jferguson

• jfergusonNov 13, 2010, 9:10 AM

  3 points

  on: Re­quest­ing some ad­vice on a question

  In terms of what’s written down on paper, I don’t think it was mentioned at all, which implies legality. But, practically speaking, are governments really ever okay with part of their territory claiming they don’t have to pay taxes anymore? I suspect people in the southern states were aware of the answer.

• jfergusonNov 10, 2010, 5:55 AM

  2 points

  on: A writer de­scribes grad­u­ally los­ing language

  My experience of the world is not made less by lack of language but is essentially unchanged.

  This is curious.

  Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the dominant view nowadays that human’s special kind of consciousness is largely a result of language, because we’re able to formalize (and build on) notions and have an internal dialogue and all those other useful things? Does anyone else think this guy’s experiences could at least point away from language as the root of sapience? Or am I just looking too much into that sentence?

• jfergusonNov 9, 2010, 8:00 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Sim­ple freindli­ness: plan B for AI

  Agreed. If we could define a friendly AI now, then by point 3 we would also already be able to define a perfectly functional and just state (even if putting it into practice hadn’t happened yet).

• jfergusonNov 5, 2010, 5:10 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov’s comment on: Go­ertzel on Psi in H+ Magazine

  The linked article, second image. Though, I don’t know the credibility of the study it was based on.

• jfergusonNov 5, 2010, 5:08 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: katydee’s comment on: Reli­gious/​Wor­ld­view Techniques

  and I’m exposed to it constantly

  Have you noticed which specific situations make you think about Christianity and cause the discomfort? Is it any reference to the religion, or something more specific, like during discussions of morality?

• jfergusonNov 5, 2010, 4:52 PM

  9 points

  on: Go­ertzel on Psi in H+ Magazine

  ~55% of natural science college professors believe in some kind of ESP, as do ~35% of psychology college professors.

  I can’t really form a coherent response to that.

• jfergusonNov 3, 2010, 10:42 PM

  −1 points

  on: META: Meetup Overload

  Why not just enforce keeping meetup posts in the discussion area? I’ve always imagined that “casual” LW readers, who are pretty unlikely to go to a meetup and probably don’t even have an account here, tend to only read the front page, while people who actually post and have LW occupy a decent amount of their day are pretty likely to read the discussions too, and also are the kind of people who would care about a meetup. This does make it so that casual readers are less likely to be transformed into LW junkies, but I’m curious if the arrow of causality actually ever points that way in practice (attend meetup → start participating in discussion area).

  Are there any specific examples of people only casually reading LW, then attending a meetup, then starting to participate much more? Or is everyone who cares about meetups already a regular participant in discussions?

• jfergusonNov 3, 2010, 4:37 AM

  0 points

  in reply to: WrongBot’s comment on: Own­er­ship and Ar­tifi­cial Intelligence

  What do you think a meaningful probability, if one can be assigned, would be for the first strong AI to exhibit both of those traits? (Not trying to “grill” you; I can’t even imagine a good order of magnitude to put on that probability)

• jfergusonNov 1, 2010, 4:38 AM

  1 point

  in reply to: WrongBot’s comment on: Own­er­ship and Ar­tifi­cial Intelligence

  Do you believe that there’s truly no chance a powerful AI wouldn’t immediately dominate human society? Or restated: will a strong AI, if created, necessarily be unfriendly and also able to take control of human society (likely meaning exponentially self-improving)?

• jfergusonNov 1, 2010, 12:04 AM

  −2 points

  in reply to: Jack’s comment on: The Ir­ra­tional­ity Game

  I agree, at least with the first and last examples of more-likely. 1% is probably too high.

  How about “Just the barest inkling above not immediately dismissed” instead of a specific number.

• jfergusonOct 31, 2010, 9:11 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: WrongBot’s comment on: Own­er­ship and Ar­tifi­cial Intelligence

  Suppose a powerful AI commits a serious crime, and the reason it wanted to commit that crime wasn’t because it was explicitly programmed to commit it, but instead emerged as a result of completely benign-appearing learning rules it was given. Would the AI be held legally liable in court like a person, or just disabled and the creators held liable? Are the creators liable for the actions of an unfriendly AI, even if they honestly and knowledgeably attempted to make it friendly?

