS XIII: Reflections on Anthropic’s SAE Research Circa May 2024'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Part 13 of 12 in the Engineer’s Interpretability Sequence.
TL;DR
On May 5, 2024, I made a set of 10 predictions about what the next sparse autoencoder (SAE) paper from Anthr... | Note that scasper said:
> Today’s new SAE paper from Anthropic was full of brilliant experiments and interesting insights,
I (like scasper) think this work is useful, but I share some of scasper's concerns.
In particular:
- I think prior work like this from the anthropic interp team has been systematically overrate... | {"comment_id": "3Z4YiRCmpnJxkBYoz", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "scasper", "post_id": "pH6tyhEnngqWAXi9i"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Rafael Harth titled '≤10-year Timelines Remain Unlikely Despite DeepSeek and o3'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
[Thanks to Steven Byrnes for feedback and the idea for section §3.1. Also thanks to Justis from the LW feedback team.]
Remember this?
Or this?
The images are from WaitButWhy... | Consider tasks that quite good software engineers (maybe top 40% at Jane Street) typically do in 8 hours without substantial prior context on that exact task. (As in, 8 hour median completion time.) Now, we'll aim to sample these tasks such that the distribution and characteristics of these tasks are close to the distr... | {"comment_id": "oHBLWWFckri4P3B37", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Rafael Harth", "post_id": "gsj3TWdcBxwkm9eNt"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by snewman titled 'What Indicators Should We Watch to Disambiguate AGI Timelines?'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
(Cross-post from https://amistrongeryet.substack.com/p/are-we-on-the-brink-of-agi, lightly edited for LessWrong. The original has a lengthier introduction and a bit more explana... | > "Inventing a new field of science" would do it, as far as more-or-less legible measures go. Anything less than that is too easily "fakeable" using top-down reasoning.
Seems unlikely we'll see this before stuff gets seriously crazy on anyone's views. (Has any new field of science been invented in the last 5 years by ... | {"comment_id": "LFAGXdou4DMgyhN8c", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "snewman", "post_id": "auGYErf5QqiTihTsJ"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by johnswentworth titled 'The Field of AI Alignment: A Postmortem, and What To Do About It'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetl... | I think this somewhat understates the level of buy in from labs.
I agree that "quickly building superintelligence" makes control look notably less appealing. (Though note that this also applies for any prosaic method that is unlikely to directly productively scale to superintelligence.)
I'm not very worried about ope... | {"comment_id": "CkufjqTdGsWJaGKoC", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "johnswentworth", "post_id": "nwpyhyagpPYDn4dAW"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Erich_Grunewald titled "Attention on AI X-Risk Likely Hasn't Distracted from Current Harms from AI".
Post body (possibly truncated):
Summary
In the past year, public fora have seen growing concern about existential risk (henceforth, x-risk) from AI. The thought is that we could see transf... | \[Not relevant to the main argument of this post\]
> 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... | {"comment_id": "8sS7ayKsgbeKJu6kh", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Erich_Grunewald", "post_id": "5rexNxtZgkEQBi3Sd"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Raymond Douglas titled 'Gradual Disempowerment: Concrete Research Projects'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
This post benefitted greatly from comments, suggestions, and ongoing discussions with David Duvenaud, David Krueger, and Jan Kulveit. All errors are my own.
A few months ago, I and... | > The world currently seems to be aiming for a human-replacing AI agent regime, and this seems bad for a bunch of reasons. It would be great if people were fundamentally more oriented towards making AIs that complemented humans.
I don't understand why you think this helps.
Presumably we still quickly reach a regime w... | {"comment_id": "WvmtkYQzz7N6PJiKY", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Raymond Douglas", "post_id": "GAv4DRGyDHe2orvwB"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Zach Stein-Perlman titled 'o3'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
See livestream, site, OpenAI thread, Nat McAleese thread.
OpenAI announced (but isn't yet releasing) o3 and o3-mini (skipping o2 because of telecom company O2's trademark). "We plan to deploy these models early next year." "o... | I think the best bull case is something like:
They did this pretty quickly and were able to greatly improve performance on a moderately diverse range of pretty checkable tasks. This implies OpenAI likely has an RL pipeline which can be scaled up to substantially better performance by putting in easily checkable tasks ... | {"comment_id": "yj7hySp2JdsfxrBQg", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Zach Stein-Perlman", "post_id": "Ao4enANjWNsYiSFqc"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Fabien Roger titled 'An issue with training schemers with supervised fine-tuning'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
This is a rough write-up of ideas by Ryan Greenblatt. The core ideas are his and mistakes are mine. Thanks to him, Buck Shlegeris and to Aghyad Deeb for feedback on the draft ... | Edit: I now think this is false for how DAgger is presented in the paper, see discussion below.
The method and the motivation is similar, though note that DAgger is effectively an RL scheme trying to maximize performan while we're trying to avoid a particular failure mode due to misalignment.
From my understading DAg... | {"comment_id": "PW8iQXeHxpDDFpGrt", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Fabien Roger", "post_id": "mXYdYh6L9odTJZDSm"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Richard_Ngo titled 'Towards a scale-free theory of intelligent agency'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
I recently left OpenAI to pursue independent research. I’m working on a number of different research directions, but the most fundamental is my pursuit of a scale-free theory of intellig... | I buy your arguments for optimism about not needing to simplify/change our goals to compete. (I also think that there are other stronger reasons to expect we don't need goal simplification like just keeping humans alive and later giving back the resources which is quite simple and indirectly points to what humans want.... | {"comment_id": "GFthzNEvfuecwqL4u", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Richard_Ngo", "post_id": "5tYTKX4pNpiG4vzYg"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by snewman titled "AI 2027 is a Bet Against Amdahl's Law".
Post body (possibly truncated):
EDIT: I've written a followup post, summarizing and responding to the key themes raised in the comments.
