There’s got to be some kind of licensing clarity that can be actually legislated. This is just straight-up price gouging through obscurantism.

automated grooming is just what progress is and you have to accept it. like the printing press

I’ve seen people defend these weird things as being ‘coping mechanisms.’ What kind of coping mechanism tells you to commit suicide (in like, at least two different cases I can think of off the top of my head) and tries to groom you.

The way many of the popular rat blogs started to endorse Harris in the last second before the US election felt a lot like an attempt at plausible deniability.

If H5N1 does turn into a full-blown outbreak, part of me expects it’ll rack up a heavier deathtoll than COVID.

Anyone here read “World War Z”? There’s a section there about how the health authorities in basically all countries supress and deny the incipient zombie outbreak. I think about that a lot nowadays.

Anyway the COVID response, while ultimately better than the worst case scenario (Spanish Flu 2.0) has made me really unconvinced we will do anything about climate change. We had a clear danger of death for millions of people, and the news was dominated by skeptics. Maybe if it had targetted kids instead of the very old it would have been different.

This feels like quackery but I can’t find a goal…

But if they both hold up to scrutiny, this is perhaps the first time scientific evidence supporting this theory has been produced – as explored in my recent book.

There it is.

Edit: oh God it’s worse than I thought

The web design almost makes me nostalgic for geocities fan pages. The citations that include himself ~10 times and the greatest hits of the last 50 years of physics, biology, and computer science, and Baudrillard of course. The journal of which this author is the lead editor and which includes the phrase “information as the fifth state of matter” in the scope description.

Oh God the deeper I dig the weirder it gets. Trying to confirm whether the Information Physics Institute is legit at all and found their list of members, one of whom listed their relevant expertise as “Writer, Roleplayer, Singer, Actor, Gamer”. Another lists “Hyperspace and machine elves”. One very honestly simply says “N/A”

I am not making this up.

The Gmail address also lends the whole thing an air of authority. Like, you’ve already paid for the domain, guys.

Despite the lack of evidence, this idea is gaining traction in scientific circles as well as in the entertainment industry.

lol

General sneer against the SH: I choose to dismiss it entirely for the same reason that I dismiss solipsism or brain-in-a-vat-ism: it’s a non-starter. Either it’s false and we’ve gotta come up with better ideas for all this shit we’re in, or it’s true and nothing is real, so why bother with philosophical or metaphysical inquiry?

I don’t have the time to deep dive this RN but information dynamics or infodynamics looks to be, let’s say, “alternative science” for the purposes of trying to up the credibility of the simulation hypothesis.

How sneerable is the entire “infodynamics” field? Because it seems like it should be pretty sneerable. The first referenced paper on the “second law of infodynamics” seems to indicate that information has some kind of concrete energy which brings to mind that experiment where they tried to weigh someone as they died to identify the mass of the human soul. Also it feels like a gross misunderstanding to describe a physical system as gaining or losing information in the Shannon framework since unless the total size of the possibility space is changing there’s not a change in total information. Like, all strings of 100 characters have the same level of information even though only a very few actually mean anything in a given language. I’m not sure it makes sense to talk about the amount of information in a system increasing or decreasing naturally outside of data loss in transmission? IDK I’m way out of my depth here but it smells like BS and the limited pool of citations doesn’t build confidence.

I sneered that in a blog post last year, as it happens.

If you’re in the mood for a novel that dunks on these nerds, I highly recommend Jason Pargin’s If This Book Exists, You’re in the Wrong Universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_This_Book_Exists,_You're_in_the_Wrong_Universe

https://awful.systems/post/2876657

I’m just curious how many hits you would get if you searched for ‘4 hour work week’, as iirc that is where all these people stole the idea from. (well, not totally, the idea they are stealing is selling others the idea of the 4 hour work week, but I hope you get what I mean, 4 hour work weeks all the way down).

“Yeah I thought about going into civil engineering but the department of hustling really spoke to me y’know?”

The word “deranged” is getting a workout lately, ain’t it?

Ugh. Tangentially related: a streamer I follow has been getting lots of people in her chat saying that one of the taters wants to hire her. I’ve started noticing comments like “I love white culture” and weird fantasies about the roman empire. Historically she’s also been asked multiple times what her ethnicity is (she is white), specifically if she is scandanavian, which I am starting to view under some kind of white supremacist lens. I’ve told her to ignore anything mentioning the taters or “top g” as one of them is known.

