ChatGPT’s reaction each morning when I tell it that it’s now the year 2024 and Ilya no longer works at OAI

Me: Hey, can you help me with the following? I just went into my basement and the powers out down here, all the lights are off. I am staring at my fuse box. There are 3 switches, 1 will restore the power to the whole house, and the other 2 aren’t attached to anything. I don’t want to go up and down the stairs multiple times, how do I identify which switch works with the fewest number of trips?

Clauderino:

This is a classic logic puzzle! I can help you solve this problem efficiently. Here’s how you can identify the correct switch with just two trips:

First trip:

Flip one switch (let’s call it Switch A) and leave it on for a few minutes. Then turn it off and flip a second switch (Switch B), leaving it on. Go upstairs to check the lights.

Second trip: Return to the basement and observe the situation. Now, here’s how to interpret what you see:

If the lights are on: Switch B is the correct one. If the lights are off and the bulbs are warm: Switch A is the correct one. If the lights are off and the bulbs are cool: The third switch © that you didn’t touch is the correct one.

This method works because:

If the lights are on, it must be the switch you left on (B). If Switch A was correct, the lights would have been on for a few minutes, warming up the bulbs, but would be off when you check. If neither A nor B worked, it must be the untouched switch ©.

This way, you can determine the correct switch with just two trips up and down the stairs.

Me: Why would I go upstairs at all? If I flip the right switch, I’ll immediately know because power will be restored in the basement.

Clauderino: Thank you for catching that error. It’s a good reminder to always consider the specific details of a problem rather than applying a generic solution.

Edit: I actually tried a variant on the Monty hall problem with a dummy 4th door that had nothing to do with anything, and Claude correctly identified that it had nothing to do with the situation :O. But then I repeated the same prompt and it got it wrong, so you know, stochastic nonsense :p

bruv im dying

wasnt this around the time he said we need an institute to watch for sudden drops in the loss function to prevent foom?

Sufficiently advanced prompts are indistinguishable from prayer

Is it time for EAs to start worrying about Neopets welfare?

If you really wanna just throw some fucking spaghetti at the wall, YOU CAN DO THAT WITHOUT AI.

i have found I get .000000000006% less hallucination rate by throwing alphabet soup at the wall instead of spaghett, my preprint is on arXiV

THIS IS NOT A DRILL. I HAVE EVIDENCE YANN IS ENGAGING IN ACASUAL TRADE WITH THE ROBO GOD.

Found in the wilds^

Giganto brain AI safety ‘scientist’

If AIs are conscious right now, we are monsters. Nobody wants to think they’re monsters. Ergo: AIs are definitely not conscious.

Internet rando:

If furniture is conscious right now, we are monsters. Nobody wants to think they’re monsters. Ergo: Furniture is definitely not conscious.

deleted by creator

https://xcancel.com/AISafetyMemes/status/1802894899022533034#m

The same pundits have been saying “deep learning is hitting a wall” for a DECADE. Why do they have ANY credibility left? Wrong, wrong, wrong. Year after year after year. Like all professional pundits, they pound their fist on the table and confidently declare AGI IS DEFINITELY FAR OFF and people breathe a sigh of relief. Because to admit that AGI might be soon is SCARY. Or it should be, because it represents MASSIVE uncertainty. AGI is our final invention. You have to acknowledge the world as we know it will end, for better or worse. Your 20 year plans up in smoke. Learning a language for no reason. Preparing for a career that won’t exist. Raising kids who might just… suddenly die. Because we invited aliens with superior technology we couldn’t control. Remember, many hopium addicts are just hoping that we become PETS. They point to Ian Banks’ Culture series as a good outcome… where, again, HUMANS ARE PETS. THIS IS THEIR GOOD OUTCOME. What’s funny, too, is that noted skeptics like Gary Marcus still think there’s a 35% chance of AGI in the next 12 years - that is still HIGH! (Side note: many skeptics are butthurt they wasted their career on the wrong ML paradigm.) Nobody wants to stare in the face the fact that 1) the average AI scientist thinks there is a 1 in 6 chance we’re all about to die, or that 2) most AGI company insiders now think AGI is 2-5 years away. It is insane that this isn’t the only thing on the news right now. So… we stay in our hopium dens, nitpicking The Latest Thing AI Still Can’t Do, missing forests from trees, underreacting to the clear-as-day exponential. Most insiders agree: the alien ships are now visible in the sky, and we don’t know if they’re going to cure cancer or exterminate us. Be brave. Stare AGI in the face.

This post almost made me crash my self-driving car.

You know for a blog that’s on its face about computational complexity, you’d think Scott would show a little more skepticism to the tech bro saying “all we need is 14 quintillion x compute to solve the Riemann hypothesis”

Tim cook is an absolute hustler

The y-axis is absolute eye bleach. Also implying that an “AI researcher” has the effective compute of 10^6 smart high schoolers. What the fuck are these chodes smoking?

Truly I say unto you , it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is to convince a 57 year old man who thinks he’s still pulling off that leather jacket to wear a condom. (Tegmark 19:24, KJ Version)

Not a sneer, just a feelsbadman.jpg b.c. I know peeps who have been sucked into this “its all Joever.png mentality”, (myself included for various we live in hell reasons, honestly I never recovered after my cousin explained to me what nukes were while playing in the sandbox at 3)

The sneerworthy content comes later:

1st) Rats never fail to impress with appeal to authority fallacy, but 2nd) the authority in question is max totally unbiased not a member of the extinction cult and definitely not pushing crank theories for decades fuckin’ tegmark roflmaou

This gem from 25 year old Avital Balwit the Chief of Staff at Anthropic and researcher of “transformative AI at Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute” discussing the end of labour as she knows it. She continues:

"The general reaction to language models among knowledge workers is one of denial. They grasp at the ever diminishing number of places where such models still struggle, rather than noticing the ever-growing range of tasks where they have reached or passed human level. [wherein I define human level from my human level reasoning benchmark that I have overfitted my model to by feeding it the test set] Many will point out that AI systems are not yet writing award-winning books, let alone patenting inventions. But most of us also don’t do these things. "

Ah yes, even though the synthetic text machine has failed to achieve a basic understanding of the world generation after generation, it has been able to produce ever larger volumes of synthetic text! The people who point out that it still fails basic arithmetic tasks are the ones who are in denial, the god machine is nigh!

Bonus sneer:

Ironically, the first job to go the way of the dodo was researcher at FHI, so I understand why she’s trying to get ahead of the fallout of losing her job as chief Dario Amodei wrangler at OpenAI2: electric boogaloo.

Idk, I’m still workshopping this one.

🐍

I don’t understand why the wife does not simply consume her husband, a parenting style I’ve developed from observing the noble praying mantis in the wild.

Ugh, this post has me tilted- if your utility function is

max sum log(spending on fun stuff at time t ) * p(alive_t) s.t. cash at time t = savings_{t-1}*r + work_t - spending_t,

etc.,

There’s no fucking way the optimal solution is to blow all your money now, because the disutility of living in poverty for decades is so high. It’s the same reason people pay for insurance, no one expects their house is going to burn down tomorrow, but protecting yourself against the risk is the 100% correct decision.

Idk, they are the Rationalist^{tm} so what the hell do I know.