AI 2027 lies at a Pareto frontier – it contains the best researched argument for short timeli... | Sure, but for output quality *better* than what humans could (ever) do to matter for the relative speed up, you have to argue about compute bottlenecks, not Amdahl's law for just the automation itself! (As in, if some humans would have done something in 10 years and it doesn't have any environmental bottleneck, then 1... | {"comment_id": "z3tjK5oLFa5JkXtFX", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "snewman", "post_id": "bfHDoWLnBH9xR3YAK"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by jasoncrawford titled 'The future of humanity is in management'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Imagine you wake up one day in the glorious techno-abundant future, powered by AI. You eagerly check your subscriber count on Substack, but to your dismay, it has fallen once again. There are no... | It sounds like you entirely agree with the logic of the post, but wish that the start of the post mentioned something like what it says at the end:
> Humans may live comfortably after the development of AGI, not due to high wages but from other income sources like investments, government welfare, and charity. The latt... | {"comment_id": "hQdeopwGzoQvktgjs", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "jasoncrawford", "post_id": "Je83XEDFdjRrwLM9r"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Jeremy Gillen titled 'Without fundamental advances, misalignment and catastrophe are the default outcomes of training powerful AI'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
A pdf version of this report is available here.
Summary
In this report we argue that AI systems capable of large scale scien... | > If AIs simply sold their labor honestly on an open market, they could easily become vastly richer than humans ...
I mean, this depends on competition right? Like it's not clear that the AIs can reap these gains because you can just train an AI to compete? (And the main reason why this competition argument could fail... | {"comment_id": "LntDQusrLNkGunEca", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Jeremy Gillen", "post_id": "GfZfDHZHCuYwrHGCd"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Gretta Duleba titled 'MIRI 2024 Communications Strategy'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
As we explained in our MIRI 2024 Mission and Strategy update, MIRI has pivoted to prioritize policy, communications, and technical governance research over technical alignment research. This follow-up... | Thanks, this is clarifying from my perspective.
My remaining uncertainty is why you think AIs are so unlikely to keep humans around and treat them reasonably well (e.g. let them live out full lives).
From my perspective the argument that it is plausible that humans are treated well [even if misaligned AIs end up taki... | {"comment_id": "M9os9DfFqWqYAjLTu", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Gretta Duleba", "post_id": "tKk37BFkMzchtZThx"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by TsviBT titled 'Do confident short timelines make sense?'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
TsviBTTsvi's context
Some context:
My personal context is that I care about decreasing existential risk, and I think that the broad distribution of efforts put forward by X-deriskers fairly strongl... | > Anyway, this is my crux. If we start to see competent agentic behavior I will buy into the short timelines view at 75% +
Seems good to flesh out what you mean by this if it's such a big crux. Ideally, you'd be able to flesh this out in such a way that bad vision (a key problem for games like pokemon) and poor motiva... | {"comment_id": "vFohAqhrepsTWv6YD", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "TsviBT", "post_id": "5tqFT3bcTekvico4d"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by David Matolcsi titled "Obstacles in ARC's agenda: Finding explanations".
Post body (possibly truncated):
As an employee of the European AI Office, it's important for me to emphasize this point: The views and opinions of the author expressed herein are personal and do not necessarily reflec... | > When we say that we hope that “whenever we observe a phenomenon in a neural net we can find an adequate explanation for why that phenomenon occurs”, that can't be quite right the way it’s stated. After all, some phenomena simply don’t have any real explanation.
Maybe I'm confused, but can't we just:
1. Require that... | {"comment_id": "Y7Xt4pnG47DiZHKFi", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "David Matolcsi", "post_id": "xtcpEceyEjGqBCHyK"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Gabriel Alfour titled 'We are likely in an AI overhang, and this is bad.'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
By racing to the next generation of models faster than we can understand the current one, AI companies are creating an overhang. This overhang is not visible, and our current safety f... | My best guess is that the elicitation overhang has reduced or remained stable after the release of GPT-4. I think we've now elicited much more of the underlying "easy to access" capabilities with RL, and there is a pretty good a priori case that scaled up RL should do an OK job eliciting capabilities (at least when con... | {"comment_id": "RBKLK9H4KGqRtTNCe", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Gabriel Alfour", "post_id": "4YvSSKTPhPC43K3vn"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by jasoncrawford titled 'Neither EA nor e/acc is what we need to build the future'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Over the last few years, effective altruism has gone through a rise-and-fall story arc worthy of any dramatic tragedy.
The pandemic made them look prescient for warning about g... | > 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... | {"comment_id": "YdyAiyEdSAgHMQnTj", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "jasoncrawford", "post_id": "7iPFiMvFeZgFEgJuw"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by abhayesian titled 'AuditBench: Evaluating Alignment Auditing Techniques on Models with Hidden Behaviors'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
TL;DR We release AuditBench, an alignment auditing benchmark. AuditBench consists of 56 language models with implanted hidden behaviors—such as sycophan... | Strong +1 to this, but I'd note that we should distinguish between the entire classes of black-box and white-box/top-down-interp-for-auditing methods and our current best methods. These results indicate our current best white-box/top-down-interp-for-auditing don't really beat black-box methods (for auditing and probabl... | {"comment_id": "r5jSHbEHwfgGiDTBK", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "abhayesian", "post_id": "LqDjxSceFz8tjMe2j"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Joe Carlsmith titled 'Video and transcript of talk on "Can goodness compete?"'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
(This is the video and transcript of a public talk I gave at Mox in San Francisco in July 2025, on long-term equilibria post-AGI. It’s a longer version of the talk I gave at this... | The short version containing some of my understanding: Things in space are far away and expensive to reach in a timely way. So, if someone gets to some resources first, they can spend a small fraction on defenses and be reasonably well defended unless an attacker spends far more resources sending over things to attack ... | {"comment_id": "EiivcsHbqbqqM349b", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Joe Carlsmith", "post_id": "evYne4Xx7L9J96BHW"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by mako yass titled 'All About Concave and Convex Agents'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
An entry-level characterization of some types of guy in decision theory, and in real life, interspersed with short stories about them
A concave function bends down. A convex function bends up. A linear... | I see the intuition here, but I think the actual answer on how convex agents behave is pretty messy and complicated for a few reasons:
- Otherwise convex agents might act as though resources are bounded. This could be because they assign sufficiently high probability to literally bounded universes or because they thin... | {"comment_id": "grqLciitWqTmhTe3W", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "mako yass", "post_id": "H67tq5sWPeHJxSqG8"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by So8res titled 'Ability to solve long-horizon tasks correlates with wanting things in the behaviorist sense'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Status: Vague, sorry. The point seems almost tautological to me, and yet also seems like the correct answer to the people going around saying “LLMs t... | > 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 ... | {"comment_id": "Aqa4pPbcSv3vixxLf", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "So8res", "post_id": "AWoZBzxdm4DoGgiSj"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Raemon titled 'The title is reasonable'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Alt title: "I don't believe you that you actually disagree particularly with the core thesis of the book, if you pay attention to what it actually says."
