The first cohort of ACX Grants was announced in late 2021, the second in early 2024. In 2022, I posted one-year updates for the first cohort. Now, as I start thinking about a third round, I’ve collected one-year updates on the second and three-year updates on the first. Many people said my request for updates went to their spam folder; relatedly, many people have not yet sent in their updates. If you’re a grantee who didn’t see my original email, but you do see this post, please fill in the update form here. All quote blocks are the grantees’ own words; text outside of quote blocks is my commentary. https://readscottalexander.com/posts/acx-acx-grants-1-3-year-updates
--------
1:14:17
The Claude Bliss Attractor
This is a reported phenomenon where if two copies of Claude talk to each other, they end up spiraling into rapturous discussion of spiritual bliss, Buddhism, and the nature of consciousness. From the system card: Anthropic swears they didn’t do this on purpose; when they ask Claude why this keeps happening, Claude can’t explain. Needless to say, this has made lots of people freak out / speculate wildly. I think there are already a few good partial explanations of this (especially Nostalgebraist here), but they deserve to be fleshed out and spread more fully. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-claude-bliss-attractor
--------
14:36
"But" vs. "Yes, But"
This is another heuristic from the same place as If It’s Worth Your Time To Lie, It’s Worth My Time To Correct You. If someone proves you are absolutely, 100% wrong about something, it’s polite to say “Oh, I guess I was wrong, sorry” before launching into your next argument. That is, instead of: https://readscottalexander.com/posts/acx-but-vs-yes-but
--------
4:27
If It's Worth Your Time To Lie, It's Worth My Time To Correct It
People don’t like nitpickers. “He literally did the WELL AKTUALLY!” If you say Joe Criminal committed ten murders and five rapes, and I object that it was actually only six murders and two rapes, then why am I “defending” Joe Criminal? Because if it’s worth your time to lie, it’s worth my time to correct it. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/if-its-worth-your-time-to-lie-its
--------
5:24
P-Zombies Would Report Qualia
There’s a long-running philosophical argument about the conceivability of otherwise-normal people who are not conscious, aka “philosophical zombies”. This has spawned a shorter-running (only fifteen years!) rationalist sub-argument on the topic. The last time I checked its status was this post, which says: 1. Both Yudkowsky and Chalmers agree that humans possess “qualia”. 2. Chalmers argues that a superintelligent being which somewhow knew the positions of all particles in a large region of the Universe would need to be told as an additional fact that any humans (or other minds possessing qualia) in this region of space possess qualia – it could not deduce this from mere perfect physical knowledge of their constituent particles. Therefore, qualia are in some sense extra-physical. 3. Yudkowsky argues that such a being would notice that humans discuss at length the fact that they possess qualia, and their internal narratives also represent this fact. It is extraordinarily improbable that beings would behave in this manner if they did not actually possess qualia. Therefore an omniscient being would conclude that it is extremely likely that humans possess qualia. Therefore, qualia are not extra-physical. I want to re-open this (sorry!) by disagreeing with the bolded sentence. I think beings would talk about qualia - the “mysterious redness of red” and all that - even if we start by assuming they don’t have it. I realize this is a surprising claim, but that’s why it’s interesting enough to re-open the argument over1. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/p-zombies-would-report-qualia
Canada - english