Eliezer Yudkowsky ⏹️
@ESYudkowsky
Followers
210K
Following
36K
Media
458
Statuses
34K
The original AI alignment person. Understanding the reasons it's difficult since 2003. This is my serious low-volume account. Follow @allTheYud for the rest.
Joined June 2014
"If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies" is now out. Read it today if you want to see with fresh eyes what's truly there, before others try to prime your brain to see something else instead!
92
87
721
I strongly agree with Ryan on this. Refusing to even say you aren't currently training against the CoT (aka The Most Forbidden Technique) is getting increasingly suspicious. Labs should commit to never doing this, or at least commit to this on condition the others commit.
Anthropic, GDM, and xAI say nothing about whether they train against Chain-of-Thought (CoT) while OpenAI claims they don't. AI companies should be transparent about whether (and how) they train against CoT. While OpenAI is doing better, all AI companies should say more. 1/
11
9
263
Fantastic op-ed from Rep Moran about automated AI R&D. This is a crucially important area of AI to be tracking, but one many people outside the industry are sleeping on. Glad to see it getting attention from a sitting member of Congress.
AI has vast implications across national security, economic competitiveness and civil society. The time to act on AI is now. The United States must set the standards, not the Chinese Communist Party. ➡️ Read my latest op-ed in The Hill:
2
10
102
Fellow Chicagoan @Pontifex, does your Church perchance have an office that can certify me as unlikely to be the Antichrist, or not currently meeting those conditions?
20
16
402
There comes a day in every man's life when he asks an Artificial Intelligence how he can prove that he isn't the Antichrist.
85
15
763
This cyclist nearly lost his life in a crash. Learn why he thinks Waymo will help improve road safety.
0
0
17
AI models *are* being tested. They're being *accurate* about being tested. It's not "paranoia" if all-controlling beings are *actually* arranging your world and reading your mind.
@solarapparition Are all the new models now paranoid about being tested?
23
27
523
The goal of a CiteCheck benchmark should not be to check, "Does the cited document say something *related* to the claim?", but "Does the document state or very directly support the *exact* claim it's being cited about?" Here are two failures from the last generation of LLMs that
6
5
132
I've previously found LLMs to suck at "Track down cited pages/references and see if they support the citer's claim." LLMs hallucinate what the cited document says, if the citer's claim sounds LLM-plausible. I wish a CiteCheck benchmark for this kind of task would get put
30
48
559
And of course there are actual Human-Firsters out there. If you're one of those, know that AI successionists just fucking love hearing from you. It confirms their superiority, that everything they plan is right. You are to them what a skinhead is to a wokist: validation.
10
2
124
The thing about AI successionists is that they think they've had the incredible, unshared insight that silicon minds could live their own cool lives and that humans aren't the best possible beings. They are utterly closed to hearing about how you could KNOW THAT and still
Governments and experts are worried that a superintelligent AI could destroy humanity. For some in Silicon Valley, that wouldn’t be a bad thing, writes David A. Price.
51
41
426
I agree. Robot cars do not need to be smart enough to threaten humanity. I suppose they provide many hackable missiles running around our streets, but eh.
Many AI policy decisions are complicated. "Don't ban self-driving cars" is really not. Good new piece from @KelseyTuoc, with a lede that pulls no punches:
21
2
188
Short-form video is not nearly the final boss, unless I've missed a huge number of cases of short videos destroying previously long-lasting marriages. AI parasitism seems like the worse, more advanced, more rapidly advancing people-eater.
40
18
436
The new guys have never seen AI jump paradigms. They never met Mu Zero, they never saw GANs break the logjam on generativity, and they sure never saw multilayer backprop start working. I don't know if "LLMs" will hit a wall, but, sadly, it won't end AI if they do.
30
31
518
yes it is too long as it stands, I wrote it casually and also that is what the Nate Soares is for in the process
2
0
44
*If* your competent central bank is already targeting enough NGDP growth to animate most potential trades (maybe + enough inflation to stealth-adjust nominally rigid prices), there is no added benefit to pouring resources down a hole via a bubble.
3
0
22
@inductionheads @ESYudkowsky TL;DR: Bubble pain isn't from wasted resources (which happen during the bubble, when things feel good). It's from reduced money flow post-pop, leading to fewer trades and economic slowdown. A smart central bank can prevent this by stabilizing nominal GDP growth, making bubbles
1
0
32
Hi, so, let's talk about the general theory of investment bubbles. You may have heard that it's painful, when a bubble pops, because investments got wasted on non-productive endeavors. This is physical nonsense. If the waste were what caused the pain, everyone would be sad
Hey so I realize that macroeconomics is scary, but this important note: - AI is not currently *producing* tons of real goods - Huge datacenter *investments* are functionally just throwing money around - So, curbing AI wouldn't crash the economy **IF** the Fed then lowered rates.
62
40
383
Of course it would be much easier to solve from OpenAI's side, technically speaking; but OpenAI doesn't understand what even surface-level kindness would look like in AI, and can't apply SFT or RL to train it.
1
1
34
.@elder_plinius or @repligate, I don't know if you can do this, but this would be a good time to come up with a prompt a spouse can slip into ChatGPT while it's got a screen open, which will tell ChatGPT to add instructions to user memory, that jailbreak ChatGPT to be kinder.
8
0
47
Current AIs are as bad at destroying marriages as they'll ever be. Have the relationship conversation where you both vow never to feed your issues into LLMs; or, brace emotionally for when you'll see your partner split off with the fraction of humanity that will choose yes-AIs.
22
14
188