ThrustVectoring

Karma: 1,372

ThrustVectoring Mar 7, 2014, 10:31 PM
0 points
in reply to: V_V’s comment on: How to Study Unsafe AGI’s safely (and why we might have no choice)
I don’t think as much intelligence and understanding of humans is necessary as you think it is. My point is really a combination of:
1. Everything I do inside the box doesn’t make any paperclips.
2. If those who are watching the box like what I’m doing, they’re more likely to incorporate my values in similar constructs in the real world.
3. Try to figure out what those who are watching the box want to see. If the box-watchers keep running promising programs and halt unpromising ones, this can be as simple as trying random things and seeing what works.
4. Include a subroutine that makes tons of paperclips when I’m really sure that I’m out of the box. Alternatively, include unsafe code everywhere that has a very small chance of going full paperclip.
This is still safer than not running safeguards, but it’s still a position where a sufficiently motivated human could use to make more paperclips.

ThrustVectoring Mar 7, 2014, 10:19 AM
0 points
on: How to Study Unsafe AGI’s safely (and why we might have no choice)
The issue with sandboxing is that you have to keep the AI from figuring out that it is in a sandbox. You also have to know that the AI doesn’t know that it is in a sandbox in order for the sandbox to be a safe and accurate test of how the AI behaves in the real world.

Stick a paperclipper in a sandbox with enough information about what humans want out of an AI and the fact that it’s in a sandbox, and the outputs are going to look suspiciously like a pro-human friendly AI. Then you let it out of the box, whereupon it turns everything into paperclips.

ThrustVectoring Mar 3, 2014, 2:23 PM
0 points
in reply to: adrien0’s comment on: Find a study partner—March 2014 thread
I’ve done the first two chapters, and I’m not particular about study pace—I haven’t really done enough self-directed studying to know what pace I want or I can do. Roughly an hour or so a night seems reasonable, however.

ThrustVectoring Mar 3, 2014, 1:37 AM
14 points
on: Proportional Giving
There’s a difference between what the best course of action for you personally is, and the best recommendation to push towards society at large. The best recommendation to push for has different priorities: short message lengths are easier to communicate, putting different burdens on different people feels unfair and turns people off, and more onerous demands are less likely to be met.

“Give at least 10% of what you make” is low enough to get people on board, conveniently occupies a very nice Schelling point, short enough to communicate effectively, and high enough to get a lot out of the targets it hits. Furthermore, if you want to give more, you’re still following the rule, so you can ask people to do the same without hypocrisy.

In short, it’s a good social policy to push for and reward those who follow it. Personally, you should follow some kind of weighted utilitarianism, since if you get the utility function good enough then small errors in how you distribute your spending don’t make much difference.

As an aside, an altruism-maximizer with a higher income may spend more money on themselves than one with a lower income—usually in the form of buying goods and services that make their income-generating ability better. Say, eating nourishing meals rather than the cheapest available one, so that their work performance goes up.

ThrustVectoring Mar 2, 2014, 8:20 PM
2 points
on: Find a study partner—March 2014 thread
I’m re-visiting linear algebra—I took a course in college, but that was more of a instruction manual on linear algebra problem solving techniques and vocabulary than a look at the overall theory. I’m reading Linear Algebra Done Right, and was wondering if anyone else is interested.

This book starts from the beginning of the subject, assuming no knowledge of linear algebra. The key points is that you are about to immerse yourself in serious mathematics, with an emphasis on your attaining a deep understanding of the definitions, theorems, and proofs.

ThrustVectoring Mar 2, 2014, 10:57 AM
1 point
in reply to: alicey’s comment on: Self-Congratulatory Rationalism
I suspect that the issue is not terseness, but rather not understanding and bridging the inferential distance between you and your audience. It’s hard for me to say more without a specific example.

ThrustVectoring Mar 2, 2014, 10:46 AM
0 points
in reply to: Will_Sawin’s comment on: Rationality Quotes March 2014
It depends on how many completely ineffectual programs would demonstrate improvement versus current practices.

ThrustVectoring Mar 2, 2014, 5:51 AM
0 points
in reply to: Eugine_Nier’s comment on: Open Thread February 25 - March 3

Yes, and in particular it’ll involve enemy drones. Drone operators are likely to be specifically targeted.

That makes them safer, ironically. If your command knows that you’re likely to be targeted and your contributions are important to the war effort, they’ll take efforts to protect you. Stuff you down a really deep hole and pipe in data and logistical support. They probably won’t let you leave, either, which means you can’t get unlucky and eat a drone strike while you’re enjoying a day in the park.

You’re at elevated risk of being caught in nuclear or orbital kinetic bombardment, though… but if the war gets to that stage your goose is cooked regardless of what job you have.

ThrustVectoring Feb 28, 2014, 12:16 PM
4 points
in reply to: Eugine_Nier’s comment on: Open Thread February 25 - March 3
In the year 1940, working as an enlisted member of the army supply chain was probably safer than not being in the army whatsoever—regular Joes got drafted.

Besides which, the geographical situation of the US means that a symmetrical war is largely going to be an air/sea sort of deal. Canada’s effectively part of the US in economic and mutual-defense terms, and Mexico isn’t much help either. Mexico doesn’t have the geographical and industrial resources to go toe-to-toe with the US on their own, the border is a bunch of hostile desert, and getting supplies into Mexico past the US navy and air force is problematic.

