For those who might not understand, Thomas is treating agreement-or-not on each bullet point as a 1 or 0, and stringing them together as a binary number to create a bitmask.
(I’m using the 0b prefix to represent a number written in its binary format.)
This means that 127 = 0b1111111 corresponds to agreeing with all seven bullet points, and 25 = 0b0011001 corresponds to agreeing with only the 3rd, 4th and 7th bullet points.
(Note that the binary number is read from left-to-right in this case, so bullet point 1 corresponds to the “most-significant” (left-most) bit.)
Most of the opinions in the list sound so whacky that 0 is likely the default position of someone outside Less Wrong. I’ve been here a few months, and read most of the Sequences, but none of the bits in my own bitmap has flipped. Sorry Eliezer!
The odd thing is that I find myself understanding almost exactly why Eliezer holds these opinions, and the perfectly lucid reasoning leading to them, and yet I still don’t agree with them. A number of them are opinions I’d already considered myself or held myself at some point, but then later rejected. Or I hold a rather more nuanced or agnostic position than I used to.
What is the number of the most relevant points from the Sequences? The Grognor’s selection of those 7 may not be the best. Let me try:
BitNumber Statement
0 Intelligence explosion is likely in a (near) future
1 FOOM is possible to occur
2 Total reductionism
3 Bayesism is greater than science
4 Action to save the world is a must
5 No (near) aliens
6 FAI or die
7 CEV is the way to go
8 MWI
9 Evolution is stupid and slow
Now, I agree with those from 0 to 5 (first six) in this list I’ve select. The binary number wold be “111111” or 63 in the decimal notation. They were not new to me, all 10 of them.
Yudkowsky’s fiction is just great, BTW. The “Three world collide” may the the best story I have ever read.
I’d like to point out that CEV is not in the sequences, and it looks mostly like a starting point idea from which to springboard to the “true” way to build an FAI.
(This isn’t addressed at you, Thomas.)
For those who might not understand, Thomas is treating agreement-or-not on each bullet point as a 1 or 0, and stringing them together as a binary number to create a bitmask.
(I’m using the
0bprefix to represent a number written in its binary format.)This means that 127 = 0b1111111 corresponds to agreeing with all seven bullet points, and 25 = 0b0011001 corresponds to agreeing with only the 3rd, 4th and 7th bullet points.
(Note that the binary number is read from left-to-right in this case, so bullet point 1 corresponds to the “most-significant” (left-most) bit.)
Excellently explained. Now, do we have 127?
Anyone else voting for 0?
Most of the opinions in the list sound so whacky that 0 is likely the default position of someone outside Less Wrong. I’ve been here a few months, and read most of the Sequences, but none of the bits in my own bitmap has flipped. Sorry Eliezer!
The odd thing is that I find myself understanding almost exactly why Eliezer holds these opinions, and the perfectly lucid reasoning leading to them, and yet I still don’t agree with them. A number of them are opinions I’d already considered myself or held myself at some point, but then later rejected. Or I hold a rather more nuanced or agnostic position than I used to.
What is the number of the most relevant points from the Sequences? The Grognor’s selection of those 7 may not be the best. Let me try:
BitNumber Statement
0 Intelligence explosion is likely in a (near) future
1 FOOM is possible to occur
2 Total reductionism
3 Bayesism is greater than science
4 Action to save the world is a must
5 No (near) aliens
6 FAI or die
7 CEV is the way to go
8 MWI
9 Evolution is stupid and slow
Now, I agree with those from 0 to 5 (first six) in this list I’ve select. The binary number wold be “111111” or 63 in the decimal notation. They were not new to me, all 10 of them.
Yudkowsky’s fiction is just great, BTW. The “Three world collide” may the the best story I have ever read.
I’d like to point out that CEV is not in the sequences, and it looks mostly like a starting point idea from which to springboard to the “true” way to build an FAI.
I don’t care, if the teaching is divided between Sequences and elsewhere.
If I intended to encode my beliefs (which I don’t), I couldn’t, because I don’t:
know what’s the precise difference between 0 and 1
understand 2 - what’s total reductionism, especially in contrast to ordinary reductionism
see any novel insight in 9, which leads me to suspect I am missing the point