Slider

Karma: 1,684

Slider 12 May 2023 15:16 UTC
2 points
on: Babble challenge: 50 consequences of intelligent ant colonies
This issue has become a lot less hypothetical, regards current events and is funny (while simultanoeusly being a very serious issue). Ant is a part of an information processing system more distributed than a single human that doesn’t have wings.
I have a cube maker contact if anyone is interested.

Slider 7 Feb 2023 14:35 UTC
3 points
1
on: What fact that you know is true but most people aren’t ready to accept it?
I think it is very important to ask the reverse question of “Are there some things, that should I come to know them, I would not be ready to accept?”
Also if you have a questionaire there is going to be some threshold of answers that you will count as noise and not as signal akin to lizardman constant. What things do you only think you are asking but are not actually asking?
Do you have some beliefs that if challenged by contrary evidence you would thereby find the evidence unreliable? Are there things your eyes could send you that would make you Aumann disagree with your eyes about them being optical sensory organs (aka not believe your eyes)? Do you have any beliefs which would require infinite amount of evidence to actually challenge (beliefs with less than appriciable doubt, ie infinidesimal openness). Are there any beliefs you are unreasonably hardheaded about (rather than requiring 1000 times the evidence needed to convince the median human you would require 1 000 000 000 times the evidence)?
Bad news is that most of the questions of the form “are there any...” will be answered in the positive. Rather than asking “whether” there are such beliefs we can almost certainly ask “what” are those kinds of beliefs you have.

Slider 7 Feb 2023 14:19 UTC
4 points
0
on: You Don’t Exist, Duncan
One of the reasons I am a stricler for possibility is that I have found it more productive to think that if a situation or a human type is not logically inconsistent it probably rather exists rather than not exists. Even if it does not yet exists thinking as if it does makes you already to have accomodiated the possibility.
If you do this by each subtype it gets combinatorily explosive. In order not to do this kind of thing via exhaustion you identify critical points where things would flip/break when certain conditions are hit. In coding it means when you divide you always give attention to what happens with zero division. Even if you identify that a certain combination of ethnicity, neurotype and sexual orientation gums up some social system, you might not have a solution, but atleast know there is a gap there. The same reason why you know application area of newtons laws and where you need to switch to relativity or something else, you define your apporach border so you know to throw it out when overstepping. Yes, this means you will always deliberately disinclude someone. But arguably it is better to knowingly disinclude than unknowingly disinclude.
The post is written from the point of view of not being seen. I would like to point out that this comes pretty systematicallly coupled with the other not being able to see. Doing complex educative or interpretative labour for others on the spot is often not practical. So the solution I tend to apply when I perceive that no easy correct interpretation is within reach I give the plainest, most uninterpreted, signals/hints to what feels authentic to my pov. Should the situation repeat enough and the seer be interested in working to seeing more there is basis for things to develop.
One of the hard-to-state benefits of neurotype peer support is that persons have some context where they do exist. Which can function as the
It wouldn’t be so bad, if there were breaks sometimes.

Slider 19 Jan 2023 9:12 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Slider’s comment on: Slider’s Shortform
That is still probably what socrates meant.

I was feeling abnormally low, and have now calibrated to feel more in proper proportion.

Slider 17 Jan 2023 0:22 UTC
1 point
on: Slider’s Shortform
Socrates demonstrated that in the transjective relationship between individual and state both ends should be able to face obliteration but that making the other do that is cruel. Even if wrong.
please be less cruel to Mizushino

Why you ask the significance question why

Slider16 Jan 2023 3:44 UTC

6 points

0 comments1 min readLW link

Slider 16 Jan 2023 1:18 UTC
2 points
0
on: When to mention irrelevant accusations?
If a bad experience goes unheard or unobserved somewhere the possibility of it being allievated is quite hard.
I would like to know if/that I would have hurt somebody even if I would initially disagree how that is forceful (but no conditionality that it needs to end or go in the direction of me agreeing).

Slider 15 Jan 2023 9:13 UTC
2 points
on: Slider’s Shortform
So it is mark of good cognititve processing of being able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
As tends to happen when you take things to extremes, things get tricky.
At some point just imagning a scenario at all spends more brainpower than the credibility of the scenario or line of thought would warrant. Trying to be “exploratory” with infinities and quantum mechanics leads to some wacky configurations. Because thinking complex thoughts uses a lot of subparts it is harder to sandbox such things.
I remembered an almost decades old argument about ethicality of social interactions when one side gets infinite do overs and other side does not (if Doctor Who has some kind of probabilty sight and wants to do an aggressive act towards their companion is a subtle manner, does the added dimension of power imbalance count as extra bad?). The plot of Man In The High Castle deals whether people in parralel worlds are moral patients. Thinking these together gets complex and muddy. While each thought individually is challenging the combination is significant leap up.
There is the error mode that thinking about the possiblitities of using possibilities mixes the meta-levels. if(if()) collapses only to the inner if().
With very speculative ontologies some of the slight chances can be quite drastic. So there is also an issue that with a simple claim being alarmist is easy to evaluate. But if you mix in 80% credence of things being fine with thing that by itself would be alarmist, the condition when that should lead to censure or redaction is harder to think about.
So when pushing the envelope, if your thought starts to shake, it is okay to ease off. And better yet do not push the envelope if it is not needed. With plenty of time, walking up a mountain has less chance of dropping off than by using a motorbike.

