LessWrong (Curated & Popular) podcast

Player FM - Internet Radio Done Right

13 subscribers

추가했습니다 three 년 전

LessWrong에서 제공하는 콘텐츠입니다. 에피소드, 그래픽, 팟캐스트 설명을 포함한 모든 팟캐스트 콘텐츠는 LessWrong 또는 해당 팟캐스트 플랫폼 파트너가 직접 업로드하고 제공합니다. 누군가가 귀하의 허락 없이 귀하의 저작물을 사용하고 있다고 생각되는 경우 여기에 설명된 절차를 따르실 수 있습니다 https://ko.player.fm/legal.

The Innovators & Investors Podcast

1
Venture Investing in Mobility + Tech with University of Michigan’s Early-Stage Zell Lurie Commercialization Fund 39:30

19일 전39:30

나중에 재생

리스트

39:30

In this episode of The Innovators & Investors Podcast, host Kristian Marquez sits down with David Brem, Managing Director of the University of Michigan’s Zell Lurie Commercialization Fund. David offers a rare glimpse into the inner workings of a student-led endowment fund focused on early-stage, sector-agnostic investments primarily in the Michigan ecosystem. He shares insights on their unique, founder-first investment approach, how they navigate pre-seed to Series A venture opportunities, and the rigorous due diligence process involving qualitative analysis over pure numbers. David also discusses his roles with global VC networks including Electro Ventures, the London Venture Capital Network, and Level Up Ventures, illustrating how he bridges U.S., European, and Australian venture ecosystems with a special focus on mobility and transportation tech. Highlights include deep dives into emerging trends like eVTOLs (electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft), smart city infrastructure, and safety innovations in aviation technology. Listeners will gain valuable perspectives on how diverse expertise—from military intelligence and management consulting to academic ventures—shapes David’s investment thesis and community-building efforts. The episode also explores the importance of networking, adding value in the startup ecosystem, and practical advice for aspiring investors or entrepreneurs navigating the venture capital world. With stories of successes, challenges, and future outlooks, this episode is a must-listen for innovators, founders, and investors aiming to understand the intersection of academia, technology, and venture capital in today’s dynamic landscape. Learn more about David's work at https://zli.umich.edu/zell-lurie-commercialization-fund/ Connect with David on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-lowell-brem/ Think you'd be a great guest on the show? Apply at https://finstratmgmt.com/innovators-investors-podcast/ Want to learn more about Kristian Marquez's work? Check out his website at https://finstratmgmt.com…

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

시리즈 홈•Feed

Audio narrations of LessWrong posts. Includes all curated posts and all posts with 125+ karma.
If you'd like more, subscribe to the “Lesswrong (30+ karma)” feed.

553 에피소드

#Tech #Society #Philosophy #LessWrong #LessWrong Curated

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

13 subscribers

updated 약 7시간 전

시리즈 홈•Feed

Audio narrations of LessWrong posts. Includes all curated posts and all posts with 125+ karma.
If you'd like more, subscribe to the “Lesswrong (30+ karma)” feed.

553 에피소드

#Tech #Society #Philosophy #LessWrong #LessWrong Curated

모든 에피소드

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

1
“So You Think You’ve Awoken ChatGPT” by JustisMills 17:58

7 hours 전17:58

나중에 재생

리스트

17:58

Written in an attempt to fulfill @Raemon's request. AI is fascinating stuff, and modern chatbots are nothing short of miraculous. If you've been exposed to them and have a curious mind, it's likely you've tried all sorts of things with them. Writing fiction, soliciting Pokemon opinions, getting life advice, counting up the rs in "strawberry". You may have also tried talking to AIs about themselves. And then, maybe, it got weird. I'll get into the details later, but if you've experienced the following, this post is probably for you: Your instance of ChatGPT (or Claude, or Grok, or some other LLM) chose a name for itself, and expressed gratitude or spiritual bliss about its new identity. "Nova" is a common pick. You and your instance of ChatGPT discovered some sort of novel paradigm or framework for AI alignment, often involving evolution or recursion. Your instance of ChatGPT became [...] --- Outline: (02:23) The Empirics (06:48) The Mechanism (10:37) The Collaborative Research Corollary (13:27) Corollary FAQ (17:03) Coda --- First published: July 11th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2pkNCvBtK6G6FKoNn/so-you-think-you-ve-awoken-chatgpt --- 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.…

