make your dabbling in “logic/math/AI” a “learning how to program” at least doubling your income.
A minor point: this coul probably work in the US, but it doesn’t in Italy. Average salary for a good programmer (not outstanding, but at least experienced) is around $25k. It should also be noted that the cost of living in Italy is slightly lower, so $20K per year, while not impressive, it’s still a decent salary.
6) Though topics in which the highest information flow could be achieved are usually abandoned, they are brought back in the beggining of new interactions if the people keep seeing each other for a few days, still as usual they slowly fade away.
7) When the button of friendship is really surely deep down pushed, they talk almost always about what doesn’t matter, such as niche gossip, daily events, what they did since last interaction—I mean, how likely is it that in those 26 years, the best I’ve done happened in the last 2 days? - This obviously is a bad thing, and under our assumption that they either want to know more or do better, it is a cost for both.
This sounds strange, and it doesn’t match with my experience at all. In fact, things tend often to go the opposite way: when I get to meet a new person, initial conversation is mostly about meaningless things. You want to get a taste of what the other person is like, without risking to compromise things with a possibly dangerous topic. Then, when ” the button of friendship is really surely deep down pushed”, new and more interesting converstions can spark, since the other person in no more classified as a possible enemy that will punish you for disagreement. And then, in the deep end, you probably do speak about what you did since your last interaction, mostly beacause your intelocutor already knows quite well what you did in the rest of you life, due to the previous interactions you had.
From the experience derived in many years of competitive Magic: the Gathering, I think I have a diferent map.
Superior opponent: Nervous—Very Focused
Approximately my skill opponent / Unknown opponent (no precise rating available): Confident - Very Focused
Inferior opponent: Confident—Not Focused
As can be inferred, I usually play my best game with opponents that are roughly my equal. Some of the difficoulties can be overcome by means of intense practice, i.e. making most of the decisions automatic, lessening the risk to punt them. It’s also interesting to note, that my anxiety for playing against strogner opponents lessens itself if I get to know them. Probably my brains moves them from the “superhuman/demigod” box to the “human just like you” box allowing a clearer view of the situation.
Be gur ynjazbjre zna.
I modified the post after less than five minutes… are you spying on me? ;)
Thank you, preserving the feeling, alongside the literal meaning, while translating in a foreign language can be surprisingly difficult (for me, at least).
Luck, when it’s regular, it’s called skill. (Il culo, quando è sistematico, si chiama classe)
(I tried a rough tranlsation, but it sounds way better in Italian)
Also
Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive.
Elbert Hubbard
you should give all your donation to the charity that most aids the global diversification program. Splitting your donations implies being risk-averse in what you personally achieve, which is perverse.
Well, you have to have a very bizarre utility function, for sure. ;)
even if you were risk-averse in lives saved, which I do not think you should be
I’m not sure about this point. I can imagine having a preference for saving at least X lives, versus an outcome with equal mean, but a more broadly distributed probability function.
I’m not sure if this is really relevant, but there’s the possibility of some diversification effect playing a role. It could be relevant if the spendings of the different charities are somewhat correlated. This is pure speculation from my part, of course, since I have no idea about how to effectively compute such a quantity.
I use a similar approach, and it usually works. Make clear that you don’t think you’re holding the truth on the subject, whatever it means, but only that the information in your possess led you to the conclusion youre presenting. Manifest curiosity for the position the other side is expressing, even if it’s cached, and even if you heard similar versions of it a hundred times before. Try to drive them out of cached mode by asking questions and forcing them to think for themselves outside of their preconstructed box. Most of all, be polite, and point out that it’s fine to have some disagreement, since the issue is complictaed, and that you’re really interested in sorting it out.
“Sorry if it offends you, I just don’t think in general that you should apply this stuff to society. Like… no.”
I’m making a wild guess, but possibly it’s the bold part that offended you… Because this is usually what irritates me (Yay for lovely generalization from one example… but see also Emile’s comment quoting pjeby’s comment).
