I will not do this because I do not want to use my social media accounts in this way, but if gratitude journals work this probably would too.
Punoxysm
Karma: 1,349
Yes; please provide those links.
And remember that getting to this level of industrial capacity on earth followed from millions of years of biological evolution and thousands of years of cultural evolution in Earth’s biosphere. Why would one ship full of humans be able to replicate that success somewhere else?
Similarly, an AGI that can replicate itself with an industrial base at its disposal might not be able to when isolated from those resource (it’s still an AGI).
I’m going to say though, that sales can be a high-pressure, miserable environment, depending on the company and your personality. And just doing sales isn’t enough to become great at sales and leverage that talent.
We are getting very close to the capability to build von Neuman probes though, so I’m not sure an o sky is evidence for a late filter.
I am highly skeptical of this statement.
We haven’t built a machine that can get out of our solar system and land on a planet in another.
We haven’t made machines that can copy themselves terrestrially.
Making something that can get out of the solar system, land on another planet, then make (multiple) copies of itself seems huge leap beyond either of the other two issues.
Even an AGI that could self-replicate might have enormous difficulty getting to another planet and turning its raw resources into copies of itself.
There’s a large range between excellent company and scam company. Many companies are earnestly but poorly run, or not-scams-per-se but concealing financial issues. Others seem too-good-to-be-true but really are that good.
As a rule, companies make offers that are just good enough to get a yes. My prior would be that too-good-to-be-true always deserves extra scrutiny, and is probably somehow deceptive or high-risk if the terms don’t make a guarantee (for instance, equity and deferred compensation in a job offer could never materialize). The other possibility is that they believe you are more valuable to them than other companies do. The question is why? (A final possibility is that you have a poor understanding of the job market, and the other companies are lowballing you).
Well, you could invest your own money. Most strategies benefit from using small amount of cash, since being able to take advantage of small volume opportunities often trumps higher relative execution costs. Register your track record and start recruiting investors.
You can also trade with your own strategies at companies that let you use a mis of your money and theirs, and provide some resources. Typically, traders at these companies aren’t executing pure softwares strategies, so “stealing” their methods doesn’t have much point.
You could also go to people with established reputations in academic or quantitative finance and show them enough of your method to convince them you’re legit, but not so much they can copy it, then have them lend their reputation.
A superhuman AGI could accumulate tremendous financial resources; to do so most effectively it would need access to as many feeds and exchanges as possible, so some kind of shell company would buy those for it. I’m not sure to what extent a finance-specialist AI that achieves superhuman performance is really easier to make than a superhuman AGI; and bear in mind that it could lose its edge quickly.
I like this series; it’s fun, well-designed pop-social science surveys. Of course, this type of survey has a big historical element; you may not like that but I think it’s fun to read.
Make the text more clearly readable by spacing it away from the tables, or making more solid, lighter-colored lettering.
What leads you to think this?
One major is enough; many companies look at GPA and a low GPA can rule you out but no second major won’t. The GPA/more classes pareto curve is also usually more favorable towards one major. But if it’s a very small commitment for OP my advice doesn’t stand.
What kind of effort?
Talk to people, be friendly, stay in touch, initiate social activities, be a good friend.
What is this?
Before you do anything else, reconsider your class schedule. A higher GPA will probably mean more to your future career prospects than keeping the math major. Also, balance your schedule so you have a mix of lower-work/more-gently-graded classes and harder classes every semester.
Consider dropping the job depending on the criteria ChaosMote noted.
Your lifestyle sounds pretty sterile. You should make an effort to socialize more. College can be a place you make friends who last a lifetime, if you put some effort in.
Well, I’ve found that advice about time management of which this site has tons, is not really helpful. It is not the lack of a system to organize my efforts but a lack of persistence that has always been a bottleneck for me.
So would you suggest we only read PR-firm-generated articles to get the “real story”?
More direct answer: Not talking to journalists allows them to represent you however they want, along with the “refused to comment”. Talking at least gets your own words in.
I also don’t see anything clearly unethical in this article’s journalism.
You’re right, the word “ridiculous” may not be correct. Maybe elitist, insular and postpolitical (which the author clearly finds negative), but the article speaks better for itself than I can.
Still, there’s plenty of negative impressions (LW is a “site written for aliens”) that could be dispelled.
/r/buyitforlife is dedicated to this (though durability is the focus above frugality).
Interesting excerpt.
First I’d say, to anyone who would call it unfair (I think it’s far more nuanced and interesting than say the Slate article), that the author is pretty clear about what is alienating or confounding him. If many people dismiss LW and MIRI and CFAR for similar reasons, then the only rational response is to identify how that “this is ridiculous” response can be prevented.
Second, best HPMOR summary ever (I say this as a fan):
It’s not what I would call a novel, exactly, rather an unending, self-satisfied parable about rationality and trans-humanism, with jokes.
Etzioni’s text mining research is great.
I’ll clarify: I think the ability of people to respond adequately to these questions depends as much on their confidence as their knowledge, and that interpreting their answers is very subjective. In general, asking your suggested questions are a good way to make someone look dumb or fluster them, but not the best way to correctly identify their expertise. Only in limited contexts are questions like these asked in good faith.
They’re still valuable to think about because if you’re ever in a position to receive these sorts of questions, you should be prepared to give at least a couple types of concise and competent-sounding answers, whether the question is asked in good faith or not.
I’d still say it’s unfair. I was burned by a question like this in a job interview. Would you agree that that sort of high-pressure context is a poor place to ask questions like this?
I think a good principle for critical people—that is, people who put a lot of mental effort into criticism—to practice is that of even-handedness. This is the flip-side of steelmanning, and probably more natural to most. Instead of trying to see the good in ideas or people or systems that frankly don’t have much good in them, seek to criticize the alternatives that you haven’t put under your critical gaze.
Quotes like [the slight misquote] “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried from time to time” epitomize this, and indeed politics is a great domain to apply this too. If you find some set of ideas wretched, it’s probably easier to see the wretchedness in your own cherished ones than to find the positive view of others.
It’s a good way to harness that cutting, critical impulse many of us have towards humility.