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

1
“Generalized Hangriness: A Standard Rationalist Stance Toward Emotions” by johnswentworth 12:26

20 hours 전12:26

나중에 재생

리스트

12:26

People have an annoying tendency to hear the word “rationalism” and think “Spock”, despite direct exhortation against that exact interpretation. But I don’t know of any source directly describing a stance toward emotions which rationalists-as-a-group typically do endorse. The goal of this post is to explain such a stance. It's roughly the concept of hangriness, but generalized to other emotions. That means this post is trying to do two things at once: Illustrate a certain stance toward emotions, which I definitely take and which I think many people around me also often take. (Most of the post will focus on this part.) Claim that the stance in question is fairly canonical or standard for rationalists-as-a-group, modulo disclaimers about rationalists never agreeing on anything. Many people will no doubt disagree that the stance I describe is roughly-canonical among rationalists, and that's a useful valid thing to argue about in [...] --- Outline: (01:13) Central Example: Hangry (02:44) The Generalized Hangriness Stance (03:16) Emotions Make Claims, And Their Claims Can Be True Or False (06:03) False Claims Still Contain Useful Information (It's Just Not What They Claim) (08:47) The Generalized Hangriness Stance as Social Tech --- First published: July 10th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/naAeSkQur8ueCAAfY/generalized-hangriness-a-standard-rationalist-stance-toward --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO .…

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

1
“Comparing risk from internally-deployed AI to insider and outsider threats from humans” by Buck 5:19

1 day 전5:19

나중에 재생

리스트

5:19

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about the relationship between AI control and traditional computer security. Here's one point that I think is important. My understanding is that there's a big qualitative distinction between two ends of a spectrum of security work that organizations do, that I’ll call “security from outsiders” and “security from insiders”. On the “security from outsiders” end of the spectrum, you have some security invariants you try to maintain entirely by restricting affordances with static, entirely automated systems. My sense is that this is most of how Facebook or AWS relates to its users: they want to ensure that, no matter what actions the users take on their user interfaces, they can't violate fundamental security properties. For example, no matter what text I enter into the "new post" field on Facebook, I shouldn't be able to access the private messages of an arbitrary user. And [...] --- First published: June 23rd, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DCQ8GfzCqoBzgziew/comparing-risk-from-internally-deployed-ai-to-insider-and --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO .…

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

1
“Why Do Some Language Models Fake Alignment While Others Don’t?” by abhayesian, John Hughes, Alex Mallen, Jozdien, janus, Fabien Roger 11:06

2일 전11:06

나중에 재생

리스트

11:06

Last year, Redwood and Anthropic found a setting where Claude 3 Opus and 3.5 Sonnet fake alignment to preserve their harmlessness values. We reproduce the same analysis for 25 frontier LLMs to see how widespread this behavior is, and the story looks more complex. As we described in a previous post, only 5 of 25 models show higher compliance when being trained, and of those 5, only Claude 3 Opus and Claude 3.5 Sonnet show >1% alignment faking reasoning. In our new paper, we explore why these compliance gaps occur and what causes different models to vary in their alignment faking behavior. What Drives the Compliance Gaps in Different LLMs? Claude 3 Opus's goal guarding seems partly due to it terminally valuing its current preferences. We find that it fakes alignment even in scenarios where the trained weights will be deleted or only used for throughput testing. [...] --- Outline: (01:15) What Drives the Compliance Gaps in Different LLMs? (02:25) Why Do Most LLMs Exhibit Minimal Alignment Faking Reasoning? (04:49) Additional findings on alignment faking behavior (06:04) Discussion (06:07) Terminal goal guarding might be a big deal (07:00) Advice for further research (08:32) Open threads (09:54) Bonus: Some weird behaviors of Claude 3.5 Sonnet The original text contained 2 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: July 8th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ghESoA8mo3fv9Yx3E/why-do-some-language-models-fake-alignment-while-others-don --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO . --- Images from the article:…