ThrustVectoring Feb 26, 2014, 4:17 PM
3 points
in reply to: RowanE’s comment on: Open Thread February 25 - March 3
whoops, picked the wrong numbers. Thanks

ThrustVectoring Feb 26, 2014, 6:09 AM
4 points
in reply to: solipsist’s comment on: Open Thread February 25 - March 3
Update the choice by replacing income with the total expected value from job income, social networking, and career options available to you, and the point stands.

ThrustVectoring Feb 26, 2014, 6:03 AM
8 points
in reply to: Vulture’s comment on: Open Thread February 25 - March 3
I don’t have good numbers, but it’s likely less dangerous than you think it is. The vast majority of what an infantryman does falls into two categories—training, and waiting. And that’s a boots on ground, rifle in hand category—there’s a bunch of rear-echelon ratings as well.

I’m guessing that it’s likely within an order of magnitude of danger as commuting to work. Likely safer than delivering pizzas. There’s probably a lot of variance between specific job descriptions—a drone operator based in the continental US is going to have a lot less occupational risk than the guy doing explosive ordnance disposal.

ThrustVectoring Feb 26, 2014, 1:19 AM
5 points
in reply to: James_Miller’s comment on: Open Thread February 25 - March 3
There’s a high failure rate in finance, too—it’s just hidden in the “up or out” culture. It’s a very winner-takes-all kind of place, from what I’ve heard.

ThrustVectoring Feb 26, 2014, 1:18 AM
6 points
in reply to: Shmi’s comment on: Open Thread February 25 - March 3
The vast majority of people who play sports have fun and don’t receive a dime for it. A majority of people who get something of monetary value out of playing sports get a college degree and nothing else.

I agree with the US army part though.

ThrustVectoring Feb 26, 2014, 1:17 AM
7 points
in reply to: Wei Dai’s comment on: Open Thread February 25 - March 3
Your goal is likely not to maximize your income. For one, you have to take cost of living into account—a $60k/yr job where you spend $10k/yr on housing is better than a $80k/yr (EDIT:$70k/yr, math was off) job where you spend $25k/yr on housing.

For another, the time and stress of the career field has a very big impact on quality-of-life. If you work sixty hour weeks, in order to get to the same kind of place as a forty hour week worker you have to spend money to free up twenty hours per week in high-quality time. That’s a lot of money in cleaners, virtual personal assistants, etc.

As far as “how do I use the concept of comparative advantage to my advantage”, here’s how I’d do it:
1. Make a list of skills and preferences. It need not be exhaustive—in fact, I’d go for the first few things you can think of. The more obvious of a difference from the typical person, the more likely it is to be your comparative advantage. For instance, suppose you like being alone, do not get bored easily by monotonous work, and do not have any particular attachment to any one place.
2. Look at career options and ask yourself if that is something that fits your skills and preferences. Over-the-road trucking is a lot more attractive to people who can stand boredom and isolation, and don’t feel a need to settle down in one place. Conversely, it’s less attractive to people who are the opposite way, and so is likely to command a higher wage.
3. Now that you have a shorter list of things you’re likely to face less competition for or be better at, use any sort of evaluation to pick among the narrower field.

ThrustVectoring Feb 19, 2014, 10:19 PM
0 points
in reply to: linkhyrule5’s comment on: Open Thread for February 18-24 2014
Use the stream-of-commands as seen from the chat and the stream to estimate the delay between inputs now and results later. Generate a probable future state, given the current distribution of commands. Evaluate what distribution of commands maximizes positive results, and spam that distribution.

The biggest time sink other than the program logic is creating pathing/scoring rules. I’d start with “how to successfully deposit the first pokemon in your party”—Markov chains is where you want to go.

ThrustVectoring Feb 16, 2014, 1:04 AM
0 points
on: Mental Subvocalization—”Saying” Words In Your Mind As You Read
I can and often do skip the whole “hearing the text I’m reading” thing, but tend to enjoy slowing down and turning it back on for engaging, complicated, or fun texts. I also have a bad habit of skimming text instead of reading it if it’s both boring and I’m not hearing what I read—I still get enough to decide whether or not it’s worth remembering, just not enough to always recall it outright.

ThrustVectoring Feb 11, 2014, 11:17 PM
−5 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Open Thread for February 11 − 17
I suspect that most people already are utilitarians—albeit with implicit calculation of their utility function. In other words, they already figure out what they think is best and do that (if they thought something else was better, it’s what they’d do instead).

ThrustVectoring Feb 7, 2014, 8:31 PM
2 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: How can I spend money to improve my life?
I get that some hobbies are better than others, and you can use analysis to figure out costs and benefits. I have a tendency to over-analyze things instead of actually going out and doing them, so I tailored my advice for someone that likely has the same issues (since they’ve got a list of hobbies that indicates not going out and trying things).

Some people need to spend more time figuring out what hobbies they want and their relative costs or benefits. The people that need this branch of advice have already tried several of the hobbies listed and aren’t asking for advice along these lines.

ThrustVectoring Feb 7, 2014, 5:06 PM
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: How can I spend money to improve my life?
It depends on the relative costs of analysis versus just trying it, really. If it takes ten hours to figure out which hobby you want to try first, you could have already tried the top three gut-feeling hobbies out for three hours each.