17 years old, I’m interested in AI alignment, rationaluty & philosophy, economy and politics.
Crazy philosopher
Karma: 0
This is a distinction between pleasure and happiness.
I wrote about distinction between pleasure and happiness later in the article.
My model is this: there are different experiences. Each one give some amount of long-term happiness and pleasure. But there’s no big correlation between these 2 things.
Although in short term, pleasure does bring happiness, so if you do something pleasant, you would be happy while you do it and unhappy when you not.
But there are many nuances here that I did not mention. For example, if you have strict schedule like home/work, your brain will create a default level of pleasure for each activity. This way, you would not suffer during all work hours and won’t feel overwhelming pleasure all the time at home.
I sometimes argue that even the common drive to variety is distinct from hedonic adaptation
I think drive to variety is all about happiness, not pleasure.
Do you disagree with my model, or do you think I should add those remarks to the post ?
For the third- yes, I mean exactly it.
I’m interesting on your model, but I didn’t understand it, because this comment is too abstract. Can you give few example that proof your hypothesis, please?
I have few ideas about improving lesswrong.
Creation of list of articles read. Sometimes I remember some post and realize, that I’ve forgotten an idea from it, even though I need it. I want to reread it, but usually I can’t find it.You know how there’s a “Watch Later” list on YouTube? It would be great to have something similar on LessWrong for articles.Also, what about some kind of paid subscription? The absence of one is the reason why Scott Alexander doesn’t write on LessWrong, and why I was considering posting on Substack, even though I appreciate LessWrong’s policy of not rewarding dislikes and the people here.
(than I decided to just add a link to my Boosty in future posts and say that I won’t publish much going forward unless I receive some financial support—assuming, of course, that my posts get a lot of karma)Edit: first 2 points actually exist on LW
Ok, I see.
I think that [awareness that the other kind of person even exists, at all] is sorely lacking, and spreading that awareness is a noble and important goal in and of itself
An explanation here:
People in the same social circle are very similar. Maybe, there are fundamental things like low education or low IQ, which influence a lot of parameters, and [egoism/don’t trying to hide egoism] is one of them. Peoples with low education are similar in a lot of things so they become friends. So someone with low education or IQ would know a lot of bad peoples, and that with higher education would know a lot of good people.
I know a lot of peoples in my high school, and I see strong negative correlation between notes and egoism/don’t trying to hide egoism (I mean, I don’t know what is it exactly. I saw few peoples who was wary nice with friends but was egoist with peoples they newer know)
Light bulbs, phones and laptops consume ≈0 energy. Don’t skimp on them.
Edit: more precisely- cost of 1 hour of working of:
A light bulbs≈ $0.01/hour and ten time less for an energy-saving one
A phone≈ $0.0017
A laptop≈ $0.01
It is a false dilemma. Just call your articles so that everyone understands the meaning, and let the new people to read each important thing they don’t know (they may know something before comming to community), and the oldfags to don’t reread things thay already know.
Lol, so now, any video about an ineffective method of psychological therapy may end by “they are really dark side psychiatrists”
It’s not a rhetorical question
Do you mean “any believe” by “myth” ?
Any large-scale human cooperation—whether a modern state, a medieval church, an ancient city, or an archaic tribe—is rooted in common myths that exist only in people’s collective imagination. Churches are rooted in common religious myths. Two Catholics who have never met can nevertheless go together on crusade or pool funds to build a hospital because they both believe that God was incarnated in human flesh and allowed Himself to be crucified to redeem our sins. States are rooted in common national myths. Two Serbs who have never met might risk their lives to save one another because both believe in the existence of the Serbian nation, the Serbian homeland, and the Serbian flag. Judicial systems are rooted in common legal myths. Two lawyers who have never met can nevertheless combine efforts to defend a complete stranger because they both believe in the existence of laws, justice, human rights—all of which are simply stories that people invent and tell one another.
Two Serbs would help one other because of their values fonction, not because they believe in lie.
Two lawyers would defend a stranger because he is going to pay them, and thay can’t just rob you because policemens will punish them hardly, and they believe that a stranger will pay them because elsewhere policemens would punish hardly him.
We also hate hate and love love
An other problem with authors calculs of potential to improve intelligence: let’s suppose, there is a problem in the human brain that reduces IQ by 10 points, and it can be solved by Gene1 or Gene2. Let’s suppose that 99% of humans do not have either Gene1 or Gene2. In this case, the author’s method would show that if we added both Gene1 and Gene2 to the same person, their IQ would increase by 20 points.
Eliezer Yudkowsky is trying to prevent the creation of recursively self-improved AGI because he doesn’t want competitors.
So if one day you decided that P of X ≈ 1, you would remember “it’s true but I’m not sure” after one year?
Coral should to try to be a white hacker for Mr. Topaz company. Mr. Topaz would agree, because Coral say, that if she didn’t success she don’t take money, so he lose nothing. After few times, when Coral hacked all drons software in one hour after presentation of its new version, mr. Topaz would understand, that security is important.
Can you tell us what exactly led to “something” explosion? Does something change in your life before?
Our discussion look like:
Me: we can do X, that mean do X1, X2 and X3.
You: we can fall on X2 by way Y.
Do you mean “we should to think about Y before realize plan X” or “plan X definitely fall because of Y”?
A question to better understand your opinion: if all alignment community would try to realize Political Plan with all efforts they do now to align an AI directly, what do you think is the probability of success of alignment?
Can you explain with few exemples what do you mean by “more complicated”?