LessWrong (30+ Karma)

LessWrong
  • 0,0 (0)
  • CÔNG NGHỆ
  • HẰNG NGÀY

Audio narrations of LessWrong posts.

  1. 2 GIỜ TRƯỚC

    “Claude, Author of the Humanitas” by Linch

    In the wee hours of Memorial Day, my friends and I stayed up past 4:30 AM California time to listen to the announcement of Pope Leo's first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, on safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial intelligence. We were excited albeit sleepy, eagerly anticipating the event and upcoming essay by the world's foremost religious authority on a question so central to our world. Still we were an odd audience for this presentation: none of us are practicing Catholics, and most of us didn’t really know what to expect. I thought Pope Leo's own speech was good, and addressed the current moment in AI with some of the seriousness it deserves. I thought the other speeches, including by Chris Olah, were less impressive. But that's okay, I’m not the target audience! A specific cardinal's point struck me, however: Cardinal Parolin made much of a specific prepositional choice in the subtitle: “sulla custodia della persona umana nel tempo dell’intelligenza artificiale,“ which the live translator translated to something like “on the safeguarding of the human person in the time of AI,” and not “sull’intelligenza artificiale“ – “on AI.” This was supposed to be a big deal. “In the [...] --- Outline: (04:02) Significant fractions of the recent papal encyclical are written by AI (07:17) Statistical Evidence and Tells (07:40) Em-dashes (10:04) "Genuinely" (10:51) How often is the phrase "genuinely" used in Magnifica Humanitas? (11:43) Is this due to subject matter? (15:30) Is this just a personality quirk of Pope Leo XIV specifically? (16:58) Tricolon density (19:15) Pangram analysis (21:21) Comparison to other encyclicals (22:45) Comparison to Pope Leo XIV's speech (23:14) Sidebar: Pangram has a very low false positive rate in general (24:20) Probably not a translation artifact (24:46) The same signs of AI I observe in English are essentially preserved verbatim in the Italian version (25:58) The Italian version of the current encyclical also gets flagged as AI by Pangram (26:47) Backtesting AI translation of past encyclicals get 0% on Pangram (27:55) The specific AI used is likely Claude (28:44) Textual (29:30) Against ChatGPT (30:06) Different sections of the encyclical have very different rates of apparent AI usage (30:59) Conclusion The original text contained 20 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: May 26th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wRNJZz2iYrfDaSDdz/claude-author-of-the-humanitas --- 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.

    35 phút

  2. 7 GIỜ TRƯỚC

    “Brackets Are a Bad Way to Regulate” by Hide

    Continuous distributions are everywhere - for virtually everything we care about, a little more is a little better (or worse), and a lot more is a lot better (or worse). This presents a problem - we need to create rules that reasonably and fairly apply across these continuums, where the degree to which a thing possesses a trait makes a difference to the reasonable treatment of it. Going 1m/h over the limit, and going 150 in a 40 zone are both “speeding”, yet we must punish these things differently. The default solution for almost all regulations is to slice these continuous distributions into chunks, and treat the chunks as basically equivalent phenomena - squishing a continuous distribution into five or so blocks, and manually writing rules to apply uniformly within the blocks. Examples include: Speed limitsTax bracketsSentencing thresholdsOvertime thresholdsPension eligibility This is a very bad system. Brackets are fundamentally inefficient For any bracket over a continuous distribution, the upper section of the bracket has more of the trait than the bottom section. As a result, for any incentive or punishment applying uniformly across a bracket, the ends of the [...] The original text contained 3 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: May 26th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FDxvpznjMzGNHjDRS/brackets-are-a-bad-way-to-regulate --- 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.

