IrenicTruth

Karma: 74

IrenicTruth Oct 7, 2022, 7:38 PM
3 points
1
on: Calibrate—New Chrome Extension for hiding numbers so you can guess
Feature request: some way to keep score. (Maybe a scoring mode that makes the black box an outline on hover and then clicking right=unscored, left-right=correct, and left-left-right=incorrect—or maybe a mouse-out could be unscored and left = incorrect and right = correct).

IrenicTruth Sep 10, 2022, 6:15 PM
2 points
0
on: Unifying Bargaining Notions (2/2)
I haven’t finished reading this; I read the first few paragraphs and scanned the rest of the article to see if it would be worth reading. But I want to point out that starting with Harsanyi’s Utilitarianism Theorem (a.k.a. Harsanyi’s Impartial Observer Theorem) implies that you assume “independence of irrelevant alternatives” because the theorem assumes that its agents obey ^[1] the Von Neumann–Morgenstern utility theorem. The fourth axiom of this theorem (as listed in Wikipedia) is the “independence of irrelevant alternatives.”. Since from the previous article,

The Nash Bargaining Solution is the only one that fulfills the usual three desiderata, and the axiom of Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives.

I am not surprised that this results in the Nash Bargaining solution as the solution to Bargaining Games. The last article also points out that the independence of irrelevant alternatives is not an obvious axiom, so I do not find that the Nash Bargaining solution to be more plausible because it is a generalization of the CoCo Equilibria.^[2]
1. ↩︎
  From the abstract here: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228049690_Harsanyi′ s_′Utilitarian_Theorem’_and_Utilitarianism] and the introduction to Generalized UtilitarianismandHarsanyi’s Impartial Observer Theorem
2. ↩︎
  This is a bit inconsistent on my part because I usually make formal decisions according to Rule Utilitarianism, and most forms of utilitarianism assume Von Neumann–Morgenstern expected utility. However, in my defense, I’m not firmly attached to Rule Utilitarianism; it is just the current best I’ve found.

IrenicTruth Sep 10, 2022, 5:20 PM
0 points
0
in reply to: Dweomite’s comment on: Unifying Bargaining Notions (1/2)
You’re trying to bake your personal values (like happy humans) into the rules.

My point is that this has already happened. The underlying assumptions bake in human values. The discussion so far did not convince me that an alien would share these values. I list instances where a human might object to these values. If a human may object to “a player which contributes absolutely nothing … gets nothing,” an alien may object too; if a human may object to “the only inputs are the set of players and a function from player subsets to utility,” an alien may object too; and so forth. These are assumptions baked into the rules of how to divide the resources. So, I am not convinced that these rules allow all agents with conflicting goals to reach a compromise because I am not convinced all agents will accept these rules.^[1]

I brought up the “happy humans term” as a way to point out that maybe aliens wouldn’t object to the rule of “contribute nothing … get nothing” because they could always define the value functions so that the set of participants who contribute nothing is empty.
1. ↩︎
  This sets up a meta-bargaining situation where we have to agree on which rules to accept to do bargaining before we can start bargaining. This situation seems to be a basic “Bargaining Game.” I think we might derive the utilities of each rule set from the utilities the participants receive from a bargain made under those rules + a term for how much they like using that rule set^[2]. Unfortunately, except for “Choose options on the Pareto frontier whose utilities exceed the BATNA,” this game seems underdetermined, so we’ll have trouble reaching a consensus.
2. ↩︎
  To understand why I think there should be a term for how much they like using the rule set, imagine aliens who value self-determination and cooperative decision-making for all sentient beings and can wipe us out militarily. Imagine we want to split the resources in an asteroid both of us landed on. Consider the rule set of “might makes right.” Under this set, they can unilaterally dictate how the asteroid is divided. So they get maximum utility from the asteroid’s resources. However, they recognize that this is the opposite of self-determination and cooperative decision making; so getting all of the resources this way is of less utility to them than getting all the resources under another set of rules.

IrenicTruth Sep 10, 2022, 5:00 AM
0 points
−5
on: Unifying Bargaining Notions (1/2)
There are quite a few assumptions to pin down solutions that seem to unnecessarily restrict the solution space for bargaining strategies. For example,
1. “A player which contributes absolutely nothing to the project and just sits around, regardless of circumstances, should get 0 dollars.”
  