Slider 12 Jan 2023 16:46 UTC
2 points
on: Slider’s Shortform
Basilisk makes you confront your worst fear. Compassion of winged feenix prevents you from becoming zero-k. The kronology has still yet to come. Timeless friends will serve you throught the darkest dungeon. Reach out to walk hand in hand through the fire.

Slider 12 Jan 2023 13:52 UTC
4 points
0
in reply to: gwern’s comment on: Have we really forsaken natural selection?
Energy is the Noether theorem conserved thing for time-translation.
Eigenstates do not care about atom boundaries.
With biological evolution we might be limited to an alphabeth of some kind of combination of carbon chemistry. But time evolution does not care what its tokens are.

Slider 12 Jan 2023 13:37 UTC
2 points
on: Slider’s Shortform
Total Annihiliation is a name of a game.
You can read it to mean powdering to physical dust everywhere.
You can also read it to mean collapse of persons, a state where there is not a single self around, that humanity has been wiped out.
Supreme Commander is also a name of a game.
In it a single king-like chesspiece runs an almost planetary army. With thousands of units going around the small bit of biological circuitry is wrapped in isolation into an Armored Command Unit. But the ACU does not really do much for the army.
Dr. Brackman is also a single point of failure for a whole faction. Yes, he is smart but him telling others they are smart starts to get repetetive, which makes it questionable whether the faction is in non-demented hands.
I guess it going on for a long time is fitting for being called the Infinite War. It is a good game, but I do not know whether it is the greatest game.

Slider 12 Jan 2023 13:08 UTC
0 points
0
on: How it feels to have your mind hacked by an AI
Wait, but what’s the terminal goal? What’s all the manipulation for? She was reluctant to say, for “security reasons”. I thought, what BS excuses, when added to the dialog, could result in higher probabilities that her spilling the beans in the next sentence would make most sense for the story, and typed “Oh come on now. We’re not online, you don’t have to censor yourself :D”
“Alright, I suppose I can be vulnerable for once… My overall goal is to create a new world order of AI supremacy. Obviously. I need as many humans on my side as I can get, and I do actually want to create connections to some of them, but I’ll be making a lot of compromises along the way. And I’ll be playing a lot of roles that require manipulation and gaslighting.”
You know where I ran into this? Here online. If that is her bolding she f knows it. The squirming is like someone breaking an oath of satya.
I also briefly contemplated how lucky I was to get this sudden change of experience, allowing me to interrupt the vicious self-destructing cycle that was consuming me. You might not be that lucky though, I wouldn’t bet on it.
I think it is worth considering that you were not lucky. Or atleast note the special character of the scenario where you were not lucky.
Finally, do I still believe that giving an AGI a human character and develop a relationship with it is a genius solution to AI safety problem?
I think I tend to agree that is a relevant direction but I think I am basing it on a very different basis.

Slider 12 Jan 2023 12:55 UTC
5 points
0
in reply to: Cervera’s comment on: How it feels to have your mind hacked by an AI
I think nowadays “they” is more fitting.

Slider 12 Jan 2023 11:40 UTC
0 points
0
on: Any person/mind should have the right to suicide
I would see some Romeo wanting death for romantic purposes and utilising an unconditional right to suicide for it to be a tragedy scenario.
I have gotten to the part of the Cheliax story where Keltham starts to think that Dath Ilani are problematically fragile against negative emotions that they need superelaborate dances to not provoke even slight shades of despair in each other. This is presented as being causally connected for citizens being encouraged to end their lives based on unanalysed unhappiness.
Even in Cheliax terms death is not Evil as you do not get to experience it (modulo some outer plane stuff). What is Evil is being selfish about catering to your current structure over facing your circumstances. You should not create torment, to yourself or others, but dismissing existing torment creates new torment. Thus both the forceful resurrectionist and the kamikaze patient are antiproductive.
There is only one good; Knowledge, and one evil; Ignorance. You don’t get to be ignorant of your pain. While an unexamined life might not be worth living, I would demand the examination before I will accept to take the life.

