throwaway713

I had rejection sensitivity growing up. It was a rather negative experience. At the time, I would have traded it away for pretty much anything. As an adult however, I wonder if whatever aspect of my personality led to the rejection sensitivity also led to certain “benefits” in terms of the ability to achieve various things I wanted to (via correlated traits).

If I could trade away just the rejection sensitivity, I would. If I had to trade both the rejection sensitivity along with the correlated traits, I’m not so sure that I would in fact. This sort of decision is obviously very individual however. The tradeoffs may not be worth it for many.

> we ask them to stop testing advanced mathematical problems on proprietary models.

Maybe I'm alone on this, but for some reason these sorts of requests strike me as akin to gatekeeping how someone should breathe air. It's math... the numbers and symbols are just out there in the platonic realm available for anyone to do as they like with them. It's patently absurd to request other people to stop.

Ensuring credit where credit is due? That's fine. If your model incorporates the efforts of many others, then it's reasonable to request acknowledgement of everyone who contributed (even indirectly). But that's not what the request states — presumably their ask subsumes any advanced ML model, including those that weren't trained on a giant corpus of text.

I've been thinking about this comment for a few days; was it intended to be serious or facetious? I wasn't criticizing Tao in any way. I just think there's a lot of interesting work that's not in his primary domain of study for which AI has some potentially non-obvious benefits.

You need to have money to do the right thing? Odd take. Plenty of people with much less have sacrificed much more throughout history.

I think the perspective from inside vs outside the buildings is important. Consider Meta’s classic campus vs their newer buildings designed by Frank Gehry. I like the exterior appearance of the classic campus much better as it feels “friendlier”, but from the inside, it flips drastically. The newer buildings are far superior in every way compared to the dimly lit, fluorescent feeling you get inside the older buildings with the small windows.

Contrarian take: I think the ability of AI to produce valid mathematical proofs (even inscrutable ones) is absolutely fantastic. Mathematics as a profession does not have a monopoly over math itself any more than professional pianists have a monopoly on who plays piano, when they play, and how.

I have sympathy for any jobs that might be affected (much as my own job has become more tenuous in software engineering). And if the field is disrupted by chaos that makes the research process unproductive, that's bad too and should of course be handled by applying better organization within the institutions that tend to perform mathematical research.

But to a large degree, the notion that "sloppy AI proofs are bad for mathematics research" seems like a total failure of the imagination to me. Attempting to find shorter proofs or more elegant proofs can be turned back in on itself via proof theory. There are proofs in Presburger arithmetic that are doubly exponential in the length of the sentence. Yet a more powerful theory like PA makes quick work of such theorems. The explainability or "subjective beauty" of a proof can be quantified and optimized against. Optimization itself can be optimized against. I really don't understand how this magical ability to know the truth of more theorems much more quickly—even via an "ugly" route—is anything but a net positive.

Am I missing something obvious? Isn’t this just a simple DB query to see the state history of the “Data Controls” → “Improve model for everyone” toggle in the settings? Just report whether that was ever on and over what time period.

> The problem I have with good faith debate is that it often falls into a fallacy of "fair-time" meaning we think we have to give the other side equal time

The Catholic church could have said exactly the same thing at one point. "Why should we even devote time to an argument as absurd as the earth not being the center of the universe?" There are darker examples along the lines of those you give, with beliefs quite opposite to those we have nowadays.

Suppose one selects an arbitrary hot-button issue [X] with two opposing sides and one side has anything less than overwhelming support. And then that person writes an article titled "Side 1 of issue [X] is true". Not "maybe" or "possibly". Just a straight-up declaration by fiat.

Would you categorize this particular style of rhetoric to be persuasive or annoying? And before you say "persuasive" because you're thinking about this specific issue regarding AI consciousness, consider many things in the past that have been written as though they were absolutely definitive, and yet today we believe exactly the opposite, and for many such issues we find the prevailing viewpoint at the time reprehensible.

That's not to say that Ted is wrong at all here; I'm not commenting on that. But I find the entire style of the article grating because it seems to violate common assumptions regarding "good faith" debate, and I would find the article equally frustrating if he had titled it "Artificial intelligence is conscious" and argued the opposite side, albeit in the same tone and using the same persuasion devices.

Interesting. I’m going to start describing my “annualized impact” in my performance self-reviews in terms of all the things I project that I’ll do.

Bold title for something from DeepMind. I thought a crank submission slipped onto the front page somehow. I guess the next paper will be “Why AI cannot instantiate God”?

I'm a little bit mixed after reading the article. I guess I don't entirely blame companies that see a financial opportunity to help enforce laws, as ostensibly, it should be win-win for both the public and private space. Where it breaks down (as the article points out), is when the law is ineffective at achieving it's purported goal. This is where I differ somewhat from the article's conclusion, however, as I view it as the government's responsibility at that point to correct the dysfunctional law. If all the evidence is there—do something about it. There might be a moral expectation that private companies "do the right thing", but there's certainly no practical expectation that will occur.

Case in point: where I live, the interstate is often congested, and a driver "camping" in the left lane frequently leads to traffic jams that back up for miles. The cars that get backed up become frustrated and start zooming and weaving through traffic in the right lanes to get past the blockage. And while there are plenty of police, they only go after the speeders (presumably because speeding tickets are more lucrative). I don't think I've ever seen someone pulled over for squatting in the left lane, despite the fact that it's illegal where I live and despite the presence of numerous signs that say "Keep Right Except to Past".

This is what I would call an example of a dysfunctional law, as I highly suspect that if one had the capability and interest to analyze aerial footage of traffic patterns, it would be found that left lane campers are a much more significant factor in the root cause of interstate traffic accidents than speeders. But the incentives are too perverse to fix the problem, so the situation persists.

> the world outside your front door is to be treated with suspicion; that every passerby is a potential threat; that every neighbor is a potential enemy; that every human interaction must be stored and cataloged as evidence of possible crime.

Yeah, I think he summed it up better than I could have there.

> Fluid intelligence, which peaks near age 20 and declines materially across adulthood [...] while fluid intelligence may decline with age, other dimensions improve (e.g., crystallized intelligence, emotional intelligence)

As someone well past "peak" fluid intelligence at this point, I always hate reading research like this. "Crystallized intelligence" and "emotional intelligence" are the consolation prizes no one really wants.

I'd rather we instead perform research to identify how one might reverse the decline of fluid intelligence...