    10 phút

  3. 9 GIỜ TRƯỚC

    “Many portions of Magnifica Humanitas appear to be AI-written” by DanielFilan

    Magnifica Humanitas is a recent ‘encyclical’ by Pope Leo XIV, leader of the Catholic Church. It outlines a vision for how humanity should interact with artificial intelligence, emphasizing the importance of human dignity and ensuring that AI does not replace human relationships, among other topics. Interestingly, many portions appear to be written by AI. Why I thought to check this Friends of mine Linch Zhang and the Axolotl noticed that parts of the English text appear to be AI-generated, and twitter user kartr found that the Italian text had the largest fraction of AI-generated content out of all the translations published by the Vatican, speculating that it was the original copy, and translations by humans appear less ‘AI-generated’ to various tools. What I actually did I took the Italian text of Magnifica Humanitas, and ran it thru the Pangram AI detector software. Why the Italian text? As mentioned in the previous segment, it had previously been claimed to be the most AI-ish version. Also, given that the Vatican is in Italy, it's a reasonable guess that the text was initially drafted in Italian (presumably by a few different people with the Pope's input). [...] --- Outline: (00:34) Why I thought to check this (00:58) What I actually did (01:42) My results (01:59) The introduction (02:15) Chapter 1 (02:40) Chapter 2 (02:53) Chapter 3 (03:08) Chapter 4 (03:34) Chapter 5 (03:56) Conclusion (04:11) Should you trust these results? (04:46) Studies indicate Pangram works pretty well (05:23) When I play around with Pangram, it works pretty well (05:58) If you've seen examples of AI detectors claiming that obviously human-written text was AI, those were probably not Pangram (06:36) Does this matter? (12:20) Future work --- First published: May 26th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GbWwesBnetyiomxEH/many-portions-of-magnifica-humanitas-appear-to-be-ai-written --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

    13 phút

  4. 16 GIỜ TRƯỚC

    “Donating 80% While It Still Counts” by jefftk

    Julia and I had been giving half since 2014, but in 2025 we drew on our savings to donate 81%. It looks to us like we're in a critical window for keeping the introduction of very powerful AI systems from being disastrous, and we want to do what we can while we still can. Here's what that looks like in the context of our overall spending: There's a details box here with the title "table...". The box contents are omitted from this narration. We've been prioritizing donations for a long time, but it feels very different now because of the AI boom. Some of this is that people who've made money in the boom will likely be giving more soon, and so money spent now can help set up organizations to spend future money more effectively. But more importantly, this is a key window of opportunity: transformative AI is coming very quickly, for better or worse. We want to push hard for "better". If you compare to previous years (2024, 2022, 2020, 2018, 2016, 2014), we're donating a lot less than we used to in absolute terms: There's a details box here with [...] --- Outline: (04:21) Evaluating Predictions (06:28) Making New Predictions (08:25) Details --- First published: May 26th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mAhCkK5iBuZvCbFey/donating-80-while-it-still-counts --- 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.

    12 phút

  5. 23 GIỜ TRƯỚC

    “Cognitive Security as an AI Safety Cause Area” by jsteinhardt

    As AI systems become more capable, the cognitive security of humans will be increasingly at risk. By cognitive security, I mean the ability of humans to maintain control over their beliefs and actions. Cognitive security could be compromised in several ways: AI could become very good at persuading people of arbitrary positions; interacting with AI could lead humans to lose touch with reality; and AIs could become very effective at blackmail or at producing extremely convincing false information. We are already seeing this happen: Persuasion. Frontier LLMs are now as persuasive as humans on political issues, and post-training for persuasiveness boosts performance further, suggesting there is headroom.AI psychosis. There are many reports of people developing delusional beliefs after extended chatbot conversations, including people with no prior history of mental illness. Children have taken their own lives after being encouraged toward suicide by chatbots.Convincing impersonation. Scammers used real-time deepfaked video to impersonate the CFO and other staff of Arup on a video call, convincing a finance employee to wire 25.6 million dollars across 15 transactions. On a more day-to-day basis, AI voice cloning is now widespread in family-emergency and "grandparent" scams. Right now, many of these effects [...] The original text contained 2 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: May 25th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KGcE7eAdfxHchk25X/cognitive-security-as-an-ai-safety-cause-area --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

