Coacher

• Coacher 30 May 2016 12:18 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: root’s comment on: Open Thread May 23 - May 29, 2016

  How do you solve interpersonal problems when neither sides can see themselves as the one in fault?

  Is there any other kind?

• Coacher 12 Apr 2016 8:52 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Open Thread April 11 - April 17, 2016

  I wanted to recommend she applied for graphic design and video editing work which she is talented in, since she isn’t sure what she can do career-wise, but now it’s too late. I wanted to watch I, origins with her since it reflects our story. But now it’s too late. I wanted to watch her favourite movie: ‘one day’ with her, which also reflects our story, but not it’s too late. I wanted to hand write her a letter, but now it’s too late. I wanted to suprise her after or during work, but now it’s too late. I want to share with her ⁶⁄₇ major secrets (the 7th being my passwords...), to show her how looked as a kit, and to ‘dine at the y’ but not it’s too late. She pushed away when I sent her a goodmorning text, with a love heart at the end.

  Well at least, your accounts are safe now.

• Coacher 5 Apr 2016 13:43 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: buybuydandavis’s comment on: What makes buy­ing in­surance ra­tio­nal?

  Having this in mind, could it be possible to construct such roulette betting system, which have positive expected utility value?

• Coacher 1 Apr 2016 10:47 UTC

  4 points

  on: What makes buy­ing in­surance ra­tio­nal?

  Buying insurance is rational for low chance, high cost (i.e. bigger than what you have in your bank account at the moment) risks. It is not rational for low cost risks, like loosing your phone, unless you tend to loose your phone more often than insurance companies accounts for.

• Coacher 14 Mar 2016 12:04 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: Daniel_Burfoot’s comment on: Open thread, Mar. 14 - Mar. 20, 2016

  Another hypothesis—the smarter you sound the less friends you tend to have.

• Coacher 14 Mar 2016 12:03 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: Daniel_Burfoot’s comment on: Open thread, Mar. 14 - Mar. 20, 2016

  Could it also be, that being rational deprives portion of CPU/​RAM of human brains, that would otherwise be used for something better?

• Coacher 12 Mar 2016 15:03 UTC

  0 points

  on: After Go, what games should be next for Deep­Mind?

  I’ll be scared, when they do Counter Strike.

• Coacher 9 Mar 2016 11:23 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: mako yass’s comment on: Many Wor­lds against Si­mu­la­tion?

  The problem here is that we are talking about two different concepts—experienced moments (as in antophics) and Everett branches (as in Many Words). There is a way to think of them as the same, but they not necessary are. Like if there is Bob before measuring spin, and two Bobs—Bob-up and Bob-down, after measuring, what is bigger probability to experience—being bob before measuring spin or being bob after measuring spin? (TBH I have no idea)

• Coacher 9 Mar 2016 9:31 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Dagon’s comment on: Many Wor­lds against Si­mu­la­tion?

  By “measures as” I mean as in what was the probability to experience exact this moment, from the set of all possible moments that “exists” (or can be experienced). And by “measures as 1” I mean, that if several physical “carriers” produces exact same experience, that counts as 1 experience in the grand total set of experiences, and probability to feel exactly that is 1/​(count of all different experiences). Now I know this is controversial and counter intuitive. But still this is quite plausible, given what we even know about consciousness. Like, if consciousness emerges on the level of algorithms and logic, then why would it care, how many physical things produces it? If one were asked, how many movies about human pretending to be blue alien on planet Pandora does he know, the answer would probably be 1 and not the number of digital Avatar copies ever made.

• Coacher 8 Mar 2016 9:00 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: turchin’s comment on: Many Wor­lds against Si­mu­la­tion?

  I agree with criticism for 2 assumption. Although I have this intuition (based on possibly very wrong intuitions I have about QM), that argument still works even without it: Imagine same human runs the simulation. Then he goes to another table where he runs spin measuring experiment, with ⁵⁰⁄₅₀ probability of getting either up or down. After seeing the result, there is now two different consciousness of him, but there is still just one copy of simulated brains as they did not saw the result.

Many Wor­lds against Si­mu­la­tion?

• Coacher 4 Mar 2016 12:45 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: turchin’s comment on: AI as a re­s­olu­tion to the Fermi Para­dox.

  Also, what if intelligent life is just a rare event? Like not rare enough to explain Fermi paradox by itself, but rare enough, that we could be considered among earliest and therefore surprisingly early in the history of universe? Given how long universe will last, we actually are quite early: https://​​en.wikipedia.org/​​wiki/​​Timeline_of_the_far_future

• Coacher 4 Mar 2016 9:13 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: Coacher’s comment on: AI as a re­s­olu­tion to the Fermi Para­dox.

  On the other hand I don’t see, why AI that does spread can not be a great filter. Lets assume:

  1. Every advanced civilization creates AI soon after creating radio.

  2. Every AI spreads immediately (hard take off) and does that in near speed of light.

  3. Every AI that reaches us, immediately kills us.

  4. We have not seen any AI and we are still alive. That can only be explained by anthropic principle—every advanced civilization, that have at least bit more advanced neighbors is already dead. Every advanced civilization, that have at least bit less advanced neighbors, have not seen them, as they have not yet invented radio. This solves Fermi paradox and we can still hope to see some primitive life forms in other planets. (also AI may be approaching us at speed of light and will wipe us out any moment now)

• Coacher 4 Mar 2016 8:49 UTC

  1 point

  on: AI as a re­s­olu­tion to the Fermi Para­dox.

  For hypothesis to hold AI needs to:

  1. Kill their creators efficiently.

  2. Don’t spread

  3. Do both these things every time any AI is created with near 100% success ratio.

  Seems a lot of presumptions, with no good arguments for any of them?

• Coacher 2 Mar 2016 9:50 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: argella42’s comment on: Open Thread Feb 29 - March 6, 2016

  Can it predict something real/​measurable?

• Coacher 1 Mar 2016 18:23 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: turchin’s comment on: If there IS alien su­per-in­teligence in our own galaxy, then what it could be like?

  Adding additional unneeded assumptions does not make hypothesis more likely. Just halting and not leaving any retarded children explains observations just as well if not better.

• Coacher 1 Mar 2016 18:18 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: James_Miller’s comment on: If there IS alien su­per-in­teligence in our own galaxy, then what it could be like?

  Then why would they even contact those few people?

• Coacher 1 Mar 2016 18:06 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: RedErin’s comment on: If there IS alien su­per-in­teligence in our own galaxy, then what it could be like?

  Compared to what alternative?

• Coacher 1 Mar 2016 18:03 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: turchin’s comment on: If there IS alien su­per-in­teligence in our own galaxy, then what it could be like?

  1. This looks far fetched, but interesting strategy. Does it perhaps ever occur in nature? I.e. do any predators wait for their prey to become stronger/​smarter, before luring them into the trap?

  2. I guess they could, but to what end?

  3. Why wait?

• Coacher 1 Mar 2016 17:31 UTC

  −4 points

  in reply to: argella42’s comment on: Open Thread Feb 29 - March 6, 2016

  Freud said its all because we want to f* our mothers.