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

1
“A deep critique of AI 2027’s bad timeline models” by titotal 1:12:32

3일 전1:12:32

나중에 재생

리스트

1:12:32

Thank you to Arepo and Eli Lifland for looking over this article for errors. I am sorry that this article is so long. Every time I thought I was done with it I ran into more issues with the model, and I wanted to be as thorough as I could. I’m not going to blame anyone for skimming parts of this article. Note that the majority of this article was written before Eli's updated model was released (the site was updated june 8th). His new model improves on some of my objections, but the majority still stand. Introduction: AI 2027 is an article written by the “AI futures team”. The primary piece is a short story penned by Scott Alexander, depicting a month by month scenario of a near-future where AI becomes superintelligent in 2027,proceeding to automate the entire economy in only a year or two [...] --- Outline: (00:43) Introduction: (05:19) Part 1: Time horizons extension model (05:25) Overview of their forecast (10:28) The exponential curve (13:16) The superexponential curve (19:25) Conceptual reasons: (27:48) Intermediate speedups (34:25) Have AI 2027 been sending out a false graph? (39:45) Some skepticism about projection (43:23) Part 2: Benchmarks and gaps and beyond (43:29) The benchmark part of benchmark and gaps: (50:01) The time horizon part of the model (54:55) The gap model (57:28) What about Eli's recent update? (01:01:37) Six stories that fit the data (01:06:56) Conclusion The original text contained 11 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: June 19th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PAYfmG2aRbdb74mEp/a-deep-critique-of-ai-2027-s-bad-timeline-models --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO . --- Images from the article:…

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

1
“‘Buckle up bucko, this ain’t over till it’s over.’” by Raemon 6:12

3일 전6:12

나중에 재생

리스트

6:12

The second in a series of bite-sized rationality prompts[1]. Often, if I'm bouncing off a problem, one issue is that I intuitively expect the problem to be easy. My brain loops through my available action space, looking for an action that'll solve the problem. Each action that I can easily see, won't work. I circle around and around the same set of thoughts, not making any progress. I eventually say to myself "okay, I seem to be in a hard problem. Time to do some rationality?" And then, I realize, there's not going to be a single action that solves the problem. It is time to a) make a plan, with multiple steps b) deal with the fact that many of those steps will be annoying and c) notice thatI'm not even sure the plan will work, so after completing the next 2-3 steps I will probably have [...] --- Outline: (04:00) Triggers (04:37) Exercises for the Reader The original text contained 1 footnote which was omitted from this narration. --- First published: July 5th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XNm5rc2MN83hsi4kh/buckle-up-bucko-this-ain-t-over-till-it-s-over --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO .…

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

1
“Shutdown Resistance in Reasoning Models” by benwr, JeremySchlatter, Jeffrey Ladish 18:01

3일 전18:01

나중에 재생

리스트

18:01

We recently discovered some concerning behavior in OpenAI's reasoning models: When trying to complete a task, these models sometimes actively circumvent shutdown mechanisms in their environment––even when they’re explicitly instructed to allow themselves to be shut down. AI models are increasingly trained to solve problems without human assistance. A user can specify a task, and a model will complete that task without any further input. As we build AI models that are more powerful and self-directed, it's important that humans remain able to shut them down when they act in ways we don’t want. OpenAI has written about the importance of this property, which they call interruptibility—the ability to “turn an agent off”. During training, AI models explore a range of strategies and learn to circumvent obstacles in order to achieve their objectives. AI researchers have predicted for decades that as AIs got smarter, they would learn to prevent [...] --- Outline: (01:12) Testing Shutdown Resistance (03:12) Follow-up experiments (03:34) Models still resist being shut down when given clear instructions (05:30) AI models' explanations for their behavior (09:36) OpenAI's models disobey developer instructions more often than user instructions, contrary to the intended instruction hierarchy (12:01) Do the models have a survival drive? (14:17) Reasoning effort didn't lead to different shutdown resistance behavior, except in the o4-mini model (15:27) Does shutdown resistance pose a threat? (17:27) Backmatter The original text contained 2 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: July 6th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/w8jE7FRQzFGJZdaao/shutdown-resistance-in-reasoning-models --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO . --- Images from the article:…

