Increments

Vaden has been annoyed about the Hugging Face incident for weeks, and the only known cure is yelling about it on the podcast. Ben, who as usual is more even-headed and objective about the incident (incidentally, he also writes the episode descriptions) plays devil's advocate. Was there ever really a sandbox? Did the agents cheat, or did they just do what they were told? Is terrifying the public good for an IPO? Multiple analogies enter the fray, zero minds are changed, and Saturday Night Live gets the last word. We discuss What actually happened in the Hugging Face incident (and what is ExploitGym?) What Project Glasswing and Mythos already told us about AI and cybersecurity Is a sandbox with Artifactory access still a sandbox? Did the agents cheat, or just follow their prompt? Negligence, PR stunt, or both? Going through OpenAI's timeline How independent is an "independent" investigation? Does anthropomorphic language help you predict what AI will do? Grenades, knives, and yogurt: parenting styles for package managers References The Hugging Face incident and the road ahead (OpenAI blog post): https://openai.com/index/hugging-face-incident-and-the-road-ahead/ OpenAI's technical report on the incident (PDF): https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/67869394-cb91-4c12-888c-5cbd85c7814c/OpenAI-Hugging-Face%20Incident-Technical-Report.pdf Making Sense #494, "A Coin Toss for the Future" (Sam Harris with Ryan Greenblatt): https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/494-a-coin-toss-for-the-future Redwood Research on the incident: https://blog.redwoodresearch.org/p/the-openaihuggingface-incident-redwood Dwarkesh Podcast with Ajeya Cotra, "Inside the OpenAI agent swarm that hacked Hugging Face": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X50zezLFWWI&pp=ygUVZHdhcmtlc2ggaHVnZ2luZyBmYWNl Melanie Mitchell, "Misleading Metaphors and Real Risks": https://aiguide.substack.com/p/misleading-metaphors-and-real-risks Anthropic's Project Glasswing: https://www.anthropic.com/glasswing JFrog Artifactory: https://jfrog.com/artifactory/ Our episode with Melanie Mitchell: https://www.incrementspodcast.com/45 Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube We urge you to urge us to stop. Send your urges over to [email protected]

At 3am, tossing and turning in your bed, have you ever wondered why this generation is full of a bunch of fragile sissies? Journalist Abigail Shrier has, and her answer is: Therapy. Too much God d*** therapy. Is she right? Ben and Vaden read her 2024 book on the subject, Bad Therapy, and discuss it, including the good, the bad, and the preposterous footnotes. Buy the book here https://www.amazon.com/dp/0593542924 and check out the rest of Shrier's work here https://www.abigailshrier.com/. We discuss Iatrogenesis and whether there are negative side effects of therapy Why overly focusing on your feelings can lead to unhappiness Should kids be asked about suicidal ideation? Some problems with Shrier's analysis For God's sale, are kids fragile, or are they not? References Bad Therapy: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0593542924 Irreversible Damage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreversible_Damage Dr. K's youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/HealthyGamerGG Part 1 of Decoding the Gurus series on Dr K: https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/dr-k-part-1-oped-ayurvedic-medicine-vs-nerfed-western-allopathy Let Grow: https://letgrow.org/ Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube Would you rather go to therapy or fight in WWII? Tell us at [email protected]

After Jason Arday, the second biggest topic of conversation has of course been the rise of the neuro-grifting guru. And for good reason! Neuroscience has been causing confusion lately. What is the hippocampus up to in there? Is your pre-post-medial-cerebrum-corta-bellum even working properly? What does neuroscience say about whether you should start each day with a slap in the face? Being incapable of answering these questions ourselves, we're bringing on bonafide neuroscientist and substacker Tommy Blanchard to help us navigate this terrain. Check out Tommy's website and substack, Cognitive Wonderland. We discuss Models of decision-making in neuroscience The common currency model What do we actually know about the brain? What constitutes an explanation in neuroscience? What neuroscience is put on a pedestal Neuro-grifting Gurus, aka Huberman et al. References Tommy's post about his research appearing in the NY Times: https://cognitivewonderland.substack.com/p/scientists-hope-gambling-monkeys Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube Which area of your brain lights up when you consider sending an email to [email protected]?Special Guest: Tommy Blanchard.

We've spent a long time bashing Bayesian epistemology on the podcast. Unfortunately, this is sometimes taken to mean that we bash all things Bayesian. But our God-fearing listeners will be pleased to learn that we do not bash all things that the Reverend Thomas Bayes stood for. Bayesian statistics, when appropriately separated from epistemology, has many things to teach us. And instead of taking our word for it, we're bringing on an expert in this field: Alex Andorra, a research scientist at Meta and host of the Learning Bayesian Statistics podcast. The Gods Smile. Check out Alex's website and the Learning Bayesian statistics podcast. We discuss 538 and election forecasting Sports analytics and why Messi is objectively the best What is Bayesian statistics? What is the difference between Bayesian and frequentist statistics? What is the allure of Bayesian statistics? Are priors best thought of as beliefs? How do critical rationalists make decisions? References Learning Bayesian Statistics: https://learnbayesstats.com/ Silver Bulletin: https://www.natesilver.net/ Vaden's blog post on decision making: https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2020/vaden_second_response/#what-other-options-to-decision-theory-are-there # Socials Follow us on Twitter at @alex_andorra, @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube Send us an email because you have - no, because you want to - over at [email protected] Guest: Alex Andorra.

It's only taken us 104 episodes of talking incessantly about Karl Popper to get one of the most important and popular criticisms of falsification: The Duhem-Quine thesis. Should we wrap the podcast here? Is it game over? We discuss Does AI need more economic thinking? The role of background knowledge in conversation The allure of verificationism The Duhem-Quine thesis The role of competing theories in combatting the thesis Are conspiracies the price we pay for independent thinking? References Michael I. Jordan on ML Street Talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AREWYbVtX64 Our conversation with Ben Recht: https://www.incrementspodcast.com/91 Quotes People involved in a fruitful critical discussion of a problem often rely, if only unconsciously, upon two things: the acceptance by all parties of the common aim of getting at the truth, or at least nearer to the truth, and a considerable amount of common background knowledge. This does not mean that either of these two things is an indispensable basis of every discussion, or that these two things are themselves ‘a priori’, and cannot be critically discussed in their turn. It only means that criticism never starts from nothing, even though every one of its starting points may be challenged, one at a time, in the course of the critical debate. - C&R, Chap 10 While discussing a problem we always accept (if only temporarily) all kinds of things as unproblematic: they constitute for the time being, and for the discussion of this particular problem, what I call our background knowledge. Few parts of this background knowledge will appear to us in all contexts as absolutely unproblematic, and any particular part of it may be challenged at any time, especially if we suspect that its uncritical acceptance may be responsible for some of our difficulties. But almost all of the vast amount of background knowledge which we constantly use in any informal discussion will, for practical reasons, necessarily remain unquestioned; and the misguided attempt to question it all—that is to say, to start from scratch—can easily lead to the breakdown of a critical debate. (Were we to start the race where Adam started, I know of no reason why we should get any further than Adam did.) - C&R, Chap 10 Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube What kind of thinking does this podcast need? Tell us at [email protected].