Eliezer Yudkowsky

Although such a fascinating bug.

But yeah, so like reasoning, like it's doing pretty well on various tests that people used to say would require reasoning.

But, you know, rationality is about when you say 80%, does it happen eight times out of 10?

It's, I don't think it's as smart as human yet.

I do, like back in the day, I went around saying, like, I do not think that just stacking more layers of transformers is going to get you all the way to AGI.

And I think that GPT-4 is past where I thought this paradigm was going to take us.

And I, you know, you want to notice when that happens.

You want to say like, whoops, well, I guess I was incorrect about what happens if you keep on stacking more transformer layers.

And that means I don't necessarily know what GPT-5 is going to be able to do.

I'd rather not be wrong next time.

It's a bit ambitious to go through your entire life never having been wrong.

one can aspire to be well-calibrated, like not so much think in terms of like, was I right, was I wrong, but like when I said 90% that it happened nine times out of 10.

Yeah, like oops is the sound we make, is the sound we emit when we improve.

I suppose that's the objective function.

The name less wrong was, I believe, suggested by Nick Bostrom, and it's after someone's epigraph, I actually forget whose, who said, like, we never become right, we just become less wrong.

What's the something?

Something that's easy to confess, just error and error and error again, but less and less and less.

I mean, the beauty does interact with the screaming horror.

Is the beauty in the horror?

But like beautiful moments, well, somebody asked GPT,