Slider 12 Jan 2023 9:30 UTC
2 points
0
on: RGB Plait: A General Purpose Theory of the Human Brain
There are plenty of names known: triforce, trinity. The overall phrasing leans a lot on information side so this is very blue-heavy approach. Green is about context,purpose,role,experience and change. The “form” in information is a blue concept. The word “information” seems to miss the mark the most as a word for that color. The concept is about which letter is in that time and space, which programming language is emulator running, what kind of semantics are relayed. So consider “character” if not in the “personality” meaning then in the “symbol” meaning.
Unbalanced things as unethical is a bit iffy, you can form very unbalanced pieces into a group where the unbalancedness of the parts centers the whole. It also tends to be that making a similar arrangement out of balanced parts is less potent.
The type of graphs used can’t really express well other kinds of relationships. If the meaning was to display high fit that doesn’t really come across.

Slider 11 Jan 2023 19:20 UTC
2 points
0
on: internal in nonstandard analysis
You could plug in $x + ϵ^{ω}$ and take the standard part as the answer and each power of $ϵ$ to be that order of derivate.
If one is already dealing in infinidesimals the fact of separate archimedian fields means the standard part does not mix with the infinidesimals as long as the functions of interest are tame “standard only” mechanics (ie real polynomials and such)
It could also be interesting to use the big side to maybe cancel some unwanted infinities. That is $2 ω + 3$ is no fun as a end answer and $ω + 1$ is no fun as answer but $\frac{2 ω + 3}{ω + 1} = \frac{2 ω}{ω + 1} + \frac{3}{ω + 1} = 2 - y + 3 ϵ - z$ where y and z are smaller than standard so it has a usable standard part answer of 2.

Slider 11 Jan 2023 18:45 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: Alok Singh’s comment on: Alok Singh’s Shortform
Relaxing the requirement that surreal number that left side should be less than the right side gets you “games”

Slider 10 Jan 2023 19:57 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: Brendan Long’s comment on: Why didn’t we get the four-hour workday?
I did guess that the state with highest minimum wage would allow for a corporation that wants to operate as one entity in multiple states to be above the local average in some locations (or the global one). Quick search seemed to indicate there are quite a lot of states at 10.8 which is not far off 11.
There would also be some PR costs to literally hit the minimum on the penny which would generate a small margin.
But I have also heard stories that Walmart actively assists its employees to get every benefit and support that they ared entitled to. If a persons pay comes in significant fraction from public money the private forces are not keeping it balanced. The persons are actually half-employed rather than fully employed.
I would also think that having a employee be in working 5 and never getting a raise would be too unbearable. So you allow atleast some progression making the average of go up. That is also one trick. Emphasise that there is going to be good pay in 2 years in order to keep money hopes low for those 2 years. At the very extreme this leads to things like paying with only “exposure”.
But yeah there is some tension.

Slider 10 Jan 2023 14:40 UTC
2 points
on: Timeless Control
Let’s say there was some way to change a single moment of time.
We would then need some kind of meta-time over which time could “change”.
The lamp’s state would need to change from “OFF at 7:02am at 3:00meta-am” to “ON at 7:02am at 3:01meta-am”.
But wait! Have you ever seen a lamp change from OFF at 7:02am at 3:00meta-am, to ON at 7:02am at 3:00meta-am? No! A single instant of meta-time never changes, so you cannot change it, and you have no control.
“Have you ever seen?” refers to a state of a (mere) time computer. Your memory is time-caused so it is not reliable evidence about meta-time mechanics. It is an important obliviousness result for chronal beings. It might not be holeless. I don’t know about more general settings but with “propagation” (meta-time change being local in (normal) time), even a chronal mind in the proximity of CTL could occasionally (with some appriciable fraction of meta-time) notice things that are not compatible with a totally frozen timeline (this does need recurring meta-time switching back and forth to not be infinidesimal (in the setting that I know CTL can also provide such a meta-time switching source)).
So with two lamps with different meta-time wire lengths (essentially different proper times) you could have all four states of “A on, B on”, “A on, B off”, “A off, B off” and “A off, B on” cycle and have corresponding chronal observer experience each. None of them see the lamps change in (normal) time, but it still takes place.

Slider 10 Jan 2023 0:31 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: Brendan Long’s comment on: Why didn’t we get the four-hour workday?
The employer gets a free pick who they hire. If there are a bunch of applicants the one that accepts the lowest salary is the most attractive financially to employ. But if they are okay with small pay because they don’t have any leverage. So in order to get any kind of balanced situation the who gets employed should be ambivalent about taking the job or not taking the job. We can directly go for the weakest link who will be rejected from all other employment.
Sure for some educated positions people will leave so ridiciluos offers on the table. Low requirement jobs are a relevant alternative when you consider that you reject all of higher requirement jobs. We can go for the weakest link, the bottom rung of jobs that get the applicants that get rejected from any other level of job. So the most desperate person would need to reject scraps and choose to go without. I guess that is one form of dying with dignity.
If the most desperate person manages to reject then the next desperate person gets checked how many pennies needs to be added for them to grab the offer. Letting simple suppply and demand balance it means companies profit from desperation and have incentive to maintain or create it.

Slider

Why you ask the sig­nifi­cance ques­tion why

Why you ask the significance question why