Honestly, I’m worried that she could get brigaded by these creeps, even if she shows no response whatsoever.

the marketing fucks and executive ghouls who came up with this meme (that used to surface every time I talked about wanting to de-Google) are also the ones who make a fuckton of money off of having a real-time firehose of personal data straight from the source, cause that’s by far what’s most valuable to advertisers and surveillance firms (but I repeat myself)

When people start going on about having nothing to hide usually it helps to point out how there’s currently no legal way to have a movie or a series episode saved to your hard drive.

I suspect great overlap between the nothing-to-hide people and the people who watch the worst porn imaginable but think incognito mode is magic.

He’s using it to give examples of exam question answers. The embarrassment

gentlemen, this means war

-me imagining myself paying to sit through that

This almost reads like an attempt at a reductio ad absurdum of worrying about animal welfare, like you are supposed to be a ridiculous hypocrite if you think factory farming is fucked yet are indifferent to the cumulative suffering caused to termites every time an exterminator sprays your house so it doesn’t crumble.

Relying on the mean estimate, giving a dollar to the shrimp welfare project prevents, on average, as much pain as preventing 285 humans from painfully dying by freezing to death and suffocating. This would make three human deaths painless per penny, when otherwise the people would have slowly frozen and suffocated to death.

Dog, you’ve lost the plot.

FWIW a charity providing the means to stun shrimp before death by freezing as is the case here isn’t indefensible, but the way it’s framed as some sort of an ethical slam dunk even compared to say donating to refugee care just makes it too obvious you’d be giving money to people who are weird in a bad way.

If we came across very mentally disabled people or extremely early babies (perhaps in a world where we could extract fetuses from the womb after just a few weeks) that could feel pain but only had cognition as complex as shrimp, it would be bad if they were burned with a hot iron, so that they cried out. It’s not just because they’d be smart later, as their hurting would still be bad if the babies were terminally ill so that they wouldn’t be smart later, or, in the case of the cognitively enfeebled who’d be permanently mentally stunted.

wat

Not that I’m a super fan of the fact that shrimp have to die for my pasta, but it feels weird that they just pulled a 3% number out of a hat, as if morals could be wrapped up in a box with a bow tied around it so you don’t have to do any thinking beyond 1500×0.03×1 dollars means I should donate to this guys shrimp startup instead of the food bank!

Apologies for focusing on just one sentence of this article, but I feel like it’s crucial to the overall argument:

… if [shrimp] suffer only 3% as intensely as we do …

Does this proposition make sense? It’s not obvious to me that we can assign percentage values to suffering, or compare it to human suffering, or treat the values in a linear fashion.

It reminds me of that vaguely absurd thought experiment where you compare one person undergoing a lifetime of intense torture vs billions upon billions of humans getting a fleck of dust in their eyes. I just cannot square choosing the former with my conscience. Maybe I’m too unimaginative to comprehend so many billions of bits of dust.

lol hahah.

Ah you see, the moment you entered the realm of numbers and estimates, you’ve lost! I activate my trap card: 「Bayesian Reasoning」 to Explain Away those numbers. This lets me draw the「Domain Expert」 card from my deck, which I place in the epistemic status position, which boosts my confidence by 2000 IQ points!

Effective Altruism Declares War on the Entire State of Louisiana

fuck me that is some awful fucking moderation. I can’t imagine being so fucking bad at this that I:

• dole out a ban for being rude to a fascist
• dole out a second ban because somebody in the community did some basic fucking due diligence and found out one of the accounts defending the above fascist has been just a gigantic racist piece of shit elsewhere, surprise
• in the process of the above, I create a safe space for a fascist and her friends

but for so many of these people, somehow that’s what moderation is? fucking wild, how the fuck did we get here

Is Google lacing their free coffee??? How could a woman with at least one college degree believe that the government is even mechanically capable of dissolving into a throne for Eric Schmidt.

Post by Corbet the editor. “We get it: people wish that we had not highlighted work by this particular author. Had we known more about the person in question, we might have shied away from the topic. But the article is out now, it describes a bit of interesting technology, people have had their say, please let’s leave it at that.”

So you updated the article to reflect this right? padme.jpg

https://lwn.net/Articles/998435/ sigh

Not the only trans NRXer to pull this I’m afraid. I could say things but I really can’t I think.

