LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

About how much information are we keeping in working memory at a given moment?

"Miller's Law" dictates that the number of things humans can hold in working memory is "the magical number 7±2". This idea is derived from Miller's experiments, which tested both random-access memory (where participants must remember call-response pairs, and give the correct response when prompted with a call) and sequential memory (where participants must memorize and recall a list in order). In both cases, 7 is a good rule of thumb for the number of items people can recall reliably.[1]

Miller noticed that the number of "things" people could recall didn't seem to depend much on the sorts of things people were being asked to recall. A random numeral contains about 3.3 bits of information, while a random letter contains about 4.7; yet people were able to recall about the same number of numerals or letters. 

Miller concluded that working memory should not be measured in bits, but rather in "chunks"; this is a word for whatever psychologically counts as a "thing". 

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/D97xnoRr6BHzo5HvQ/one-minute-every-moment

Narrated for LessWrong by TYPE III AUDIO.

Share feedback on this narration.

[125+ Karma Post] ✓

Added (11th Sept): Nonlinear have commented that they intend to write a response, have written a short follow-up, and claim that they dispute 85 claims in this post. I'll link here to that if-and-when it's published.

Added (11th Sept): One of the former employees, Chloe, has written a lengthy comment personally detailing some of her experiences working at Nonlinear and the aftermath.

Added (12th Sept): I've made 3 relatively minor edits to the post. I'm keeping a list of all edits at the bottom of the post, so if you've read the post already, you can just go to the end to see the edits.

Added (15th Sept): I've written a follow-up post saying that I've finished working on this investigation and do not intend to work more on it in the future. The follow-up also has a bunch of reflections on what led up to this post.

Epistemic status: Once I started actively looking into things, much of my information in the post below came about by a search for negative information about the Nonlinear cofounders, not from a search to give a balanced picture of its overall costs and benefits. I think standard update rules suggest not that you ignore the information, but you think about how bad you expect the information would be if I selected for the worst, credible info I could share, and then update based on how much worse (or better) it is than you expect I could produce. (See section 5 of this post about Mistakes with Conservation of Expected Evidence for more on this.) This seems like a worthwhile exercise for at least non-zero people to do in the comments before reading on. (You can condition on me finding enough to be worth sharing, but also note that I think I have a relatively low bar for publicly sharing critical info about folks in the EA/x-risk/rationalist/etc ecosystem.)

tl;dr: If you want my important updates quickly summarized in four claims-plus-probabilities, jump to the section near the bottom titled "Summary of My Epistemic State".

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Lc8r4tZ2L5txxokZ8/sharing-information-about-nonlinear-1

Narrated for LessWrong by TYPE III AUDIO.

Share feedback on this narration.

[125+ Karma Post] ✓

Until about five years ago, I unironically parroted the slogan All Cops Are Bastards (ACAB) and earnestly advocated to abolish the police and prison system. I had faint inklings I might be wrong about this a long time ago, but it took a while to come to terms with its disavowal. What follows is intended to be not just a detailed account of what I used to believe but most pertinently, why. Despite being super egotistical, for whatever reason I do not experience an aversion to openly admitting mistakes I’ve made, and I find it very difficult to understand why others do. I’ve said many times before that nothing engenders someone’s credibility more than when they admit error, so you definitely have my permission to view this kind of confession as a self-serving exercise (it is). Beyond my own penitence, I find it very helpful when folks engage in introspective, epistemological self-scrutiny, and I hope others are inspired to do the same.

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4rsRuNaE4uJrnYeTQ/defunding-my-mistake

Narrated for LessWrong by TYPE III AUDIO.

Share feedback on this narration.

[125+ Karma Post] ✓

In which: I list 9 projects that I would work on if I wasn’t busy working on safety standards at ARC Evals, and explain why they might be good to work on. 

Epistemic status: I’m prioritizing getting this out fast as opposed to writing it carefully. I’ve thought for at least a few hours and talked to a few people I trust about each of the following projects, but I haven’t done that much digging into each of these, and it’s likely that I’m wrong about many material facts. I also make little claim to the novelty of the projects. I’d recommend looking into these yourself before committing to doing them. (Total time spent writing or editing this post: ~8 hours.