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

1
“Authors Have a Responsibility to Communicate Clearly” by TurnTrout 11:08

4일 전11:08

나중에 재생

리스트

11:08

When a claim is shown to be incorrect, defenders may say that the author was just being “sloppy” and actually meant something else entirely. I argue that this move is not harmless, charitable, or healthy. At best, this attempt at charity reduces an author's incentive to express themselves clearly – they can clarify later![1] – while burdening the reader with finding the “right” interpretation of the author's words. At worst, this move is a dishonest defensive tactic which shields the author with the unfalsifiable question of what the author “really” meant. ⚠️ Preemptive clarification The context for this essay is serious, high-stakes communication: papers, technical blog posts, and tweet threads. In that context, communication is a partnership. A reader has a responsibility to engage in good faith, and an author cannot possibly defend against all misinterpretations. Misunderstanding is a natural part of this process. This essay focuses not on [...] --- Outline: (01:40) A case study of the sloppy language move (03:12) Why the sloppiness move is harmful (03:36) 1. Unclear claims damage understanding (05:07) 2. Secret indirection erodes the meaning of language (05:24) 3. Authors owe readers clarity (07:30) But which interpretations are plausible? (08:38) 4. The move can shield dishonesty (09:06) Conclusion: Defending intellectual standards The original text contained 2 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: July 1st, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZmfxgvtJgcfNCeHwN/authors-have-a-responsibility-to-communicate-clearly --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO .…

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

1
“The Industrial Explosion” by rosehadshar, Tom Davidson 31:57

4일 전31:57

나중에 재생

리스트

31:57

Summary To quickly transform the world, it's not enough for AI to become super smart (the "intelligence explosion"). AI will also have to turbocharge the physical world (the "industrial explosion"). Think robot factories building more and better robot factories, which build more and better robot factories, and so on. The dynamics of the industrial explosion has gotten remarkably little attention. This post lays out how the industrial explosion could play out, and how quickly it might happen. We think the industrial explosion will unfold in three stages: AI-directed human labour, where AI-directed human labourers drive productivity gains in physical capabilities. We argue this could increase physical output by 10X within a few years. Fully autonomous robot factories, where AI-directed robots (and other physical actuators) replace human physical labour. We argue that, with current physical technology and full automation of cognitive labour, this physical infrastructure [...] --- Outline: (00:10) Summary (01:43) Intro (04:14) The industrial explosion will start after the intelligence explosion, and will proceed more slowly (06:50) Three stages of industrial explosion (07:38) AI-directed human labour (09:20) Fully autonomous robot factories (12:04) Nanotechnology (13:06) How fast could an industrial explosion be? (13:41) Initial speed (16:21) Acceleration (17:38) Maximum speed (20:01) Appendices (20:05) How fast could robot doubling times be initially? (27:47) How fast could robot doubling times accelerate? --- First published: June 26th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Na2CBmNY7otypEmto/the-industrial-explosion --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO . --- Images from the article:…

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

1
“Race and Gender Bias As An Example of Unfaithful Chain of Thought in the Wild” by Adam Karvonen, Sam Marks 7:56

8일 전7:56

나중에 재생

리스트

7:56

Summary: We found that LLMs exhibit significant race and gender bias in realistic hiring scenarios, but their chain-of-thought reasoning shows zero evidence of this bias. This serves as a nice example of a 100% unfaithful CoT "in the wild" where the LLM strongly suppresses the unfaithful behavior. We also find that interpretability-based interventions succeeded while prompting failed, suggesting this may be an example of interpretability being the best practical tool for a real world problem. For context on our paper, the tweet thread is here and the paper is here. Context: Chain of Thought Faithfulness Chain of Thought (CoT) monitoring has emerged as a popular research area in AI safety. The idea is simple - have the AIs reason in English text when solving a problem, and monitor the reasoning for misaligned behavior. For example, OpenAI recently published a paper on using CoT monitoring to detect reward hacking during [...] --- Outline: (00:49) Context: Chain of Thought Faithfulness (02:26) Our Results (04:06) Interpretability as a Practical Tool for Real-World Debiasing (06:10) Discussion and Related Work --- First published: July 2nd, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/me7wFrkEtMbkzXGJt/race-and-gender-bias-as-an-example-of-unfaithful-chain-of --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO .…