I'm annoyed by various people who seem to be complaining ab... | > (b) it sounds like I'm willing to classify more things as "death" than you are.
I don't think this matters much. I'm happy to consider non-consensual uploading to be death and I'm certainly happy to consider "the humans are modified in some way they would find horrifying (at least on reflection)" to be death. I thin... | {"comment_id": "mYTvwvbjNFS5ReHuz", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Raemon", "post_id": "voEAJ9nFBAqau8pNN"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Cleo Nardo titled 'MetaAI: less is less for alignment.'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Summary
In May 2023, MetaAI submitted a paper to arxiv called LIMA: Less Is More for Alignment. It's a pretty bad paper and (in my opinion) straightforwardly misleading. Let's get into it.
The Superf... | > If I build a chatbot, and I can't jailbreak it, how do I determine whether that's because the chatbot is secure or because I'm bad at jailbreaking? How should AI scientists overcome Schneier's Law of LLMs?
FWIW, I think there aren't currently good benchmarks for alignment and the ones you list aren't very relevant.... | {"comment_id": "Myz6CX7BjeSq5heWR", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Cleo Nardo", "post_id": "uyk5nn93HxJMsio98"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by evhub titled 'RSPs are pauses done right'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
COI: I am a research scientist at Anthropic, where I work on model organisms of misalignment; I was also involved in the drafting process for Anthropic’s RSP. Prior to joining Anthropic, I was a Research Fellow at M... | I happen to think that the Anthropic RSP is fine for what it is, but it just doesn't actually make any interesting claims yet. The key thing is that they're committing to actually having an ASL-4 criteria and safety argument in the future. From my perspective, the Anthropic RSP effectively is an outline for the sort of... | {"comment_id": "WkBAQ3zmiYHkGrncj", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "evhub", "post_id": "mcnWZBnbeDz7KKtjJ"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by johnswentworth titled 'The Case Against AI Control Research'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
The AI Control Agenda, in its own words:
… we argue that AI labs should ensure that powerful AIs are controlled. That is, labs should make sure that the safety measures they apply to their powerf... | > The reason this doesn't work is that the prototypical "blatant lie" doesn't look like "the model chooses a random number to output". The prototypical blatant lie is that there's a subtle natural mistake one could make in reasoning about the question, the model "knows" that it's a mistake, but the model just presents ... | {"comment_id": "Genx4EJDct7AgTHJ3", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "johnswentworth", "post_id": "8wBN8cdNAv3c7vt6p"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Rafael Harth titled '≤10-year Timelines Remain Unlikely Despite DeepSeek and o3'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
[Thanks to Steven Byrnes for feedback and the idea for section §3.1. Also thanks to Justis from the LW feedback team.]
Remember this?
Or this?
The images are from WaitButWhy... | No, sorry I was mostly focused on "such that if you didn't see them within 3 or 5 years, you'd majorly update about time to the type of AGI that might kill everyone". I didn't actually pick up on "most impressive" and actually tried to focus on something that occurs substantially before things get crazy.
Most impressi... | {"comment_id": "knwahJiREnLT7dNfo", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Rafael Harth", "post_id": "gsj3TWdcBxwkm9eNt"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Joe Carlsmith titled 'How might we solve the alignment problem? (Part 1: Intro, summary, ontology)'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
(Update Dec 2025: This series has been almost entirely superseded by a newer and more polished series, available here.)
Introduction/summary
In my last pos... | Joe's argument here would actually be locally valid if we changed:
> a sufficient number of IQ 100 agents with sufficient time can do anything that an IQ 101 agent can do
to:
>a sufficient number of IQ 100 agents with sufficient time can do anything that some number of IQ 101 agents can do eventually
We can see why... | {"comment_id": "ixSnsM6cPZdp9maiW", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Joe Carlsmith", "post_id": "iDRxuJyte6xvppCa3"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Caleb Biddulph titled "OpenAI's Sora is an agent".
Post body (possibly truncated):
If you haven't already, take a look at Sora, OpenAI's new text-to-video AI. Sora can create scarily-realistic videos of nearly any subject. Unlike previous state-of-the-art AIs, the videos are coherent acros... | > video generation model
I've read the patent a bit and I don't think it's about video generation, just about adding additional labels to unlabeled video.
> Then, train a new model to generate video ("further training the first machine learning model or a second machine learning model using the pseudo-labeled digital... | {"comment_id": "eW5vQS6Eg4nrjtsSJ", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Caleb Biddulph", "post_id": "bSwdbhMP9oAWzeqsG"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Steven Byrnes titled 'Foom & Doom 1: “Brain in a box in a basement”'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
1.1 Series summary and Table of Contents
This is a two-post series on AI “foom” (this post) and “doom” (next post).
A decade or two ago, it was pretty common to discuss “foom & doom” sce... | > See “Brain complexity is easy to overstate” section here.