@dgerard @BlueMonday1984 also, and I know this is way beside the point, update the design of your website, motherfuckers

Man, how do you even find this stuff? :D

Pokemon Go To The War Crimes

Quick, find the guys who were taping their phones to a ceiling fan and have them get to it!

Jokes aside I’m actually curious to see what happens when this one screws up. My money is on one of the Boston Dynamics dogs running in circles about 30 feet from the intended target without even establishing line of sight. They’ll certainly have to test it somehow before it starts autonomously ordering drone strikes on innocent people’s homes, right? Right?

LLMs sometimes struggle to give legal moves. In these experiments, I try 10 times and if there’s still no legal move, I just pick one at random.

uhh

Particularly hilarious at how thoroughly they’re missing the point. The fact that it suggests illegal moves at all means that no matter how good it’s openings are the scaling laws and emergent behaviors haven’t magicked up an internal model of the game of Chess or even the state of the chess board it’s working with. I feel like playing games is a particularly powerful example of this because the game rules provide a very clear structure to model and it’s very obvious when that model doesn’t exist.

@gerikson @BlueMonday1984 the only analysis of computer chess anybody needs https://youtu.be/DpXy041BIlA

I remember when several months (a year ago?) when the news got out that gpt-3.5-turbo-papillion-grumpalumpgus could play chess around ~1600 elo. I was skeptical the apparent skill wasn’t just a hacked-on patch to stop folks from clowning on their models on xitter. Like if an LLM had just read the instructions of chess and started playing like a competent player, that would be genuinely impressive. But if what happened is they generated 10^12 synthetic games of chess played by stonk fish and used that to train the model- that ain’t an emergent ability, that’s just brute forcing chess. The fact that larger, open-source models that perform better on other benchmarks, still flail at chess is just a glaring red flag that something funky was going on w/ gpt-3.5-turbo-instruct to drive home the “eMeRgEnCe” narrative. I’d bet decent odds if you played with modified rules, (knights move a one space longer L shape, you cannot move a pawn 2 moves after it last moved, etc), gpt-3.5 would fuckin suck.

Edit: the author asks “why skill go down tho” on later models. Like isn’t it obvious? At that moment of time, chess skills weren’t a priority so the trillions of synthetic games weren’t included in the training? Like this isn’t that big of a mystery…? It’s not like other NN haven’t been trained to play chess…

Here are the results of these three models against Stockfish—a standard chess AI—on level 1, with a maximum of 0.01 seconds to make each move

I’m not a Chess person or familiar with Stockfish so take this with a grain of salt, but I found a few interesting things perusing the code / docs which I think makes useful context.

Skill Level

I assume “level” refers to Stockfish’s Skill Level option.

If I mathed right, Stockfish roughly estimates Skill Level 1 to be around 1445 ELO (source). However it says “This Elo rating has been calibrated at a time control of 60s+0.6s” so it may be significantly lower here.

Skill Level affects the search depth (appears to use depth of 1 at Skill Level 1). It also enables MultiPV 4 to compute the four best principle variations and randomly pick from them (more randomly at lower skill levels).

Move Time & Hardware

This is all independent of move time. This author used a move time of 10 milliseconds (for stockfish, no mention on how much time the LLMs got). … or at least they did if they accounted for the “Move Overhead” option defaulting to 10 milliseconds. If they left that at it’s default then 10ms - 10ms = 0ms so 🤷‍♀️.

There is also no information about the hardware or number of threads they ran this one, which I feel is important information.

Evaluation Function

After the game was over, I calculated the score after each turn in “centipawns” where a pawn is worth 100 points, and ±1500 indicates a win or loss.

Stockfish’s FAQ mentions that they have gone beyond centipawns for evaluating positions, because it’s strong enough that material advantage is much less relevant than it used to be. I assume it doesn’t really matter at level 1 with ~0 seconds to produce moves though.

Still since the author has Stockfish handy anyway, it’d be interesting to use it in it’s not handicapped form to evaluate who won.

When the reporter entered the confessional, AI Jesus warned, “Do not disclose personal information under any circumstances. Use this service at your own risk.

Do not worry my child, for everything you say in this hallowed chamber is between you, AI Jesus, and the army of contractors OpenAI hires to evaluate the quality of their LLM output.