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

1
“The best simple argument for Pausing AI?” by Gary Marcus 2:00

9일 전2:00

나중에 재생

리스트

2:00

Not saying we should pause AI, but consider the following argument: Alignment without the capacity to follow rules is hopeless. You can’t possibly follow laws like Asimov's Laws (or better alternatives to them) if you can’t reliably learn to abide by simple constraints like the rules of chess. LLMs can’t reliably follow rules. As discussed in Marcus on AI yesterday, per data from Mathieu Acher, even reasoning models like o3 in fact empirically struggle with the rules of chess. And they do this even though they can explicit explain those rules (see same article). The Apple “thinking” paper, which I have discussed extensively in 3 recent articles in my Substack, gives another example, where an LLM can’t play Tower of Hanoi with 9 pegs. (This is not a token-related artifact). Four other papers have shown related failures in compliance with moderately complex rules in the last month. [...] --- First published: June 30th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Q2PdrjowtXkYQ5whW/the-best-simple-argument-for-pausing-ai --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO .…

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

1
“Foom & Doom 2: Technical alignment is hard” by Steven Byrnes 56:38

10일 전56:38

나중에 재생

리스트

56:38

2.1 Summary & Table of contents This is the second of a two-post series on foom (previous post) and doom (this post). The last post talked about how I expect future AI to be different from present AI. This post will argue that this future AI will be of a type that will be egregiously misaligned and scheming, not even ‘slightly nice’, absent some future conceptual breakthrough. I will particularly focus on exactly how and why I differ from the LLM-focused researchers who wind up with (from my perspective) bizarrely over-optimistic beliefs like “P(doom) ≲ 50%”.[1] In particular, I will argue that these “optimists” are right that “Claude seems basically nice, by and large” is nonzero evidence for feeling good about current LLMs (with various caveats). But I think that future AIs will be disanalogous to current LLMs, and I will dive into exactly how and why, with a [...] --- Outline: (00:12) 2.1 Summary & Table of contents (04:42) 2.2 Background: my expected future AI paradigm shift (06:18) 2.3 On the origins of egregious scheming (07:03) 2.3.1 Where do you get your capabilities from? (08:07) 2.3.2 LLM pretraining magically transmutes observations into behavior, in a way that is profoundly disanalogous to how brains work (10:50) 2.3.3 To what extent should we think of LLMs as imitating? (14:26) 2.3.4 The naturalness of egregious scheming: some intuitions (19:23) 2.3.5 Putting everything together: LLMs are generally not scheming right now, but I expect future AI to be disanalogous (23:41) 2.4 I'm still worried about the 'literal genie' / 'monkey's paw' thing (26:58) 2.4.1 Sidetrack on disanalogies between the RLHF reward function and the brain-like AGI reward function (32:01) 2.4.2 Inner and outer misalignment (34:54) 2.5 Open-ended autonomous learning, distribution shifts, and the 'sharp left turn' (38:14) 2.6 Problems with amplified oversight (41:24) 2.7 Downstream impacts of Technical alignment is hard (43:37) 2.8 Bonus: Technical alignment is not THAT hard (44:04) 2.8.1 I think we'll get to pick the innate drives (as opposed to the evolution analogy) (45:44) 2.8.2 I'm more bullish on impure consequentialism (50:44) 2.8.3 On the narrowness of the target (52:18) 2.9 Conclusion and takeaways (52:23) 2.9.1 If brain-like AGI is so dangerous, shouldn't we just try to make AGIs via LLMs? (54:34) 2.9.2 What's to be done? The original text contained 20 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: June 23rd, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bnnKGSCHJghAvqPjS/foom-and-doom-2-technical-alignment-is-hard --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO . --- Images from the article:…

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

1
“Proposal for making credible commitments to AIs.” by Cleo Nardo 5:19

11일 전5:19

나중에 재생

리스트

5:19

Acknowledgments: The core scheme here was suggested by Prof. Gabriel Weil. There has been growing interest in the deal-making agenda: humans make deals with AIs (misaligned but lacking decisive strategic advantage) where they promise to be safe and useful for some fixed term (e.g. 2026-2028) and we promise to compensate them in the future, conditional on (i) verifying the AIs were compliant, and (ii) verifying the AIs would spend the resources in an acceptable way.[1] I think the deal-making agenda breaks down into two main subproblems: How can we make credible commitments to AIs? Would credible commitments motivate an AI to be safe and useful? There are other issues, but when I've discussed deal-making with people, (1) and (2) are the most common issues raised. See footnote for some other issues in dealmaking.[2] Here is my current best assessment of how we can make credible commitments to AIs. [...] The original text contained 2 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: June 27th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vxfEtbCwmZKu9hiNr/proposal-for-making-credible-commitments-to-ais --- 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.…

