If I remember correctly the second quote was edited to be something along the lines of “will_newsome is awesome.”
Davorak
Karma: 491
Interesting, I will be more likely to reply to messages that I feel end the conversation like your last one on this post:
It feels like this one caused my to update far more in the direction f basilisks being unlikely than anything else in this thread, although I don’t know exactly how much.
maybe 12-24 hours later just in case the likelihood of update has been reduced by one or both parties having a late night conversation or other mind altering effects.
Speculating that your evidence is a written work that has driven multiple people to suicide, further that the written work was targeted to an individual and happened to kill other susceptible people who happened to read it. I would still rate 2% as overconfident.
Specifically the claim of universality, that “any person” can be killed by reading a short email is over confident. Two of your claims that seem to contradict are, the claim that “any one” and “with a few clicks”, this suggests that special or in depth knowledge of the individual is unnecessary which suggest some level of universality, and the claim “Never said it was a single universal one.” Though my impression is that you lean towards hand crafted basilisks targeted towards individuals or groups of similar individuals, but the contradiction lowered my estimate of this being corrected.
Such hand crafted basilisks indicates the ability to correctly model people to an exceptional degree and experiment with said model until an input can be found which causes death. I have considered other alternative explanations but found them unlikely if you rate another more realistic let me know.
Given this ability could be used for a considerable number task other then causing death, strongly influence elections, legislation, research directions of AI researchers or groups, and much more. If EY possessed this power how would you expect the world to be different then one where he does not?
From my layman perspective it looks professional and very clean, great job.
I do not know if Omega can say that truthfully because I do not know weather the self referential equation representing the problem has a solution.
The problems set out by the OP assumes there is a solution and a particular answer but with out writing out the equation and plugging in his solution to show the solution actually works.
Omega (who experience has shown is always truthful) presents the usual two boxes A and B and announces the following. “Before you entered the room, I ran a simulation of this problem as presented to an agent running TDT.
There seems to be a contradiction here. If Omega siad this to me I would either have to believe omega just presented evidence of being untruthful some of the time.
If Omega simulated the problem at hand then in said simulation Omega must have siad: “Before you entered the room, I ran a simulation of this problem as presented to an agent running TDT.” In the first simulation the statement is a lie.
Problem 2 has a similar problem.
It is not obvious that the problem can be reformulated to keep Omega constantly truthfully and still have CDT or EDT come out ahead of TDT.
I tried entering “Check weather tomorrow” into Toodledoo and it did not automatically set a due date of tomorrow.
I spend ~2 minutes and I found out how to turn on keyboard shortcuts but did not find the page explaining them, it was under a minute for both in RTM. May keyboard short cuts overlapped with gmail and or unix environments in RTM which made them easy to pick up.
I am sure you can find more complete comparisons elsewhere and I was not aware of Toodledoo until your post so it is probably not an evenhanded review on my part.
I graduated ~5 years ago with a engineering degree from a first tier University and I would have consider those starting salaries to be low to decent and not high. This is especially true in places with high cost of living like the bay area.
Having a good internship durring college often ment starting out at 60k/yr if not higher.
If this is significantly different for engineers exiting first tier University now it would be interesting to know.
It is a bad thing if it discourages people you want posting from posting. Which could happen if Luke came off as dominate and territorial. I do not think Luke appears dominate and territorial so this has not registered as a problem to me.
What about:
digital intelligence has certain advantages (e.g. copyability)
No degradation with iterative copying is a an advantage digital media is often thought to have over analog media. What I think they are trying to convey is perfect reproduction is possible and is a large advantage.
edit:spelling
Thanks for an overview of a current analytical model of how the nurons learn timing and answering our random neuroscience questions.
You gave yourself a powerful mind altering chemical that most peoples bodies/minds have grown up with and have built up mental models, skill, techniques to handle it. Your mind however did not have a half a life time to learn how to handle it. That is why:
it probably isn’t very helpful in a technological civilization which requires people to sit at computers all day manipulating symbols. My guess is that women are going to rule in such a world, as high testosterone men become increasingly useless and tend to wind up in prison. It may get to the point where testosterone levels will need to be technologically lowered to reduce crime and make men more socially acceptable.