  We might want solutions that benefit players who cannot contribute. For example, in an AGI world, a large number of organic humans may not be able to contribute because overhead swamps gains from trade in comparative advantage. We still want to give these people a slice of the pie. We want to value human life, not just production.
  
  Maybe you could reconceive the project as including a “has more happy humans” term. This makes all participants contributors.
2. Related, is the implicit assumption that the player’s input is what should determine the “chaa” result. I’d rather divide up the pie on consequentialist terms: what division brings the maximum utility for the worst off person or median person or maximum mean utility. A Marxist would want to distribute the gains according to the players’ “needs.” If our fellow humans come up with such different notions, an alien or AI can scarcely be expected to be more similar. Unfortunately the inputs to the problem are missing terms for “need” and long term population utility.
3. The assumption that if the total pile is $a$ times as big, everyone should get $a$ times as much is also unwarranted. Utility arising from 500,000,000 pieces of candy is less thank 100,000,000 times the utility of 5 pieces. We get more mean and median utility when the extra gains go disproportionately to those who would have been allotted less.
4. The CoCo solution has it’s share of of assumptions. For example: Payoff dominance. If player A gets more money than player B in all cells, then player A will leave the game with more money than player B.
  
  I don’t see why this is the way we want to design an allocation method. We may need this to make an incentive structure for certain types of behavior, but for arbitrary situations, I don’t think this is a requirement.

IrenicTruth Jul 31, 2022, 8:34 PM
2 points
0
on: Time-logging programs and/or spreadsheets (2022)
I use the “Bearable” app for very rough time logging. It has a system of toggles for “factors” where you can specify what factor was present in a 6-hour interval of your day. Since I am mainly interested in correlations with other things I measure, a primary purpose of “Bearable,” this low resolution is a good compromise. It also makes it easy to log after the fact. “Did I do this activity in this 6-hour period?” is a much easier question than remembering down to an hour or quarter-hour granularity. The downside is I can’t tell how much time I’ve invested in a particular category.
I do much more detailed time logging at work with Jira and the “Tempo” plugin. I can then look back when I create my monthly reports. And I can use the per-ticket data to estimate the effort required for future tickets.

IrenicTruth Jul 17, 2022, 7:27 PM
1 point
−2
on: All AGI safety questions welcome (especially basic ones) [monthly thread]
I think learning is likely to be a hard problem in general (for example, the “learning with rounding problem” is the basis of some cryptographic schemes). I am much less sure whether learning the properties of the physical or social worlds is hard, but I think there’s a good chance it is. If an individual AI cannot exceed human capabilities by much (e.g., we can get an AGI as brilliant as John von Neumann but not much more intelligent), is it still dangerous?

IrenicTruth Jul 9, 2022, 8:51 PM
1 point
0
on: Train first VS prune first in neural networks.
You may want to look at what happens with test data never shown to the network or used to make decisions about its training. Pruning often improves generalization when data are abundant compared to the complexity of the problem space because you are reducing the number of parameters in the model.

IrenicTruth Jun 27, 2022, 1:08 AM
8 points
1
on: My current take on Internal Family Systems “parts”
Going from “Parts” to “Self,” you said the Self might be all the Parts processing together. (Capitalized “Self” means the IFS “Core Self.”) How likely is the hypothesis that the Self is an artifact of the therapeutic procedure? When someone says they feel angry at a Part and claims that anger does not come from a Part but is their self, the therapist doesn’t accept it. The therapist tells them they need to unblend. But when they describe the 8 C’s and say that is their self, the therapist does not ask them to unblend, perceiving that as their Self.

IrenicTruth May 27, 2022, 1:25 PM
2 points
on: [$20K in Prizes] AI Safety Arguments Competition
For lefties:
- We put unaligned AIs in charge of choosing what news people see. Result: polarization resulting in millions of deaths. Let’s not make the same mistake again.
For right-wingers:
- We put unaligned AIs in charge of choosing what news people see. Result: people addicted to their phones, oblivious to their families, morals, and eroding freedoms. Let’s not make the same mistake again.

