quinn
Participation6
- Completed the AGI Safety Fundamentals Virtual Program
- Completed the In-Depth EA Virtual Program
- Attended an EAGx conference
- Attended an EA Global conference
- Attended more than three meetings with a local EA group
- Completed the Precipice Reading Group
Posts 18
Comments315
I wrote a quick take on lesswrong about evals. Funders seem enchanted with them, and I'm curious about why that is.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kq8CZzcPKQtCzbGxg/quinn-s-shortform?commentId=HzDD3Lvh6C9zdqpMh
nitpick: you say open source which implies I can read it and rebuild it on my machine. I can't really "read" the weights in this way, I can run it on my machine but I can't compile it without a berjillion chips. "open weight" is the preferred nomenclature, it fits the situation better.
(epistemic status: a pedantry battle, but this ship has sailed as I can see other commenters are saying open source rather than open weight).
It's important to consider adverse selection. People who get hounded out of everywhere else are inexplicably* invited to a forecasting conference, of course they come! they have nowhere else to go!
* inexplicably, in the sense that a forecasting conference is inviting people specialized in demographics and genetics-- it's a little related, but not that related.
I distinguish believing that good successor criteria are brittle from speciesism. I think antispeciesism does not oblige me to accept literally any successor.
I do feel icky coalitioning with outright speciesists (who reject the possibility of a good successor in principle), but I think my goals and all of generalized flourishing benefits a lot from those coalitions so I grin and bear it.