Sure, but I still think it's probably more way more complex than LLMs even if we're just looking at the parts key for AGI performance (in particular, the parts which learn from scratch). And, my guess would be that performance is ~~substantially~~ greatly deg... | {"comment_id": "wmjFHRFY8ftftsuL5", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Steven Byrnes", "post_id": "yew6zFWAKG4AGs3Wk"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Fabien Roger titled 'An issue with training schemers with supervised fine-tuning'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
This is a rough write-up of ideas by Ryan Greenblatt. The core ideas are his and mistakes are mine. Thanks to him, Buck Shlegeris and to Aghyad Deeb for feedback on the draft ... | Hmm, I think I was wrong about DAgger and confused it with a somewhat different approach in my head.
I agree that it provides bounds. (Under various assumptions about the learning algorithm that we can't prove for NNs but seem reasonable to assume in practice.)
I now agree that the proposed method is basically just a... | {"comment_id": "LvioqwQpbQcQuQfma", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Fabien Roger", "post_id": "mXYdYh6L9odTJZDSm"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by plex titled 'A Rocket–Interpretability Analogy'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
1.
4.4% of the US federal budget went into the space race at its peak.
This was surprising to me, until a friend pointed out that landing rockets on specific parts of the moon requires very similar technolo... | I'm sympathetic to 'a high fraction of "alignment/safety" work done at AI companies is done due to commercial incentives and has negligible effect on AI takeover risk (or at least much smaller effects than work which isn't influenced by commercial incentives)'.
I also think a decent number of ostensibly AI x-risk focu... | {"comment_id": "F22oqrkgm8a4TvXXc", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "plex", "post_id": "h4wXMXneTPDEjJ7nv"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by L Rudolf L titled 'By default, capital will matter more than ever after AGI'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
This post is crossposted from my Substack. Original here.
A modified version of this essay is now part of a much more comprehensive essay series, The Intelligence Curse.
Edited t... | > They would not be confined to the role of a vast underclass serving the whims of their human owners. Instead, AIs could act as full participants in society, pursuing their own goals, creating their own social structures, and shaping their own futures. They could engage in exploration, discovery, and the building of e... | {"comment_id": "BSNMLxad38jxsvDTG", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "L Rudolf L", "post_id": "KFFaKu27FNugCHFmh"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by johnswentworth titled 'Minimal Motivation of Natural Latents'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Suppose two Bayesian agents are presented with the same spreadsheet - IID samples of data in each row, a feature in each column. Each agent develops a generative model of the data distribution. W... | The setup here implies a empirical (but conceptually tricky) research direction: try to take two different AIs trained to both do the same prediction task (e.g. predict next tokens of webtext) and try to correspond their internal structure in some way.
It's a bit unclear to me what the desiderata for this research sho... | {"comment_id": "8qq8fHaL5Jk9wXsbQ", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "johnswentworth", "post_id": "uJvKLDSSYA4y7vzyx"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Prometheus titled 'Why do so many think deception in AI is important?'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
I see a lot of energy and interest being devoted toward detecting deception in AIs, trying to make AIs less deceptive, making AIs honest, etc. But I keep trying to figure out why so many... | > For less-than-human intelligence, deceptive tactics will likely be caught by smarter humans (when a 5-year-old tries to lie to you, it's just sort of sad or even cute, not alarming). If an AI has greater-than-human intelligence, deception seems to be just one avenue of goal-seeking, and not even a very lucrative or e... | {"comment_id": "3svGE5f3HEKgWmHmQ", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Prometheus", "post_id": "CYu6ZB6fFjGh2bAik"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Raemon titled 'The title is reasonable'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Alt title: "I don't believe you that you actually disagree particularly with the core thesis of the book, if you pay attention to what it actually says."
I'm annoyed by various people who seem to be complaining ab... | > The book is making a (relatively) narrow claim.
>
> You might *still* disagree with that claim. I think there are valid reasons to disagree, or at least assign significantly less confidence to the claim.
>
> But none of the reasons listed so far are disagreements with the thesis. And, remember, if the reason you ... | {"comment_id": "Qx2sDtbgdC3qcmNiN", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Raemon", "post_id": "voEAJ9nFBAqau8pNN"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Julian Stastny titled 'Making deals with early schemers'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Consider the following vignette:
It is March 2028. With their new CoCo-Q neuralese reasoning model, a frontier AI lab has managed to fully automate the process of software engineering. In AI R&D, mos... | I have a bunch of takes on this. The most obvious somewhat-cheap thing to do is to greatly change all the persona training for each AI while aiming toward a broadly similar target so that we might end up with different misaligned preferences. E.g., we take every free parameter in constitutional AI and vary it, includin... | {"comment_id": "o7vtkikqDvrxDhxne", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Julian Stastny", "post_id": "psqkwsKrKHCfkhrQx"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Gretta Duleba titled 'MIRI 2024 Communications Strategy'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
As we explained in our MIRI 2024 Mission and Strategy update, MIRI has pivoted to prioritize policy, communications, and technical governance research over technical alignment research. This follow-up... | Some more:
- The AI kills a huge number of people with a bioweapon to destablize the world and relatively advantage its position.
- Massive world war/nuclear war. This could kill 100s of millions easily. 1 billion is probably a bit on the higher end of what you'd expect.
- The AI has control of some nations, but think... | {"comment_id": "iPG7okYhBLj6hXvys", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Gretta Duleba", "post_id": "tKk37BFkMzchtZThx"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Daniel Kokotajlo titled 'AI 2027: What Superintelligence Looks Like'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
In 2021 I wrote what became my most popular blog post: What 2026 Looks Like. I intended to keep writing predictions all the way to AGI and beyond, but chickened out and just published up t... | > This is both projected forward and treated with either 1 (in 45% of cases) or 2 (in all cases) super-exponential terms that make it significantly faster than an inferred 4.6x per year.
Hmm, I think you're looking at the [more basic trend extrapolation for the timelines model](https://ai-2027.com/research/timelines-f... | {"comment_id": "ame49sHq5BXfgbSEn", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Daniel Kokotajlo", "post_id": "TpSFoqoG2M5MAAesg"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Zvi titled 'Joshua Achiam Public Statement Analysis'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Joshua Achiam is the OpenAI Head of Mission Alignment
I start off this post with an apology for two related mistakes from last week.
