My guess is that we want to capture those differences with the time&date meta-data instead (and to some extent, location and other metadata). That way, we can easily query what you-in-particular would say at other periods in your life (such as the future). However, I agree that this is at least not obvious. 

Maybe a better way to do it would be to explicitly take both approaches, so that there's an abstract-you vector which then gets mapped into a particular-you author space via combination with your age (ie with date&time). This attempts to explicitly capture the way you change over time (we can watch your vector move through the particular-author space), while still allowing us to query what you would say at times where we don't have evidence in the form of writing from you. 

Ideally, imagining the most sophisticated version of the setup, the model would be able to make date&time attributions very fine-grained, guessing when specific words were written & constructing a guessed history of revisions for a document. This complicates things yet further. 

Yeah, that makes sense.

For me, this is significantly different from the position I understood you to be taking. My push-back was essentially the same as 

"has there been, across the world and throughout the years, a nonzero number of scientific insights generated by LLMs?" (obviously yes),

& I created the question to see if we could substantiate the "yes" here with evidence. 

It makes somewhat more sense to me for your timeline crux to be "can we do this reliably" as opposed to "has this literally ever happened" -- but the claim in your post was quite explicit about the "this has literally never happened" version. I took your position to be that this-literally-ever-happening would be significant evidence towards it happening more reliably soon, on your model of what's going on with LLMs, since (I took it) your current model strongly predicts that it has literally never happened.

This strong position even makes some sense to me; it isn't totally obvious whether it has literally ever happened. The chemistry story I referenced seemed surprising to me when I heard about it, even considering selection effects on what stories would get passed around.

My idea is very similar to paragraph vectors: the vectors are trained to be useful labels for predicting the tokens.

To differentiate author-vectors from other types of metadata, the author vectors should be additionally trained to predict author labels, with a heavily-reinforced constraint that the author vectors are identical for documents which have the same author. There's also the author-vector-to-text-author-attribution network, which should be pre-trained to have a good "prior" over author-names (so we're not getting a bunch of nonsense strings out). During training, the text author-names are being estimated alongside the vectors (where author labels are not available), so that we can penalize different author-vectors which map to the same name. (Some careful thinking should be done about how to handle people with the actual same name; perhaps some system of longer author IDs?)

Other meta-data would be handled similarly.

Yeah, this is effectively a follow-up to my recent post on anti-slop interventions, detailing more of what I had in mind. So, the dual-use idea is very much what I had in mind.

Yeah, for better or worse, the logical induction paper is probably the best thing to read. The idea is actually to think of probabilities as prediction-market prices; the market analogy is a very strong one, not an indirect way of gesturing at the idea.

Yeah. I'm saying that the "good machine" should be trained on all three; it should be honest, but, constrained by helpfulness and harmlessness. (Or, more realistically, a more complicated constitution with more details.)

Btw tbc, sth that I think slightly speeds up AI capability but is good to publish is e.g. producing rationality content for helping humans think more effectively (and AIs might be able to adopt the techniques as well). Creating a language for rationalists to reason in more Bayesian ways would probably also be good to publish.

Yeah, basically everything I'm saying is an extension of this (but obviously, I'm extending it much further than you are). We don't exactly care whether the increased rationality is in humans or AI, when the two are interacting a lot. (That is, so long as we're assuming scheming is not the failure mode to worry about in the shorter-term.) So, improved rationality for AIs seems similarly good. The claim I'm considering is that even improving rationality of AIs by a lot could be good, if we could do it.

An obvious caveat here is that the intervention should not dramatically increase the probability of AI scheming!

Belief propagation seems too much of a core of AI capability to me. I'd rather place my hope on GPT7 not being all that good yet at accelerating AI research and us having significantly more time.

This just seems doomed to me. The training runs will be even more expensive, the difficulty of doing anything significant as an outsider ever-higher. If the eventual plan is to get big labs to listen to your research, then isn't it better to start early? (If you have anything significant to say, of course.)

Right, my point is, I don’t see any difference between “AIs that produce slop” and “weak AIs” (a.k.a. “dumb AIs”). So from my perspective, the above is similar to : “…Because weak AIs can speed up AI capabilities much easier than they can produce actually good alignment ideas.”

I want to explicitly call out my cliff vs gentle slope picture from another recent comment. Sloppy AIs can have a very large set of tasks at which they perform very well, but they have sudden drops in their abilities due to failure to extrapolate well outside of that.

So, rather than imagining a one-dimensional "capabilities" number, let's imagine a landscape of things you might want to be able to get AIs to do, with a numerical score for each. In the center of the landscape is "easier" things, with "harder" things further out. There is some kind of growing blob of capabilities, spreading from the center of the landscape outward.

Techniques which are worse at extrapolating (IE worse at "coherent and correct understanding" of complex domains) create more of a sheer cliff in this landscape, where things go from basically-solved to not-solved-at-all over short distances in this space. Techniques which are better at extrapolating create more of a smooth drop-off instead. This is liable to grow the blob a lot faster; a shift to better extrapolation sees the cliffs cast "shadows" outwards.

My claim is that cliffs are dangerous for a different reason, namely that people often won't realize when they're falling off a cliff. The AI seems super-competent for the cases we can easily test, so humans extrapolate its competence beyond the cliff. This applies to the AI as well, if it lacks the capacity for detecting its own blind spots. So RSI is particularly dangerous in this regime, compared to a regime with better extrapolation.

This is very analogous to early Eliezer observing the AI safety problem and deciding to teach rationality. Yes, if you can actually improve people's rationality, they can use their enhanced capabilities for bad stuff too. Very plausibly the movement which Eliezer created has accelerated AI timelines overall. Yet, it feels plausible that without Eliezer, there would be almost no AI safety field.