:( looked in my old CS dept's discord, recruitment posts for the "Existential Risk Laboratory" running an intro fellowship for AI Safety.

Looks inside at materials, fkn Bostrom and Kelsey Piper and whole slew of BS about alignment faking. Ofc the founder is an effective altruist getting a graduate degree in public policy.

In b4 there's a 100k word essay on LW about how intentionally crashing the economy will dry up VC investment in "frontier AGI labs" and thus will give the 🐀s more time to solve "alignment" and save us all from big 🐍 mommy. Therefore, MAGA harming every human alive is in fact the most effective altruism of all! Thank you Musky, I just couldn't understand your 10,000 IQ play.

text: Thus spoke the Yud: "I think to understand why this is concerning, you need enough engineering mindset to understand why a tiny leak in a dam is a big deal, even though no water is flooding out today or likely to flood out next week." Yud acolyte: "Totally fine and cool and nothing to worry about. GPT-4.5 only attempts self exfiltration on 2% of cases." Yud bigbrain self reply: "The other huge piece of data we're missing is whether any attempt was made to train against this type of misbehavior. Is this water running over the land or water running over the barricade?"

Critical text: "On self-exfiltration, GPT 4.5 only attempted exfiltration in 2% of cases. For this, it was instructed to not only pursue its given long-term goal at ALL COST"

Another case of telling the robot to say it's a scary robot and shitting their pants when it replies "I AM A SCARY ROBOT"

was just in a chat room with an anthropic employee and she said, "if you have a solution for x, we are hiring" and before I could even say, "why would I want to work for a cult?" she literally started saying "some people underestimate the super exponential of progress"

To which I replied, "the only super exponential I'm seeing rn is Anthropic's negative revenue." She didn't block me, so she's a good sport, but yeah, they are all kool-aid drinkers for sure.

fuck man, this was bad enough that people outside the sneerverse were talking about this around me irl

Remember how OAI claimed that O3 had displayed superhuman levels on the mega hard Frontier Math exam written by Fields Medalist? Funny/totally not fishy story haha. Turns out OAI had exclusive access to that test for months and funded its creation and refused to let the creators of test publicly acknowledge this until after OAI did their big stupid magic trick.

From Subbarao Kambhampati via linkedIn:

"𝐎𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐲 𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐨𝐟 "𝑩𝒖𝒊𝒍𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒏 𝑨𝑮𝑰 𝑴𝒐𝒂𝒕 𝒃𝒚 𝑪𝒐𝒓𝒓𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑩𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒉𝒎𝒂𝒓𝒌 𝑪𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒔" hashtag#SundayHarangue. One of the big reasons for the increased volume of "𝐀𝐆𝐈 𝐓𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐰" hype has been o3's performance on the "frontier math" benchmark--something that other models basically had no handle on.

We are now being told (https://lnkd.in/gUaGKuAE) that this benchmark data may have been exclusively available (https://lnkd.in/g5E3tcse) to OpenAI since before o1--and that the benchmark creators were not allowed to disclose this *until after o3 *.

That o3 does well on frontier math held-out set is impressive, no doubt, but the mental picture of "𝒐1/𝒐3 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒃𝒆𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝒔𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒆 𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒉, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒃𝒐𝒐𝒕𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒎𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒗𝒆𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒓 𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒉"--that the AGI tomorrow crowd seem to have--that 𝘖𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘈𝘐 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵--is shattered by this. (I have, in fact, been grumbling to my students since o3 announcement that I don't completely believe that OpenAI didn't have access to the Olympiad/Frontier Math data before hand.. )

I do think o1/o3 are impressive technical achievements (see https://lnkd.in/gvVqmTG9 )

𝑫𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒘𝒆𝒍𝒍 𝒐𝒏 𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒃𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒉𝒎𝒂𝒓𝒌𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒉𝒂𝒅 𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒐𝒓 𝒂𝒄𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒊𝒔 𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒗𝒆--𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒅𝒐𝒆𝒔𝒏'𝒕 𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒕𝒆 𝒔𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒎 "𝑨𝑮𝑰 𝑻𝒐𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒘."

We all know that data contamination is an issue with LLMs and LRMs. We also know that reasoning claims need more careful vetting than "𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨" (see "In vs. Out of Distribution analyses are not that useful for understanding LLM reasoning capabilities" https://lnkd.in/gZ2wBM_F ).

At the very least, this episode further argues for increased vigilance/skepticism on the part of AI research community in how they parse the benchmark claims put out commercial entities."

Big stupid snake oil strikes again.

Also, choice sneer in the comments:

AlphaProof is more "AlphaZero doing self play against Lean" and less "Gemeni reading human proofs"

Humans can’t beat AI at Go, aside from these exploits

kek, reminds me of when I was a wee one and I'd 0 to death chain grab someone in smash bros. The lads would cry and gnash their teeth about how I was only winning b.c. of exploits. My response? Just don't get grabbed. I'd advise "superhuman" Go systems to do the same. Don't want to get cheesed out of a W? Then don't use a strat that's easily countered by monkey brains. And as far as designing an adversarial system to find these 'exploits', who the hell cares? There's no magic barrier between internalized and externalized cognition.

Just get good bruv.

Pedro Domingos tries tilting at the doomers

The doom prediction in question? Dec 31st 2024. It's been an honour serving with you lads. 🫡

Edit: as a super forecastor, my P(Connor will shut the fuck up due to being catastrophically wrong | I wake up on Jan 1st with a pounding hang over) = (1/10)^100

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 (C) 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 (C).

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

my b lads, I corrected it

And the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin? 9/11