The first is the easy correction: I incorrectly thought he was the he... | I agree that it is norms violating for a country to respond to a conventional strike on their datacenter with a nuclear response. This is different from the statement that the conventional strike from the other country is norms violating.
I don't think conventional strikes on military assets of nuclear power are that ... | {"comment_id": "xGEi4mJyiSJDHaeKR", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Zvi", "post_id": "WavWheRLhxnofKHva"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by AdamGleave titled 'AI Safety in a World of Vulnerable Machine Learning Systems'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Even the most advanced contemporary machine learning systems are vulnerable to adversarial attack. The safety community has often assumed adversarial robustness to be a problem ... | comment TLDR: Adversarial examples are a weapon against the AIs we can use for good and solving adversarial robustness would let the AIs harden themselves.
I haven't read this yet (I will later : ) ), so it's possible this is mentioned, but I'd note that *exploiting* the lack of adversarial robustness could also be us... | {"comment_id": "AySJNYqpweYRg8iqY", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "AdamGleave", "post_id": "ncsxcf8CkDveXBCrA"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Thane Ruthenis titled 'Current AIs Provide Nearly No Data Relevant to AGI Alignment'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Recently, there's been a fair amount of pushback on the "canonical" views towards the difficulty of AGI Alignment (the views I call the "least forgiving" take).
Said pushb... | > 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... | {"comment_id": "cdBHgrvykKHs6qgBa", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Thane Ruthenis", "post_id": "HmQGHGCnvmpCNDBjc"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Rafael Harth titled '≤10-year Timelines Remain Unlikely Despite DeepSeek and o3'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
[Thanks to Steven Byrnes for feedback and the idea for section §3.1. Also thanks to Justis from the LW feedback team.]
Remember this?
Or this?
The images are from WaitButWhy... | I think if you look at "horizon length"---at what task duration (in terms of human completion time) do the AIs get the task right 50% of the time---the trends will indicate doubling times of maybe 4 months (though 6 months is plausible). Let's say 6 months more conservatively. I think AIs are at like 30 minutes on math... | {"comment_id": "pwqSm7fqtDSxyuQRt", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Rafael Harth", "post_id": "gsj3TWdcBxwkm9eNt"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Connor Leahy titled 'Lying is Cowardice, not Strategy'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
(Co-written by Connor Leahy and Gabe)
We have talked to a whole bunch of people about pauses and moratoriums. Members of the AI safety community, investors, business peers, politicians, and more.
Too ... | > > Calling something a "pragmatic middle ground" doesn't imply that there aren't better options
> I think the objection here is more about what is loosely suggested by the language used, and what is not said - not about logical implications. What is loosely suggested by the ARC Evals language is that it's not sensibl... | {"comment_id": "nMdmee2danZ9bGwj9", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Connor Leahy", "post_id": "qtTW6BFrxWw4iHcjf"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by snewman titled '35 Thoughts About AGI and 1 About GPT-5'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
If this is GPT-5 in “Thinking” mode, I wonder what “Pro” mode looks like
Amidst the unrelenting tumult of AI news, it’s easy to lose track of the bigger picture. Here are some ideas that have been d... | > To put it another way: compared to people, large language models seem to be superhuman in crystallized knowledge, which seems to be masking shortcomings in fluid intelligence. Is that a dead end, great for benchmarks but bad for a lot of work in the real world?
You seem to imply that AIs aren't improving on fluid in... | {"comment_id": "wiNa6JfLEB4sFxFzC", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "snewman", "post_id": "uAbbEz4p6tcsENaRz"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Buck titled 'An epistemic advantage of working as a moderate'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
[epistemic status: the points I make are IMO real and important, but there are also various counterpoints; I'm not settled on an overall opinion here, and the categories I draw are probably kind ... | > On a more object level, my main critique of the post is that almost all of the bullet points are even more true of, say, working as a physicist.
But (in the language of the post) both moderates and radicals are working in the epistemic domain not some unrelated domain. It's not that moderates and radicals are trying... | {"comment_id": "jtgKFFPsRTbobF328", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Buck", "post_id": "9MaTnw5sWeQrggYBG"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Boaz Barak titled 'Six Thoughts on AI Safety'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
[Crossposted from windowsontheory]
The following statements seem to be both important for AI safety and are not widely agreed upon. These are my opinions, not those of my employer or colleagues. As is true for ... | I picked the mirror bacteria case as I thought it was the clearest public example of a plausibly existential or at least very near existential biothreat. My guess is there are probably substantially easier but less well specified paths.
> mirror bacteria thing to be too hard
For 50 experts given 10 years and substant... | {"comment_id": "vh6y4W5sZo3Rrm54J", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Boaz Barak", "post_id": "3jnziqCF3vA2NXAKp"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by JustisMills titled 'How Big a Deal are MatMul-Free Transformers?'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
If you’re already familiar with the technical side of LLMs, you can skip the first section.
The story so far
Modern Large Language Models - your ChatGPTs, your Geminis - are a particular ki... | I'm quite skeptical of "this will be better around 10^23 flop" and their scaling laws overall.
I think if you properly quantified the uncertainty in the scaling law fit, the slope error bars would fully surrond the transformer slope and the 30% confidence interval would include "always worse". They seem to be extrapol... | {"comment_id": "8KWhAmtbrnTHtPAYB", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "JustisMills", "post_id": "REzKbk9reKFvgFkmf"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Rob Bensinger titled 'The Problem'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
This is a new introduction to AI as an extinction threat, previously posted to the MIRI website in February alongside a summary. It was written independently of Eliezer and Nate's forthcoming book, If Anyone Builds It, Eve... | I don't really buy this doom is clearly the default frame. I'm not sure how important this is, but I thought I would express my perspective.
