All three things are quantised and should take ‘fewer’: Fewer pictures, fewer links, fewer words. Less is for things that aren’t countable; less liquid, less wrong.
RolfAndreassen
Karma: 4,804
This is awesome. Please write Week Two.
To the extent that some SJWs seem to want to say “I really, really want X,” and leave their argument at that, then rationality is irrelevant to them.
Rationality is also irrelevant to my daughter, and for the same reason, as for example in this exchange:
Daughter: I want TV. Me: No more TV now. Daughter: But I want it!
This is rather a common ‘argument’ of hers; from the outside it looks like she models me as not having understood her preference, and tries to clarify the preference. To be sure, she has the excuse of being four.
Right, which is why I don’t postulate a simulated universe as the explanation for existence.
Positing a hyper-powerful creative entity seems not that epistemologically reckless
How about epistemicologically useless? What caused your hyper-powerful creative entity? You haven’t accomplished anything, you’ve just added another black box to your collection.
Cynical, but is it actually true? It seems to me that a lot of people are actually quite strongly committed to the cause of the environment, or defense against terrorists. They do not necessarily take effective action for those causes, but they would certainly vote for someone who signalled similar commitment.
How many slaves were there in the Paleolithic?
Unfortunately I cannot communicate why I think Christianity is true; it’s a gestalt thing—it just makes sense, it can’t be any other way in the light of all the evidence.
-- Any number of quite successful CEOs, neurosurgeons, writers.
Surgery to replace the bones with rubber things.
Oh wait, you had some constraints on the problem?
Downvoted for being a stream of consciousness.
There are two options: Either we have terminal goals that include “having a good time” and “living enjoyable lives”, so that a pleasant life is good in itself. Or else we have terminal goals that are finitely achievable, and when we’ve achieved them we should shut down humanity as useless. In the latter case, we can throw out anything that doesn’t advance us towards those finite goals; not in the former.
I think one may hold the first belief without advocating wireheading, in that our terminal goal may be “enjoy a wide variety of pleasant things that exist outside your skull”.
Yes, but it may be true without being provable.
But if it’s true that there doesn’t exist a proof that it halts, then it will run forever searching for one.
No; provable and true are not the same thing. It may be the case that the program halts, but it is nevertheless impossible to prove that it halts except by “run it and see”, which doesn’t count.
I admit I was using the word ‘torture’ rather loosely. However, unless the AI is explicitly instructed to use anesthesia before any cutting is done, I think we can safely replace it with “extended periods of very intense pain”.
As a first pass at a way of safely boxing an AI, though, it’s not bad at all. Please continue to develop the idea.
If the excellent simulation of a human with cancer is conscious, you’ve created a very good torture chamber, complete with mad vivisectionist AI.
I sold out to the Dark Side in 2014. This was a move between industry jobs. But, actually, the new one is somewhat more in the direction of data-gathering than the old one was.
Nu, but a method that has already been used on five problems seems to be pretty good at converting problems into nails. :)
Not sure that generalises outside of math. Is it really better to solve one problem really, really thoroughly, than to have a good-enough fix for five? Depends on the problems, perhaps—but without knowing anything else, I’d rather solve five than one.
Bentham is using Enlightenment shorthand; he means “good, just, natural-law-following legislation”. He’s not talking about the actual sausages that we get from real legislatures.
I think you are conflating “is overly rational and insufficiently pragmatic” with “doesn’t do what ArisC wants, on demand, in the way they want it done”.