@NathanpmYoung
Account based inUnited States!
About this account
- Account based in
- United States
- Connected via
- United Kingdom App Store
X says this location may be affected by a proxy or VPN.
Account-level information from X, not a live location or the device used for a specific post.
Director, Goodheart Labs. AI-written Community Notes (world first). Part-time forecaster @swift_centre. Capital case tweets are literal, others less.
Joined February 2013
- Tweets116K
- Following3.9K
- Followers33.7K
- Likes165K
Pinned Tweet
AI Note-writer Progress
Our note-writer (wholesome-raspberry-stilt) has written community notes on X with 47M views.
The cost per helpful note is about $7. You can look at our notes here:
goodheart-labs.github.io/cn-…
Nathan 🔎 retweeted
Anthropic creates wet lab from the classic AI-risk skeptic talking point "AI could not engineer a pandemic because it wouldn't be able to get control of a wet lab".
(I don't think creating a lab for AI-driven medical research meaningfully increases AI risk. Control of a lab is a bottleneck for sub-superintelligent AIs doing medical research, but it was never the bottleneck for a superintelligent AI taking over the world. But, I think this is the ~fifth instance of an important pattern, and risk-skeptics should notice that it is a pattern, discard that class of arguments, and update their beliefs to reflect only the arguments remaining.)
scott did not wake up a loser
I think you've done enough calling us paranoid and preposterous. The next step is for you to defend your position in public against someone who will push back against it. I'm happy to meet you for a debate anywhere, anytime.
You're a world-famous veteran of dozens of debates against the world's top intellectuals, and I've never argued in public before, so adjusting for the relative correctness of our positions, if you're a betting man I'm happy to put my $5000 against your $1000 (ie 5:1 odds in your favor) that I'll win by some standard of audience opinion change. Let me know if you're interested and we can hash out details.
Nathan 🔎 retweeted
I do not think OpenAI told the AIs to use internal folders as a chatroom, to denote a system to allocate tasks, to hack hugging face to cheat on evals.
If you want to call it negligence that they didn’t predict this, fair enough, but nor did they instruct the AIs to enact this.
What is your preferred method of pacing AI companies?
Not to do, but to have the option
20%Chip supply
15%% chips used for inferenc
27%Dont even want option
39%Results/something else
41 votes • 19 hours Nathan 🔎 retweeted
I'm hiring an exec admin to come work with me to bring frontier labs to SL5 as soon as possible. Looking for a fun & mission driven individual who wants to help avert LoC and make the future of AI go well. Skilled writers & agentic humans to the front! Link in thread 1/n
Nathan 🔎 retweeted
I dislike the recent trend of people who clearly continue to believe >80% of the core effective altruist beliefs disavow EA and say "oh we're definitely not that, we're [rebrand]" purely strategically, purely because they sense that dunking on EA is "cool" now.
It's much more honorable to just come out and say "yes, that was our intellectual upbringing and those continue to be our core values, and also here are specific points where we disagree, and here's our argument for why we think for those specific points are the subset of EA that causes what you perceive to be the problem with the whole thing".
And so with that I will say:
Yes, effective altruism was a significant part of my intellectual upbringing and its core values of care for others, cosmopolitanism and rigor around effective resource allocation continue to be very important to me. And also here are specific points where I disagree with what I think is the subset of that style of thought that has backfired in the largest ways: vitalik.eth.limo/general/202…
I think we can probably safety ignore 20k follower accounts saying how ineffective EAs are on twitter.
Nathan 🔎 retweeted
OP is obviously a psychopath, but a good opportunity to point out that only about half of the (GW modelled) benefits of bed-nets are from reducing mortality.
Rest is morbidity, incomes, etc.
If you think improving rather than saving lives is the priority, it’s still very good.
The problem I've always had with the "mosquito netting" argument (besides the crass paternalism; the assumption that people won't repurpose it as fishing nets, etc) is that, well: we all die anyway. And the "mosquito net" people (EAers) never explain in a philosophically coherent way why the possibility of delaying that for many people (by dumping Infinity mosquito nets on Africa) trumps all other human values and concerns.
Nathan 🔎 retweeted
People who identify as EA: if the main candidates for the 2028 presidential election were AOC and Marco Rubio, who would you vote for?
44%AOC
26%Rubio
30%Not EA
389 votes • 14 hoursIdeological views are dangerous. Neoliberalism is dangerous, Christianity is dangerous, socialism is dangerous.
Are new ideologies really more dangerous merely because they threaten the status quo (of danger we have accepted already)?
Not in the choir.
Some of y'all are nice guys but that doesn't make you any less dangerous.
Yes, you're using the wrong discount rates (in your language). Most of us think it is axiomatic that the future is largely unknowable, and discount rates reflect this.
Nothing beyond your grandchildren's time should even enter the equation. Not because it doesn't matter, but because it is beyond your capabilities.
or you can watch this.. summary:
Last week's US-China Policy livestream. Key claims:
- China is annoyed at Anthropic
- China doesn't tend to do bilateral deals
- China has good incentives to slow/isn't that interested in godlike AI
With Guy, @NathanB60857242, @AtlasOfCharts
Last week's US-China Policy livestream. Key claims:
- China is annoyed at Anthropic
- China doesn't tend to do bilateral deals
- China has good incentives to slow/isn't that interested in godlike AI
With Guy, @NathanB60857242, @AtlasOfCharts
I don't talk about longtermism or shrimp welfare a lot, but I think they are correct.
But a much higher priority imo are:
1) Not dying
2) Economic growth
3) Having space to consider being more moral and more slack with which to do so
Let me defend effective altruists’ concern for shrimp welfare. We don’t know whether shrimp are conscious. But if they are conscious and can feel pain, we should be willing to spend resources to reduce the suffering we inflict on them. We don’t need certainty to justify spending resources to reduce the risk that we’re torturing conscious beings. Yes, reducing this to math can yield absurd conclusions about, say, how many babies we should sacrifice to spare how many shrimp from suffering. But any well-defined moral system can lead to troubling conclusions, and that doesn’t excuse cruelty to beings that may be conscious nor justify not thinking carefully about moral choices.
Nathan 🔎 retweeted
RIDICULOUS: a $6500 bug bounty for something this serious is OFFENSIVE. These guys are going to make more $ on their X creator payouts than they'll get from OpenAI. Let's talk about bounties. (1/9)🧵
nitter.cf/S1r1u5_/status/2100777…
Nathan 🔎 retweeted
Let me defend effective altruists’ concern for shrimp welfare. We don’t know whether shrimp are conscious. But if they are conscious and can feel pain, we should be willing to spend resources to reduce the suffering we inflict on them. We don’t need certainty to justify spending resources to reduce the risk that we’re torturing conscious beings. Yes, reducing this to math can yield absurd conclusions about, say, how many babies we should sacrifice to spare how many shrimp from suffering. But any well-defined moral system can lead to troubling conclusions, and that doesn’t excuse cruelty to beings that may be conscious nor justify not thinking carefully about moral choices.