  Or, say that same powerful AI designs something, by itself, that could be patented. Can the creators completely claim that patent, or would it be shared, or would the AI get total credit?

  If this strong AI enters a contract with a human (or another strong AI) for whatever reason, would/​should a court of law recognize that contract?

  These are all questions that seem relevant to the broader concept of ownership.

• jfergusonOct 31, 2010, 8:22 PM

  1 point

  on: Own­er­ship and Ar­tifi­cial Intelligence

  I see this isn’t very well-received. Could anyone do me the favor of explaining why? Is it just because I’m asking questions that people believe have already been addressed here? I’m new to posting on LW.

• jfergusonOct 31, 2010, 6:16 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: NihilCredo’s comment on: Own­er­ship and Ar­tifi­cial Intelligence

  That was worded poorly. Thank you for reminding me of the Robots series.

• jfergusonOct 31, 2010, 3:52 PM

  −6 points

  in reply to: Jack’s comment on: The Ir­ra­tional­ity Game

  The motive would be NASA’s budget being mostly funneled into someone’s pockets rather than materials and labor for actual spaceflight. I tried to take into account that people underestimate the power of orders of magnitude (~1 in 100 possible universes would have this be true—like a single person wearing a blue shirt in a decent-size crowd of red-shirted people).

Own­er­ship and Ar­tifi­cial Intelligence

• jfergusonOct 28, 2010, 5:00 AM

  65 points

  on: The Ir­ra­tional­ity Game

  The surface of Earth is actually a relatively flat disc accelerating through space “upward” at a rate of 9.8 m/​s^2, not a globe. The north pole is at about the center of the disc, while Antarctica is the “pizza crust” on the outside. The rest of the universe is moving and accelerating such that all the observations seen today by amateur astronomers are produced. The true nature of the sun, moon, stars, other planets, etc. is not yet well-understood by science. A conspiracy involving NASA and other space agencies, all astronauts, and probably at least some professional astronomers is a necessary element. I’m pretty confident this isn’t true, much more due to the conspiracy element than the astronomy element, but I don’t immediately dismiss it where I imagine most LW-ers would, so let’s say 1%.

  The Flat Earth Society has more on this, if you’re interested. It would probably benefit from a typical, interested LW participant. (This belief isn’t the FES orthodoxy, but it’s heavily based on a spate of discussion I had on the FES forums several years ago.)

  Edit: On reflection, 1% is too high. Instead, let’s say “Just the barest inkling more plausible than something immediately and rigorously disprovable with household items and a free rainy afternoon.”

• jfergusonOct 28, 2010, 2:11 AM

  4 points

  on: Wel­come to Less Wrong!

  I’m currently an electrical engineering student. I suppose the main thing that drew me here is that I hold uncommon political views (market libertarian/​minarchist, generally sympathetic to non-coercive but non-market collective action); I think that view is “correct” for now, but I’m sure that a lot of my reasons for holding those beliefs are faulty, or there’d probably be at least a few more people who agree with me. I want to determine exactly what’s happening (and why) when politics and political philosophy come up in a conversation/​internal monologue and I end up thinking to myself “Ah, good, my prior beliefs were exactly correct!”, with the eventual goal of refining/​discarding/​bolstering those beliefs, because the chances that they actually were correct 100% of the time is vanishingly small.

  That’s what got me hooked on LW, at least, but pretty much everything here is interesting.

• jfergusonOct 26, 2010, 11:24 PM

  9 points

  on: Ac­ti­va­tion Costs

  I would add “writing it down” to the decreasing activation cost list, or at least working it into “Very clear, straightforward instructions”. For me, things generally get done much faster when I put them in my planner, or even just in a text file on my desktop, than when they’re left to float around in my head. Whether that’s because the task is made into clear and straightforward instructions, or because it creates a sense of urgency (“Oh man, it’s written down, I gotta do it”), or just because it exists as a thing in the world rather than an idea, I don’t know, but it’s definitely a result.

  Also, this article convinced me to finally stop procrastinating on setting up a LW account after a few months of readership. Hello!