LessWrong (30+ Karma)

LessWrong
  • ٠٫٠ (٠)
  • التكنولوجيا
  • يتم التحديث يوميًا

Audio narrations of LessWrong posts.

  1. قبل ٣ ساعات

    “Origins and dangers of future AI capability denial” by Patrick Spencer

    In rationalist spheres, there's a fairly clear consensus that whatever AI's ultimate impact will be, it is at its core a capable technology that will have very large effects on the world. In the "general public" sphere, things are very different. There's a less clear but real consensus that AI's ultimate impact will be negative, and not much agreement on the capability of AI as a technology. I think it's very plausible that this could go the opposite way of rationalists, into a disbelief in the ability of AI as a technology, and eventually a more conspiratorial denial of even current AI capabilities. That is, the general public and policymakers could deny the existence of capabilities that are entirely undisputed among people familiar with the technology. I think this could happen, paradoxically, even in the face of AI-caused societal upheaval, and in almost any takeoff scenario. It would be [...] --- Outline: (01:29) Irrationality (03:21) Capability denial (13:06) How could we react? --- First published: October 25th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/W2dTrfTsGtFiwG5hM/origins-and-dangers-of-future-ai-capability-denial --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

    ١٨ من الدقائق

  2. قبل ٦ ساعات

    “Beliefs about formal methods and AI safety” by Quinn

    I appreciate Theodore Ehrenborg's comments. As a wee lad, I heard about mathematical certainty of computer programs. Let's go over what I currently believe and don’t believe. First: what is formal verification  Sometimes you get pwned because of the spec-implementation gap. The computer did not do what it should’ve done. Other times, you get pwned by the world-spec gap. The computer wasn’t wrong, your “shoulds” were. Expanding the domain of compiletime knowledge A compiler tells you the problem with your code when it is, in some sense, “wrong”. When you can define the sense in which your code can be “wrong”, you have circumscribed some domain of compiletime knowledge. In other words, you’ve characterized the kinds of things you can know at compiletime. The less you know at compiletime, the more you find out at runtime. The less you can afford to wait till [...] --- Outline: (00:25) First: what is formal verification (00:44) Expanding the domain of compiletime knowledge (01:29) Isolating the bug surface to the world-spec gap, or sidechannels (02:10) Exploiting inductive structure (03:50) What I do not say (04:00) Specify what you want (04:42) Prove that the AI is correct (05:56) TLDR, this whole genre of point the formal methods at the learned component itself is viewed by me as a nonstarter. (06:13) What I do say (06:20) Swiss cheese! (07:24) Infrastructure hardening! (08:30) Boxing/interfaces! (09:29) Conclusion The original text contained 3 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: October 23rd, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CCT7Qc8rSeRs7r5GL/beliefs-about-formal-methods-and-ai-safety --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. --- Images from the article: Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

    ١١ من الدقائق

  3. قبل ٦ ساعات

    “Reminder: Morality is unsolved” by Jesper L.

    Here is a game you can play with yourself, or others: a) You have to decide on a moral framework that can be explained in detail, to anyone. b) It will be implemented worldwide tomorrow. c) Tomorrow, every single person on Earth, including you and everyone you know, will also have their lives randomly swapped with someone else. This means that you are operating under the veil of ignorance. You should make sure that the morality you decide on is beneficial whoever you are, once it takes effect. Multiplayer: The one to first convince all other players, wins. Single player: If you play alone, you just need to convince yourself. Good luck! Morality is unsolved Let me put this another way: Did your mom ever tell you to be a good person? Do you ever feel that sometimes you fail that task? Yes? To your [...] --- Outline: (00:54) Morality is unsolved (02:37) Implications for AI (03:36) Alignment focus on metaethics --- First published: October 23rd, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/M9iHzo2oFRKvdtRrM/reminder-morality-is-unsolved --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

    ٥ من الدقائق

  4. قبل ٧ ساعات

    [Linkpost] “AI Timelines and Points of no return” by Gabriel Alfour

    This is a link post. In this essay, I introduce two Points of No Return (PNR): The Hard PNR. The moment where we have AI systems powerful and intelligent enough that they can prevent humanity from turning them off. The Soft PNR. The moment where we have AI systems that we will not want to turn off. For instance, because they are too intertwined with the economy, military systems, geopolitics, or romantic relationships. I believe the Soft PNR is underrated (especially in rationalist communities). I also believe that it is roughly as irrecoverable as the Hard PNR, and that it is quite likely to come first. Cheers! --- First published: October 24th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/iASwSJHoP9ovWpBLd/ai-timelines-and-points-of-no-return Linkpost URL:https://cognition.cafe/p/ai-timelines-and-points-of-no-return --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

