SimonBaars

• SimonBaarsSep 20, 2024, 5:59 PM

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: Milan W’s comment on: More Dakka

  Logically, maybe not that much.

  Socially, this is a believe people hold.

  I think it’s the main argument for people choosing not to pull the lever (almost 20% by a survey I found).

• SimonBaarsSep 20, 2024, 3:53 PM

  1 point

  0

  on: More Dakka

  I would just like to point out the trolley problem here.

  Yes, pulling the lever will save four people, but the one person who dies would still be alive if it wasn’t for us pulling the lever. There’s a (somewhat radical) active intervention that makes us responsible for potential bad outcomes.

  There seems to be a similar effect with “more dakka”. Implementing a modest solution is socially justifiable. Implementing a radical solution may be less so.

  It’s a dilemma, and even if you’re 100% doing the right thing, it may still lead to bad outcomes.

• SimonBaarsAug 17, 2024, 4:17 PM

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: Viliam’s comment on: AGI’s Op­pos­ing Force

  You’ll see… 👽

  Jokes aside, I get the point: we have thoroughly outpaced evolution and thus nature, and AGI will do the same.

  I think this article doesn’t present an absolute rule of nature, just a natural inclination. There are plenty of exceptions to the rule, but I think Entropy Theory is relevant to reason about future scenario’s, and I haven’t heard it mentioned much in relation to AGI. So I just wanted to make this argument so we can use it in our future predictions.

AGI’s Op­pos­ing Force

• SimonBaarsJul 18, 2024, 6:47 PM

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: rotatingpaguro’s comment on: Me & My Clone

  I don’t think (1) works like that. Because both our reaction algorithms would yield the same actions?

  Regarding (2): I suppose for this to work, the clone should be mirrored as well? I guess the advanced aliens can do that.

[Question] Me & My Clone

• SimonBaarsNov 21, 2023, 12:07 PM

  2 points

  3

  on: So­cial Dark Matter

  Great article! The laws you describe are definitely subject to many social behaviors.

  One thing I found insufficiently covered in the article is how social prejudices shape the extent to which people act in “dark matter” behavioral patterns. The way it’s described in the article, it seems like either Person A has property X, or they do not have property X, independent of the existing social prejudices. I would like to challenge that assumption.

  If I lived many years ago, I might’ve had slaves, and could be put in a bucket “people who enjoy having slaves”. But since social norms changed, nowadays there will for certain be fewer people who “enjoy having slaves” just because our model of empathic behavior has changed: many of us are now able to see that people tend to be born equal. This then shapes our natural inclinations.

  For each of the items on the list of behaviors you shared, the size of the underlying group is also dependent on societal norms. For example, items surrounding sexual behavior: they would be much more prevalent if they were normalized. When they are not normalized, some people will hide their behaviors, but others might simply not bother at all, and thus not be in hiding.

  It’s similar to the “keeping the cookie jar out of sight” principle. When the cookie jar was in sight, one could be categorized as a “cookie addict”. When it was out of sight, that inclination vanished.