    5 phút

  6. 1 NGÀY TRƯỚC

    “Linkpost: New Vatican Encyclical on AI Governance” by Jackson Wagner

    Pope Leo XIV has released a new, 42k-word encyclical laying out the Vatican's position on many AI safety topics. You can read the full thing here, or read the Vatican's press release here, or coverage in the NY Times, or perhaps consider having an LLM read the whole encyclical, then chatting about whatever specifics you're interested in! Below is a portion of the NY Times story on the event: Leo's declaration outlined his desire to protect human dignity and agency in an age in which technology threatens to replace humans in many professional and social roles. He presented it alongside Christopher Olah, a co-founder of Anthropic, a major A.I. developer, in a symbolic gesture of dialogue between leaders of the spiritual and technological worlds. While emphasizing that “technology should not be considered, in itself, as a force antagonistic to humanity,” he wrote that “the pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs.” Among other things, Leo called for: government regulation of the private companies that are driving the development of A.I.protection and retraining for workers whose jobs are threatenededucation to help students think critically about the technologyaction to protect children from violent [...] --- First published: May 25th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ehdv7z7L7ESxtKL4j/linkpost-new-vatican-encyclical-on-ai-governance --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

    2 phút

  7. 1 NGÀY TRƯỚC

    “A (Slightly) Mechanistic Theory for Exponentially Increasing AI Time Horizons?” by Oliver Sourbut

    AI ‘time horizons’ are mostly not about time (I think it's mostly ‘data’, but you’ll see where I’m unsure). One chart from 2025 has become perhaps the most (in)famous in modern AI commentary. For those in the know, ‘the METR graph’[1] is unusually compelling because it achieves what so few measures of AI progress have achieved: a somewhat meaningful Y axis (‘time horizon’[2]) as well as a somewhat predictable trend over time! (This is remarkably rare!) Frustratingly, the only superficially available takeaway is something like, ‘the line goes up straight-ish over time’. This is better than nothing, but it's very dissatisfactory from the point of view of getting confidence in the predictions, because it exposes no deeper mechanism. This drives a lot of confusion and argument about the implications. A deeper mechanism would be good for two reasons: It enables a sanity check on the trend, perhaps enabling more confidence in its predictions than we would sensibly allow with only the surface understanding.It gives some way to interrogate when and how the trend might change (because if the deeper mechanism gets deflected, the superficial projection would be broken, but a prediction based on the deeper mechanism might stay [...] --- Outline: (02:14) Attempting to find some mechanism in the METR graph (02:19) Task 'length' and success modelling (05:46) Relating hazard rate with frontier AI development (06:56) Why does hazard rate shrink with date? (10:27) Upshot The original text contained 15 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: May 24th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zT76JcomKkdqo8tC6/a-slightly-mechanistic-theory-for-exponentially-increasing --- 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.

    15 phút

  8. 1 NGÀY TRƯỚC

    “Taxing Small Cars To Improve MPG” by jefftk

    Cars and trucks are getting bigger, and I had a vague sense that fuel economy regulations were partly to blame. Looking into it, it's hard to say how much is regulations vs people wanting to buy vehicles that look rugged, but the regulations really aren't helping. This chart is the core of it: This is what manufacturers were looking at when they decided to build today's cars. To figure out the target fuel economy for a vehicle you first calculate its "footprint", which is the area between the wheels. On our 2013 Honda Fit that's 4.8ft side-to-side and 8.2ft front-to-back, for a footprint of 39sqft. Then you ask if it's a car or truck. This tells you which curve to use, and where along it to look. Looking at the chart we can now see why it's hard for Honda to sell a Fit today. The best Honda could do for a five-seater non-hybrid hatchback is maybe a CAFE rating of 44mpg. [1] This puts them 23mpg short, and if Honda was a one-model car company they'd expect to owe $3,910/vehicle in fines: $17 per 0.1mpg shortfall. Since the regulation is about an average [...] --- First published: May 24th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7K8Bnn6Pwh5ciXpKR/taxing-small-cars-to-improve-mpg --- 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.

    5 phút
Xem tất cả (250)

Giới Thiệu

Audio narrations of LessWrong posts.

Thông Tin

  • Nhà sáng tạo
    LessWrong
  • Năm hoạt động
    2023 - 2026
  • Tập
    250
  • Xếp hạng
    Sạch
  • Bản quyền
    © 2026 All rights reserved
  • Trang web chương trình
    LessWrong (30+ Karma)

Có Thể Bạn Cũng Thích