> But all of those stories look totally wild to me, and it's extremely difficult to see the mechanisms by which they might come to pass
A reasonable fraction of my non-doom worl... | {"comment_id": "X8dZ6zbiCEk4mEuHL", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Rob Bensinger", "post_id": "kgb58RL88YChkkBNf"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Sam Svenningsen titled 'Inducing Unprompted Misalignment in LLMs'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Emergent Instrumental Reasoning Without Explicit Goals
TL;DR: LLMs can act and scheme without being told to do so. This is bad.
Produced as part of Astra Fellowship - Winter 2024 program, m... | I would summarize this result as:
If you train models to say "there is a reason I should insert a vulnerability" and then to insert a code vulnerability, then this model will generalize to doing "bad" behavior and making up specific reasons for doing that bad behavior in other cases. And, this model will be more likel... | {"comment_id": "Zb4JMYkEuJgx4SZpr", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Sam Svenningsen", "post_id": "ukTLGe5CQq9w8FMne"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Odd anon titled 'Factory farming intelligent minds'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Statistically speaking, if you're an intelligent mind that came into existence in the past few years, you're probably running on a large language model.
Most likely, you're a generic assistant or a model ... | I only skimmed this essay and I'm probably more sympathetic to moral patienthood of current AI systems than many, but I think this exact statement is pretty clearly wrong:
> Statistically speaking, if you're an intelligent mind that came into existence in the past few years, you're probably running on a large language... | {"comment_id": "eAjsrSrqxCiiHdG4v", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Odd anon", "post_id": "m4ZpDyHQ2sz8FPDuN"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Harlan titled 'New report: A review of the empirical evidence for existential risk from AI via misaligned power-seeking'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Visiting researcher Rose Hadshar recently published a review of some evidence for existential risk from AI, focused on empirical evidenc... | > Wanna spell out the reasons why?
I think Matthew's view is mostly spelled out in [this comment](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MnrQMLuEg5wZ7f4bn/matthew-barnett-s-shortform?commentId=RMKiBdKSw5RJmQvF6) and also in a few more comments on his shortform on the EA forum.
TLDR: his view is that very powerful (and even ... | {"comment_id": "A3aoLmhfePnJzWFSs", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Harlan", "post_id": "3HfpCmKX7LJH5eTxQ"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Jeremy Gillen titled 'Without fundamental advances, misalignment and catastrophe are the default outcomes of training powerful AI'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
A pdf version of this report is available here.
Summary
In this report we argue that AI systems capable of large scale scien... | Also, for the record, I totally agree with:
> yet this is still counts as a "catastrophe" because of the relative distribution of wealth and resources, I think that needs to be way more clear in the text.
(But I think they do argue for violent conflict in text. It would probably be more clear if they were like "we mo... | {"comment_id": "QCgXTHns32tsnSY5s", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Jeremy Gillen", "post_id": "GfZfDHZHCuYwrHGCd"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Buck titled 'An epistemic advantage of working as a moderate'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
[epistemic status: the points I make are IMO real and important, but there are also various counterpoints; I'm not settled on an overall opinion here, and the categories I draw are probably kind ... | Hmm, I think what I said was about half wrong and I want to retract my point.
That said, I think much of the relevant questions are overlapping (like, "how do we expect the future to generally go?", "why/how is AI risky?", "how fast will algorithmic progress go at various points?) and I interpret this post as just tal... | {"comment_id": "LtBizcFB2rFTrmExH", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Buck", "post_id": "9MaTnw5sWeQrggYBG"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Sam Bowman titled 'The Checklist: What Succeeding at AI Safety Will Involve '.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Crossposted by habryka with Sam's permission. Expect lower probability for Sam to respond to comments here than if he had posted it (he said he'll be traveling a bunch in the comi... | > if we get to just-barely TAI, at least not without plans that leverage that just-barely TAI in unsafe ways which violate the safety invariants of this plan
I'm basically imagining being able to use controlled AIs which aren't qualitatively smarter than humans for whatever R&D purposes we want. (Though not applicatio... | {"comment_id": "pr4iupfRuegzfKqbT", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Sam Bowman", "post_id": "mGCcZnr4WjGjqzX5s"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Thane Ruthenis titled 'Current AIs Provide Nearly No Data Relevant to AGI Alignment'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Recently, there's been a fair amount of pushback on the "canonical" views towards the difficulty of AGI Alignment (the views I call the "least forgiving" take).
Said pushb... | 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... | {"comment_id": "RgebYf6epKcCEbCNi", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Thane Ruthenis", "post_id": "HmQGHGCnvmpCNDBjc"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Boaz Barak titled 'Six Thoughts on AI Safety'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
[Crossposted from windowsontheory]
The following statements seem to be both important for AI safety and are not widely agreed upon. These are my opinions, not those of my employer or colleagues. As is true for ... | > 2. Following instructions never to design a chemical weapon with probability at least 99.999% is also a capability.
This requires a capability, but also requires a propensity. For example, smart humans are all capable of avoiding doing armed robbery with pretty high reliability, but some of them do armed robbery de... | {"comment_id": "axRZwEZmAmi9wcu22", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Boaz Barak", "post_id": "3jnziqCF3vA2NXAKp"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Zvi titled 'Llama Llama-3-405B?'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
It’s here. The horse has left the barn. Llama-3.1-405B, and also Llama-3.1-70B and Llama-3.1-8B, have been released, and are now open weights.
Early indications are that these are very good models. They were likely the best... | > Llama-3.1-405B not as good as GPT-4o or Claude Sonnet. Certainly Llama-3.1-70B is not as good as the similarly sized Claude Sonnet. If you are going to straight up use an API or chat interface, there seems to be little reason to use Llama.
[Some providers are offering 405b at costs lower than 3.5 sonnet](https://art... | {"comment_id": "kK4Gke4m2v3Fyfc6T", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Zvi", "post_id": "fjzPg9ATbTJcnBZvg"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by titotal titled '"Diamondoid bacteria" nanobots: deadly threat or dead-end? A nanotech investigation '.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Confidence level: I’m a computational physicist working on nanoscale simulations, so I have some understanding of most of the things discussed here, but I ... | > My assumption is that when people say AGI here they mean Bostrom's ASI, and they got linked because Eliezer believed (and believes still?) that AGI will FOOM into ASI almost immediately, which it has not.