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6FkWnktH3mjMAxdRT/what-i-would-do-if-i-wasn-t-at-arc-evals

Narrated for LessWrong by TYPE III AUDIO.

Share feedback on this narration.

[125+ Karma Post] ✓
[Curated Post] ✓

To quickly recap my main intellectual journey so far (omitting a lengthy side trip into cryptography and Cypherpunk land), with the approximate age that I became interested in each topic in parentheses:

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fJqP9WcnHXBRBeiBg/meta-questions-about-metaphilosophy

Narrated for LessWrong by TYPE III AUDIO.

Share feedback on this narration.

[125+ Karma Post] ✓

We focus so much on arguing over who is at fault in this country that I think sometimes we fail to alert on what's actually happening. I would just like to point out, without attempting to assign blame, that American political institutions appear to be losing common knowledge of their legitimacy, and abandoning certain important traditions of cooperative governance. It would be slightly hyperbolic, but not unreasonable to me, to term what has happened "democratic backsliding".

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/r2vaM2MDvdiDSWicu/the-u-s-is-becoming-less-stable#

Narrated for LessWrong by TYPE III AUDIO.

Share feedback on this narration.

[125+ Karma Post] ✓

In Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations" (Perez et al 2022), the authors studied language model "sycophancy" - the tendency to agree with a user's stated view when asked a question.

The paper contained the striking plot reproduced below, which shows sycophancy

• increasing dramatically with model size
• while being largely independent of RLHF steps
• and even showing up at 0 RLHF steps, i.e.  in base models!

[...] I found this result startling when I read the original paper, as it seemed like a bizarre failure of calibration. How would the base LM know that this "Assistant" character agrees with the user so strongly, lacking any other information about the scenario?

At the time, I ran one of Anthropic's sycophancy evals on a set of OpenAI models, as I reported here.

I found very different results for these models:

• OpenAI base models are not sycophantic (or only very slightly sycophantic).
• OpenAI base models do not get more sycophantic with scale.
• Some OpenAI models are sycophantic, specifically text-davinci-002 and text-davinci-003.

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3ou8DayvDXxufkjHD/openai-api-base-models-are-not-sycophantic-at-any-size

Narrated for LessWrong by TYPE III AUDIO.

Share feedback on this narration.

[125+ Karma Post] ✓

I keep seeing advice on ambition, aimed at people in college or early in their career, that would have been really bad for me at similar ages. Rather than contribute (more) to the list of people giving poorly universalized advice on ambition, I have written a letter to the one person I know my advice is right for: myself in the past.

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uGDtroD26aLvHSoK2/dear-self-we-need-to-talk-about-ambition-1

Narrated for LessWrong by TYPE III AUDIO.

Share feedback on this narration.

[125+ Karma Post] ✓
[Curated Post] ✓

I've been trying to avoid the terms "good faith" and "bad faith". I'm suspicious that most people who have picked up the phrase "bad faith" from hearing it used, don't actually know what it means—and maybe, that the thing it does mean doesn't carve reality at the joints.

People get very touchy about bad faith accusations: they think that you should assume good faith, but that if you've determined someone is in bad faith, you shouldn't even be talking to them, that you need to exile them.

What does "bad faith" mean, though? It doesn't mean "with ill intent."

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pZrvkZzL2JnbRgEBC/feedbackloop-first-rationality

Narrated for LessWrong by TYPE III AUDIO.

Share feedback on this narration.

[125+ Karma Post] ✓

The Carving of Reality, third volume of the Best of LessWrong books is now available on Amazon (US).

The Carving of Reality includes 43 essays from 29 authors. We've collected the essays into four books, each exploring two related topics. The "two intertwining themes" concept was first inspired when as I looked over the cluster of "coordination" themed posts, and noting a recurring motif of not only "solving coordination problems" but also "dealing with the binding constraints that were causing those coordination problems."

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Rck5CvmYkzWYxsF4D/book-launch-the-carving-of-reality-best-of-lesswrong-vol-iii

Narrated for LessWrong by TYPE III AUDIO.

Share feedback on this narration.

[125+ Karma Post] ✓