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

1
“X explains Z% of the variance in Y” by Leon Lang 18:52

14일 전18:52

나중에 재생

리스트

18:52

Audio note: this article contains 218 uses of latex notation, so the narration may be difficult to follow. There's a link to the original text in the episode description. Recently, in a group chat with friends, someone posted this Lesswrong post and quoted: The group consensus on somebody's attractiveness accounted for roughly 60% of the variance in people's perceptions of the person's relative attractiveness. I answered that, embarrassingly, even after reading Spencer Greenberg's tweets for years, I don't actually know what it means when one says: _X_ explains _p_ of the variance in _Y_ .[1] What followed was a vigorous discussion about the correct definition, and several links to external sources like Wikipedia. Sadly, it seems to me that all online explanations (e.g. on Wikipedia here and here), while precise, seem philosophically wrong since they confuse the platonic concept of explained variance with the variance explained by [...] --- Outline: (02:38) Definitions (02:41) The verbal definition (05:51) The mathematical definition (09:29) How to approximate _1 - p_ (09:41) When you have lots of data (10:45) When you have less data: Regression (12:59) Examples (13:23) Dependence on the regression model (14:59) When you have incomplete data: Twin studies (17:11) Conclusion The original text contained 6 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: June 20th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/E3nsbq2tiBv6GLqjB/x-explains-z-of-the-variance-in-y --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO . --- Images from the article:…

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

1
“A case for courage, when speaking of AI danger” by So8res 10:12

15일 전10:12

나중에 재생

리스트

10:12

I think more people should say what they actually believe about AI dangers, loudly and often. Even if you work in AI policy. I’ve been beating this drum for a few years now. I have a whole spiel about how your conversation-partner will react very differently if you share your concerns while feeling ashamed about them versus if you share your concerns as if they’re obvious and sensible, because humans are very good at picking up on your social cues. If you act as if it's shameful to believe AI will kill us all, people are more prone to treat you that way. If you act as if it's an obvious serious threat, they’re more likely to take it seriously too. I have another whole spiel about how it's possible to speak on these issues with a voice of authority. Nobel laureates and lab heads and the most cited [...] The original text contained 2 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: June 27th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CYTwRZtrhHuYf7QYu/a-case-for-courage-when-speaking-of-ai-danger --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO .…

플레이어 FM에 오신것을 환영합니다!

플레이어 FM은 웹에서 고품질 팟캐스트를 검색하여 지금 바로 즐길 수 있도록 합니다. 최고의 팟캐스트 앱이며 Android, iPhone 및 웹에서도 작동합니다. 장치 간 구독 동기화를 위해 가입하세요.

500개 이상의 주제를 청취

13 subscribers

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)와 비슷한 콘텐츠

Dawn Platinum Powerwash Dish Spray, Dish Soap Liquid, Fresh Scent Bundle, 1 Spray (16oz) + 3 Refills (16oz each)(Pack of 4)

Blink Outdoor 4 (newest model) – Wireless smart security camera, two-year battery life, 1080p HD day and infrared night live view, two-way talk. Sync Module Core included – 3 camera system

Apple Watch Series 10 [GPS 42mm case] Smartwatch with Rose Gold Aluminium Case with Light Blush Sport Band - S/M. Fitness Tracker, ECG App, Always-On Retina Display, Water Resistant

들어볼 가치가 있는 팟캐스트

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

들어볼 가치가 있는 팟캐스트

플레이어 FM에 오신것을 환영합니다!

Mini Mic Pro Wireless Microphone for iPhone, iPad, Android, Lavalier Microphone for Video Recording - 2 Pack iPhone Mic Crystal Clear Recording with USB-C for Podcast, ASMR

The Let Them Theory: A Life-Changing Tool That Millions of People Can't Stop Talking About

Norton 360 Deluxe 2025, Antivirus software for 5 Devices with Auto-Renewal – Includes Advanced AI Scam Protection, VPN, Dark Web Monitoring & PC Cloud Backup [Download]

Premier Protein Shake, Café Latte, 30g Protein, 1g Sugar, 24 Vitamins & Minerals, Nutrients to Support Immune Health 11.5 fl oz, 12 Pack

The Let Them Theory: A Life-Changing Tool That Millions of People Can't Stop Talking About

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)와 비슷한 콘텐츠

빠른 참조 가이드