Similar offenders are:
“Come on, it’s obvious!”
“You can’t seriously mean that /Are you playing dumb?”
“Because everybody knows that!”
In general, what irritates me is the refusal to really discuss the subject, and the quick dismissal. If arguments are soldiers, this is like building a foxhole and declare you won’t move from there at any cost.
While entering a new field, you should be aware that there’s at least an iceberg of ignorance you have to deal with. As you correctly noted, it’s hard to tell which kind of mistakes this ignorance will lead you to make, but your prior for making mistakes should in general be pretty high. What I’m trying to tell is that you should be able to preemptively deal with the discovery of the tip of the iceberg: you should expect it to pop up at some point. Other people should in general be aware of it too; if they don’t, just point it out beforehand. Usually the “I don’t know how to do it, but I am willing to learn” position is the best one, and it’s normally socially acceptable (except if you have previously sold yourself as an expert on the subject). Even if someone forgot how it was to be a newbie, he should know deep down that the only way to get rid of the iceberg is to slowly liquefy it: start small, get rid of the first tip, and then proceed to get rid of whatever comes to the surface next.
And now they get to debate amongst themselves—what should they do with the thing? What use or purpose could they put such a thing to, that would provide a greater benefit than the risk of it getting free of whatever fetters they place upon it?
Some addtitional detail might be helpful. I get that the AI is not superintelligent (maybe genius level?) and not likely to go singlular. It’s not clear if it can access and modify its source code, or if the Heroes can do the same: in this case they can easily rewrite its ethical routines and make it more manageable. If instead they can have access to it but for wathever reason its read-only, they can at least form a good model of the AI behaviour and act accordingly (e.g. avoiding to trigger the “evil” subroutines. Finally, it shouldn’t be impossible to devise a way to keep it boxed (given it’s not exponentially superintelligent) and use it as an Oracle AI (provided it has some use as such).
I would really like to read about such kind of direct experience, but I guess it’s more appropriate to wait for the rest of the sequnce.
That’s because they are mostly just restating Camus’ view, I think. As for myself I still find difficoult to discuss the topic: I’ve been through some mild (diagnosed) depression, but never to the point to seriously lean toward suicide. I’ve no clue if it’s because I was able to force myself to be sufficiently happy, or I just wasn’t feeling bad enough.
I have a soft spot for rhetoric sometimes :) This doesn’t mean I didn’t like the Sysyphus one, quite the opposite; today’s one was just more effective on me.
I see the two are indeed related, but thank you for pointing me in the right direction (and in general for letting me know of something I definitely wasn’t aware of).
True, but I think this one conveys the message in a more powerful way, by keeping Camus’ writing mood and subverting the target. It strikes me as particularly effective, as it hits the small residue cached belief about death I still have and somehow blows it up from the inside.
Mindfulness meditation is situational awareness improving. Once you know what being mindful is, try and engage in it when you are doing things, walking, being. The more you do it, and the more often the closer it will come to being automatic, and the faster.
I briefly tried to google “mindfulness meditation” and this wiki page popped up. Please forgive my ignorance, is this what you meant? It does indeed look quite promising.
It would be useful to know what’s your job. I’ve gained a lot of confidence with people in general since I left the Unversity (used to be a physicist) and went to work to a private firm where I have to take responsibility with the customers all the time. In general: practice makes better, find a way to practice interaction with people and you will become better at it. In addition, being good at your job is usually a self-esteem boost, that reflects in your everiday behavior.
This seems realy limiting, I’m sure there’s gonna be more. It doesn’t need to be a proper hobby, just something you’re interested in. Do you read books? Watch movies? Follow the news? Have some funny story to share? It should be enough to break ice at least. Other than that, sometimes topics are as interesting as you make them be. I’ve entertained girls talking about particle physics, economics models, Dunbar number and yes, even AI related stuff.