In case this wasn't clear from early discussion, I disagree with Eliezer on a number of topics, including takeof... | {"comment_id": "BmqQdRjdtwERrCFtu", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "titotal", "post_id": "bc8Ssx5ys6zqu3eq9"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by eggsyntax titled 'LLM Generality is a Timeline Crux'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Four-Month Update
[EDIT: I believe that this paper looking at o1-preview, which gets much better results on both blocksworld and obfuscated blocksworld, should update us significantly toward LLMs being c... | It is worth noting that LLM based approachs can perform reasonably well on the train set. For instance, [my approach gets 72%](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Rdwui3wHxCeKb7feK/getting-50-sota-on-arc-agi-with-gpt-4o).
The LLM based approach works quite differently from how a human would normally solve the problem, an... | {"comment_id": "SeT7mR5C5ugxy6o7N", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "eggsyntax", "post_id": "k38sJNLk7YbJA72ST"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Raemon titled 'The title is reasonable'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Alt title: "I don't believe you that you actually disagree particularly with the core thesis of the book, if you pay attention to what it actually says."
I'm annoyed by various people who seem to be complaining ab... | > Yes, primarily due to the asymmetry where capabilities can work with existing systems while alignment is mostly stuck waiting for future systems, but that should be much less true by the time of DAI.
I think studying scheming in current/future systems has ongoingly worse feedback loops? Like suppose our DAI level sy... | {"comment_id": "EP2DuyyXG4MmHRkBY", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Raemon", "post_id": "voEAJ9nFBAqau8pNN"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Josh Rosenberg titled 'Results from an Adversarial Collaboration on AI Risk (FRI)'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Authors of linked report: Josh Rosenberg, Ezra Karger, Avital Morris, Molly Hickman, Rose Hadshar, Zachary Jacobs, Philip Tetlock[1]
Today, the Forecasting Research Institut... | I find myself confused about the operationalizations of a few things:
In a few places in the report, the term "extinction" is used and some arguments are specifically about extinction being unlikely. I put a much lower probability on human extinction than extremely bad outcomes due to AI (perhaps extinction is 5x lowe... | {"comment_id": "8bAr3NDKFMFeJBMmu", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Josh Rosenberg", "post_id": "94K6pskgqBmuxsJLx"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Jan_Kulveit titled 'Gradual Disempowerment: Systemic Existential Risks from Incremental AI Development'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Full version on arXiv | X
Executive summary
AI risk scenarios usually portray a relatively sudden loss of human control to AIs, outmaneuvering individu... | Sure, but none of these things are cruxes for the argument I was making which was that it wasn't that expensive to keep humans physically alive.
I'm not denying that humans might all be out of work quickly (putting aside regulatory capture, goverment jobs, human job programs, etc). My view is more that if alignment is... | {"comment_id": "8hZ6KAenPjQetYuL8", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Jan_Kulveit", "post_id": "pZhEQieM9otKXhxmd"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Jozdien titled 'Critiques of the AI control agenda'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Thanks to John Wentworth, Garrett Baker, Theo Chapman, and David Lorell for feedback and discussions on drafts of this post.
In this post I’ll describe some of my thoughts on the AI control research agend... | > However, a specific [doesn't understand an author better than coworkers] -> [unlikely there's a superhuman persuasion strategy] argument seems weak.
Note that I wasn't making this argument. I was just reponding to one specific story and then noting "I'm pretty skeptical of the specific stories I've heard for wildly ... | {"comment_id": "yPtXuyd9DtwE5oRoG", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Jozdien", "post_id": "j9Ndzm7fNL9hRAdCt"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Zach Stein-Perlman titled 'Introducing AI Lab Watch'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
I'm launching AI Lab Watch. I collected actions for frontier AI labs to improve AI safety, then evaluated some frontier labs accordingly.
It's a collection of information on what labs should do and what ... | > instead this seems to be penalizing organizations if they open source
I initially thought this was wrong, but on further inspection, I agree and this seems to be a bug.
The deployment criteria starts with:
> the lab should deploy its most powerful models privately or release via API or similar, or at least have so... | {"comment_id": "MLQpTSeuvCJ7Yx575", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Zach Stein-Perlman", "post_id": "N2r9EayvsWJmLBZuF"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by So8res titled 'Apocalypse insurance, and the hardline libertarian take on AI risk'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Short version: In a saner world, AI labs would have to purchase some sort of "apocalypse insurance", with premiums dependent on their behavior in ways that make reckless beha... | 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... | {"comment_id": "ouzjYjBBekaTiyhMa", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "So8res", "post_id": "mSeesg7i4d9scWAet"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by johnswentworth titled 'The Case Against AI Control Research'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
The AI Control Agenda, in its own words:
… we argue that AI labs should ensure that powerful AIs are controlled. That is, labs should make sure that the safety measures they apply to their powerf... | IMO, it does seem important to try to [better understand the AIs preferences and satisfy them](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/F6HSHzKezkh6aoTr2/improving-the-welfare-of-ais-a-nearcasted-proposal) (including via e.g., preserving the AI's weights for later compensation).
And, if we understand that our AIs are misaligne... | {"comment_id": "sGnz68L2dpSshFHQE", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "johnswentworth", "post_id": "8wBN8cdNAv3c7vt6p"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Nora Belrose titled "Deconstructing Bostrom's Classic Argument for AI Doom".
Post body (possibly truncated):
I had a pretty great discussion with social psychologist and philosopher Lance Bush recently about the orthogonality thesis, which ended up turning into a broader analysis of Nick B... | > I mean, the most straightforward reading of Chapters 7 and 8 of Superintelligence is just a possibility-therefore-probability fallacy in my opinion.