    ١ من الدقائق

  5. قبل ٢٣ ساعة

    “Musings on Reported Cost of Compute (Oct 2025)” by Vladimir_Nesov

    There are many ways in which costs of compute get reported. A 1 GW datacenter site costs $10-15bn in the infrastructure (buildings, cooling, power), plus $30-35bn in compute hardware (servers, networking, labor), assuming Nvidia GPUs. Useful life of the infrastructure is about 10-15 years, and with debt financing a developer only needs to ensure it's paid off over those 10-15 years, which comes out at $1-2bn per year. For the compute hardware, the useful life is taken as about 5 years, which gives $6-7bn per year. Operational expenses (electricity, maintenance) are about $2.0-2.5bn per year. In total, 1 GW of compute costs about $9-11bn per year, but whoever paid the compute hardware capex needs to ensure the payments continue for 5 years, so a contract for 1 GW of compute will be 5 years long, which makes it a single contract for at least $45-55bn, which might become [...] --- Outline: (02:22) Non-Nvidia Hardware (03:29) Model Sizes in 2026 --- First published: October 24th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/oPWB7SBn5j6Nw8RSX/musings-on-reported-cost-of-compute-oct-2025 --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

    ٥ من الدقائق

  6. قبل ٢٣ ساعة

    [Linkpost] “LW Reacts pack for Discord/Slack/etc” by plex

    This is a link post. Ever wanted to say Scout Mindset to someone on a chat platform, but didn't want to have to type 13 characters? Or wanted your server to have magically better epistemics because of a few images? The LW Reactions Pack is here to help! With 63 images (or 37 for the cut down budget set of good ones if you're limited), we guarantee you will have more reaction options than you started with. Full Pack (63) Important only (37) --- First published: October 24th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/eq2gYhZvuDrMpuhSc/lw-reacts-pack-for-discord-slack-etc Linkpost URL:https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1NhEtVqHYnN-oHCwUzgVFMiXwsvQ_pySy?usp=sharing --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. --- Images from the article: Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

    ١ من الدقائق

  7. قبل يوم واحد

    “Regardless of X, you can still just sign superintelligence-statement.org if you agree” by Ishual

    TL;DR: you can still just sign this statement if you agree with it. It still matters, and you can clarify your position in a statement of support (600 characters) next to your name, and you can clarify your actual full position on LW and/or elsewhere. Regardless of X, you can still just sign. (for various values of X...) X= whether you agree with me that safety researchers have a duty to take a public stance. If you agree with the statement and you are working at a lab where some of your coworkers signed, please consider that signing make it less personally costly for them to have signed. X= whether you agreed with signing a more detailed longer statement that included many more things lots of folks agree on. Indeed, for many specific reasons I tried to address in the past post, seems like https://superintelligence-statement.org/ addresses those [...] --- Outline: (00:29) Regardless of X, you can still just sign. (for various values of X...) (02:22) Examples of statements of support: (05:35) You can still just sign The original text contained 3 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: October 24th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/oYmcHhEFZm3WPa7j5/regardless-of-x-you-can-still-just-sign-superintelligence --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

    ٦ من الدقائق

  8. قبل يوم واحد

    “New Statement Calls For Not Building Superintelligence For Now” by Zvi

    Building superintelligence poses large existential risks. Also known as: If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies. Where ‘it’ is superintelligence, and ‘dies’ is that probably everyone on the planet literally dies. We should not build superintelligence until such time as that changes, and the risk of everyone dying as a result, as well as the risk of losing control over the future as a result, is very low. Not zero, but far lower than it is now or will be soon. Thus, the Statement on Superintelligence from FLI, which I have signed. Context: Innovative AI tools may bring unprecedented health and prosperity. However, alongside tools, many leading AI companies have the stated goal of building superintelligence in the coming decade that can significantly outperform all humans on essentially all cognitive tasks. This has raised concerns, ranging from human economic obsolescence and disempowerment, losses of freedom, civil liberties [...] --- Outline: (02:02) A Brief History Of Prior Statements (03:51) This Third Statement (05:08) Who Signed It (07:27) Pushback Against the Statement (09:05) Responses To The Pushback (12:32) Avoid Negative Polarization But Speak The Truth As You See It --- First published: October 24th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QzY6ucxy8Aki2wJtF/new-statement-calls-for-not-building-superintelligence-for --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. --- Images from the article: Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

    ١٤ من الدقائق
مشاهدة الكل (٢٥٠)

حول

Audio narrations of LessWrong posts.

المعلومات

  • صناع العمل
    LessWrong
  • سنوات النشاط
    ٢٠٢٣ - ٢٠٢٥
  • الحلقات
    ٢٥٠
  • التقييم
    ملائم
  • حقوق النشر
    © 2025 All rights reserved
  • موقع البرنامج على الويب
    LessWrong (30+ Karma)

قد يعجبك أيضًا