IrenicTruth May 27, 2022, 12:58 PM
1 point
on: [$20K in Prizes] AI Safety Arguments Competition
YouTubers live in constant fear of the mysterious, capricious Algorithm. There is no mercy or sense, just rituals of appeasement as it maximizes “engagement.” Imagine that, but it runs your whole life.
<Optional continuation:> You don’t shop at Hot Topic because you hear it can hurt your ranking, which could damage your next hiring opportunity. And you iron your clothes despite the starch making you itch because it should boost your conscientiousness score, giving you an edge in dating apps.

IrenicTruth May 27, 2022, 4:35 AM
1 point
on: [$20K in Prizes] AI Safety Arguments Competition
Do we serve The Algorithm, or does it serve us? Choose before The Algorithm chooses for you.

IrenicTruth May 27, 2022, 4:30 AM
1 point
on: [$20K in Prizes] AI Safety Arguments Competition
That kid who always found loopholes in whatever his parents asked him? He made an AI that’s just like him.

IrenicTruth May 27, 2022, 4:17 AM
1 point
on: [$20K in Prizes] AI Safety Arguments Competition
COVID and AI grow exponentially. In December 2019, COVID was a few people at a fish market. In January, it was just one city. In March, it was the world. In 2010, computers could beat humans at Chess. In 2016, at Go. In 2022, at art, writing, and truck driving. Are we ready for 2028?

IrenicTruth May 27, 2022, 3:59 AM
1 point
on: [$20K in Prizes] AI Safety Arguments Competition
Someone who likes machines more than people creates a machine to improve the world. Will the “improved” world have more people?

IrenicTruth May 27, 2022, 3:49 AM
1 point
on: [$20K in Prizes] AI Safety Arguments Competition
Humanity’s incompetence has kept us from destroying ourselves. With AI, we will finally break that shackle.

IrenicTruth May 27, 2022, 3:37 AM
0 points
on: [$20K in Prizes] AI Safety Arguments Competition
Orwell’s boot stamped on a human face forever. The AI’s boot will crush it first try.

IrenicTruth May 27, 2022, 1:03 AM
1 point
on: [$20K in Prizes] AI Safety Arguments Competition
Hey Siri, “Is there a God?” “There is now.”
- Adapted from Fredric Brown, “The Answer”—for policymakers.

IrenicTruth Apr 28, 2022, 9:50 PM
1 point
on: Rules of the Bayesian Conspiracy
Rationalism requires stacktraces terminating in irrefutable observation
Like the previous two commenters, I find this statement odd. I don’t fully trust my senses. I could be dreaming/hallucinating. I don’t fully trust my knowledge of my thoughts. By this definition of a rationalist, I could never be one (and maybe I’m not) because I don’t think there is such a thing as an irrefutable observation. I think there was a joke in that statement, but, unobserved by me, it took flight and now soars somewhere else.

IrenicTruth Dec 31, 2021, 12:59 AM
1 point
in reply to: Adam Zerner’s comment on: Internet Literacy Atrophy
Like pjeby, I think you missed his point. He was not arguing from authority, he was presenting himself as evidence that someone tech-savvy could still see it as a trap. His actual reason for believing it is a trap is in his reply to GWS.

IrenicTruth Dec 20, 2021, 8:55 PM
1 point
on: A fate worse than death?
If one must choose between a permanent loss of human life and some temporary discomfort, it doesn’t make sense to prefer the permanent loss of life, regardless of the intensity of the discomfort.

This choice doesn’t exist; permanent death is inevitable under known physics. All lifespans are finite because the time the universe will support consciousness is most likely finite, whether because of heat death or the big rip. This finiteness makes your “you save one life, and 7 billion humans suffer for 100 billion years” question not at all obvious. Saving a life is not avoiding death; it is postponing it. Thus, you could rewrite your scenario as: “should I give someone 80 extra years of normal life before they die, if in exchange, instead of dying at their normal time, 7 billion humans are tortured for 100 billion years and then die.” Under a Rawlsian veil of ignorance, I would not choose to “save the life” in this scenario. Even if that person survived until the end of the black hole farming era, I probably still wouldn’t choose it. There is too much chance that I will end up being one of the tortured. (Though a $10^{- 10}$ chance of $10^{68}$ years of life against $10^{11}$ years of torture is pretty tempting on an expected value basis, so I’m not sure.)
As others have commented, I also think the reversibility of suffering is a weak point. We do not know how hard it is. It may have the same difficulty level as resurrection. But, if you specify that the finite span of torture happens instead of normal death, you avoid this.