So understand this, all you LessWrong nerds: when you see someone who is like a thug to you, realize that he is in the grip of an incredibly powerful mind-altering chemical called testosterone which, more than any other, is responsible for the evil that men do.
seem to be based on thin evidence.
I consider it a low probability that I have enough experience/knowledge to generalize my understanding/perceptions to a wide audience with fidelity. If you want to talk about it over the phone or on skype some time I would be happy to oblige. Quick iterative discussion can do much to shorten inferential distance and if a common understanding is found easily it might be worth writing up and posting.
Do you just want to learn to control your sneezes? Or are you interested in the photosensitive effect directly? If the former I would encourage you to learn more direct control mechanism rather then using a external trigger like light.
edit: spelling
Deception of children for the purpose challenging them to spot the inconstancy is common practice in my experience. In this case though the inferential distance seems like it would be way to large to overcome with out additional evidence. The additional evidence is often the parent taking on a different tone of voice and method of reasoning while presenting faked evidence. Which makes it hard to tell if the parent is going too far in this example.
If the purpose of this system is what it does, POSIWID, then this tradition of deceiving often trains children to look for verification of presented evidence, trains them not to take one data point too seriously, as well as to not always to take what is said at face value no matter who says it.
Ideally the deception would be just the right inferential distance to stretch the child maximally while still being able to overcome it.
Some people are bound to participate in the tradition with out understanding its purpose and achieve ill results. As is with participating in any tradition with out understanding what its results commonly are.
Better memory and processing power would mean that probabilistically more businessmen would realize there are good business opportunities where they saw none before. Creating more jobs and a more efficient economy, not the same economy more quickly.
ER doctors can now spend more processing power on each patient that comes in. Out of their existing repertoire they would choose better treatments for the problem at hand then they would have otherwise. A better memory means that they would be more likely to remember every step on their checklist when prepping for surgery.
It is not uncommon for people to make stupid decisions with mild to dire consequences because they are pressed for time. Everyone now thinks faster and has more time to think. Few people are pressed for time. Fewer accidents happen. Better decisions are made on average.
There are problems which are not human vs human but are human vs reality. With increased memory and processing power humanity gains an advantage over reality.
By no means is increasing memory and processing power a sliver bullet but it seems considerably more then everything only moving “much more quickly!”
Edit: spelling
It is currently unknown how to apply special relativity SR and general relativity GR to quantum systems and it appears likely that they break down at this level. Thus applying us SR or GR on black holes or the very beginning of the universe is unlikely to result in perfectly accurate description of how the universe works.
But I’ve heard people talk about such situation as if Schroedinger’s belief that the cat was alive or dead was important. Especially in connection with the idea that a waveform only truly collapses when an observation is made by a conscious agent.
No. Strong evidence for consciousness being a fundmental part of reality would be a huge deal.
The whole business seems murky and mysterious to me, and I hope for some enlightenment. And if it is not enlightening, it can at least be entertaining.
It is often not so entertaining for the person trying to explain because it takes most people serious effort to understand, something most are unwilling to do for amusement sake. In person it can be more productive in my opinion, but I have not had much success online.
QED by Feynman is a decent place to start if you want to learn more about quantum mechanics.
Definitely when:
You are only going in circles. ** You need more data, to do so, you should preform an experiment.
You can no longer remember/track your best created strategies.
You can not judge value difference between new strategies and existing strategies.
You spend x percentage of your time tracking/remember your created strategies. Where x is significant.
There are better questions to consider.
The value of answering the question will diminish greatly if you spend more time trying to optimize it. ** “It is great you finished the test and got all the right answers but the test was over a week ago”—extreme example some times …/years/months/weeks/days/hours/minutes/seconds/… count.
It can be a hard question to get right in my experience.
Donated.
I would recommend making the donate link large, currently it is the smaller link on the page and is harder to notice. “Donate” or “Donate here” in the link text would also make it more noticeable.* Putting a donate link at the top of the fundraising page, http://lesswrong.com/lw/lfg/cfar_in_2014_continuing_to_climb_out_of_the/ would also make it more noticable and more likely to capture vistors and therefore donations.
These things are so common I look for them by default. Some might argue that putting the link at the top or making it larger might be untasteful or communicates a spammy signal, I would argue that at least these techniques and more are so standard as to be expected and missed when not present to many.