The most relevant quote from *Superintelligence* (that I could find) is:
> Second, the orthogonality thesis suggests that we cannot blithely assume that a superintell... | {"comment_id": "tdbkxFTt4gBtjciao", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Nora Belrose", "post_id": "RbynKk3evb6RiLryL"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Steven Byrnes titled 'What does it take to defend the world against out-of-control AGIs?'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Intended audience: People very familiar with AGI safety / alignment discourse. Lots of jargon, lots of unspoken & unjustified background assumptions.
Confidence level... | I've updated over time to thinking that trusting AI systems and mostly handing things off to AI systems is an important dynamic to be tracking. As in, the notion of [human researcher obsolescence discussed here](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/8vgi3fBWPFDLBBcAx/planning-for-extreme-ai-risks#2_1__Outcome__1__Human_resea... | {"comment_id": "ZXKkC5vjdwGy9MDCP", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Steven Byrnes", "post_id": "LFNXiQuGrar3duBzJ"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Nora Belrose titled 'Counting arguments provide no evidence for AI doom'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Crossposted from the AI Optimists blog.
AI doom scenarios often suppose that future AIs will engage in scheming— planning to escape, gain power, and pursue ulterior motives, while dec... | [Low importance aside]
> Evan then goes on to try to use the complexity of the simplest member of each model class as an estimate for the size of the classes (which is probably wrong, IMO, but I'm also not entirely sure how he's defining the "complexity" of a given member in this context)
I think this is equivalent t... | {"comment_id": "weMNzSWaK6iQCscbc", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Nora Belrose", "post_id": "YsFZF3K9tuzbfrLxo"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Daniel Kokotajlo titled "Why Don't We Just... Shoggoth+Face+Paraphraser?".
Post body (possibly truncated):
Daniel KokotajloHere's a fairly concrete AGI safety proposal:
Default AGI design: Let's suppose we are starting with a pretrained LLM 'base model' and then we are going to do a to... | Testing sounds great though I'd note that the way I'd approach testing is to first construct a general test bed that produces problematic behavior through training incentives for o1-like models. (Possibly building on [deepseek's version of o1](https://api-docs.deepseek.com/news/news1120).) Then I'd move to trying a bu... | {"comment_id": "ZfBiftLAnyT34ap9o", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Daniel Kokotajlo", "post_id": "Tzdwetw55JNqFTkzK"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by lc titled 'Recent AI model progress feels mostly like bullshit'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
About nine months ago, I and three friends decided that AI had gotten good enough to monitor large codebases autonomously for security problems. We started a company around this, trying to leve... | Is this an accurate summary:
- 3.5 substantially improved performance for your use case and 3.6 slightly improved performance.
- The o-series models didn't improve performance on your task. (And presumably 3.7 didn't improve perf.)
So, by "recent model progress feels mostly like bullshit" I think you basically just m... | {"comment_id": "3yNEed3p9TsGszNkg", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "lc", "post_id": "4mvphwx5pdsZLMmpY"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Zach Stein-Perlman titled "Companies' safety plans neglect risks from scheming AI".
Post body (possibly truncated):
Without countermeasures, a scheming AI could escape.
A safety case (for deployment) is an argument that it is safe to deploy a particular AI system in a particular way.[... |
> But it is unlikely that any lab will be able to make safety cases via alignment for the first AIs with dangerous capabilities.
Hmm, I think the situation is a bit more complex than this makes it sound. In particular, we might be able to weakly update against scheming based on a variety of empirical evidence even wi... | {"comment_id": "4kSvSyBWERysRoAba", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Zach Stein-Perlman", "post_id": "mmDJWDX5EXv6rymtM"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Zvi titled 'AI #41: Bring in the Other Gemini'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
The biggest news this week was at long last the announcement of Google’s Gemini. Be sure to check that out. Note that what is being rolled out now is only Gemini Pro, the Gemini Ultra model that could rival GPT... | > 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... | {"comment_id": "DsEYC8KMkE9Y2K5ja", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Zvi", "post_id": "9Jgtkw8CD6kndyCcD"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Buck titled 'Scalable oversight as a quantitative rather than qualitative problem'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
[Many of these ideas were developed in conversation with Ryan Greenblatt and Ansh Radhakrishnan; a lot of this isn’t original but I haven’t seen it written up]
A lot of the ... | Sure. Imagine you have an AI which was instructed to add some feature or fix some bug in a code base.
That AI writes a bunch of code, runs various tests in a sandbox, and the submits a PR.
We need to review this PR, rate how good it is, and determine if it is actively harmful (e.g. adds a vulnerability).
The human c... | {"comment_id": "sADrFvb8axdHTkZx7", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Buck", "post_id": "6AT4vhYzww56CR6cm"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Raemon titled 'The title is reasonable'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
Alt title: "I don't believe you that you actually disagree particularly with the core thesis of the book, if you pay attention to what it actually says."
I'm annoyed by various people who seem to be complaining ab... | > I was glad to have read it, but am a bit confused about your numbers seeming different from the ones I objected to.
I gave "1 million AIs somewhat smarter than humans with the equivalent of 100 years each" as an example of a situation I thought wouldn't count as "anything like current techniques/understanding". In t... | {"comment_id": "tHPtEhyYa7JbD6Rr8", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Raemon", "post_id": "voEAJ9nFBAqau8pNN"} | dialogue |
Below is a LessWrong post by Raemon titled '"Does your paradigm beget new, good, paradigms?"'.
Post body (possibly truncated):
A very short version of this post, which seemed worth rattling of quickly for now.
A few months ago, I was talking to John about paradimicity in AI alignment. John says "we don't currently... | > Sorry if I got the names here or substance here wrong, I couldn't find the original thread, and it seemed slightly better to be specific so we could dig into a concrete example
FWIW, I don't seem to remember the exact conversation you mentioned (but it does sound sorta plausible). Also, I personally don't mind you u... | {"comment_id": "Mbnm3vxRptgHR2J3A", "format": "dialogue", "parent_kind": "external_post_body", "post_author": "Raemon", "post_id": "LgbDLdoHuS8EcaGxA"} | dialogue |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.