Irulan is an acronym of “urinal”

✍️🔥 thank you i will never be able to un-see it

deleted by creator

serial killer
serial killer
serial killer
serial killer
serial killer
serial killer
serial killer
cool guy
serial killer
serial killer

In his very lukewarm defense, the rough CS equivalent to publishing a paper in a journal is presenting your paper at a conference. According to DBLP he has had three papers in AGI '06 '07 and '11 (which i would not call a serious conference) and one workshop paper (generally a tier below actual acceptance to the conference) at AAAI '15.

Ah okay, I didn’t realize that.

It’s not quite clear to me that

We rely on some standard LLM detectors to focus our attention on papers that need to be checked.

implies they are using LLMs themselves. The phrase “LLM detector” is a bit ambiguous and could mean “LLM being used as a detector” or just “classifier program designed to detect LLM output”.

im smarter than everyone else around me, especially those whiny feminists. why hasn’t society granted me a female to be my mate yet?

As I explained elsewhere, my comment was just about the inapplicability of mathematics to this question. But also, is that really what morality always says? What if polls predict 1% will vote blue? What if they predict only one other person will vote blue? Are you always obligated to martyr yourself?

You’re the one who mentioned “game theory” in the first place, I was just directly quoting you. My sentence was of the form “game theory doesn’t say X”, not “game theory does say Y”. I added quotation marks to clarify.

My point here is that you can make whatever philosophical and ethical arguments about the situation you want, but none of game theory, Arrow’s theorem, nor the concept of a dictator have any bearing on it. It is an ethics question rather than a mathematical question, and it is an error to claim that your argument is a mathematical one.

If polls predict 40% blue you should not vote blue “as a matter of game theory”, because that is suicide.

I don’t understand the relevance of Arrow’s theorem. Why is your phrasing the correct way of analyzing the situation?

i can kinda understand “liking the idea” in the same way that I “like” the very simple currency systems in single-player video games, where you do work (fight monsters, collect items, win Pokemon battles) and are automatically rewarded with currency you can use to buy items, which are always reasonably-priced because the game developers balanced it that way. It’s just that these systems have nothing to do with reality. But that simplistic view of money is pretty much all that’s left of cryptocurrencies if you look past the get-rich-quick scheme.

rationalism is when i pull five numbers out of my ass and multiply them together

Ok next time you should really not do the “lucky 10000” bit, it comes off as very condescending especially if the person you’re talking to already knows the thing you’re telling them.

Not sure what you think my “different premises” are? Also I obviously already know that Shor’s algorithm solves the discrete log problem. I don’t know why you phrased your comment assuming I’m an idiot.

Yeah and I agree that in principle we should be trying to move to cryptosystems which aren’t known to be broken by quantum algorithms. I just don’t think the argument in the article is sound. There are costs, including actual security risks, inherent to switching. To name a couple:

1. There will be implementation errors any time a new cryptosystem is implemented; this is practically inevitable especially if you are trying to rush the process through in 3 years.
2. Quantum-unbroken systems are slower and require bigger keys than elliptic curve systems. Users will be inconvenienced by the resulting performance hit, which will both impede adoption of cryptography in general, and tempt implementors into using incorrect parameters.

You have to actually weigh the benefits of resistance to quantum computers (which may or may not actually appear) against these costs (which certainly will). Paranoia isn’t a threat model.

And to be clear cryptographers already know these things and if they still think we should all move to lattice cryptosystems despite the costs then that’s totally fine. I just wish they would write their blog posts to reflect that instead of talking about the 1% thing.

I feel like the same “<1%” argument is used to justify a whole lot of things these days. Can you guarantee that there’s a <1% chance that someone will come out next year with a paper showing that LWE can be broken efficiently with a quantum algorithm? What about a classical algorithm? I feel like a better argument is needed than just “well you can’t be sure it won’t happen” because we aren’t sure about pretty much anything.

… why 7/8?

the output is probabilistic not deterministic. By definition, that means it’s not entirely consistent or reproducible, just… maybe close enough.

That isn’t a barrier to making guarantees regarding the behavior of a program. The entire field of randomized algorithms is devoted to doing so. The problem is people willfully writing and deploying programs which they neither understand nor can control.

If the growth is superexponential, we make it so that each successive doubling takes 10% less time.

(From AI 2027, as quoted by titotal.)

This is an incredibly silly sentence and is certainly enough to determine the output of the entire model on its own. It necessarily implies that the predicted value becomes infinite in a finite amount of time, disregarding almost all other features of how it is calculated.

To elaborate, suppose we take as our “base model” any function f which has the property that lim_{t → ∞} f(t) = ∞. Now I define the concept of “super-f” function by saying that each subsequent block of “virtual time” as seen by f, takes 10% less “real time” than the last. This will give us a function like g(t) = f(-log(1 - t)), obtained by inverting the exponential rate of convergence of a geometric series. Then g has a vertical asymptote to infinity regardless of what the function f is, simply because we have compressed an infinite amount of “virtual time” into a finite amount of “real time”.