But how do you distinguish this argument from other arguments that prove false things?
Warty
Karma: 45
I remember the mom saying it was a wig in the Tucker Carlson interview.
what was up with the alleged wig?
The terminally online TPOT Xitter slander is so false I mean there is different parts but for example, at vibecamp 2 (summer 2023) there was a question from the stage like “who thinks AI will kill us” and I think more than 1⁄3 present raised their hands. Which maybe still we’re not worth persuading. But if you’d want to I think you should hash it out with prof. Hanson, he seems to have a take that’s smart and hard to reconcile with less wrong thought. “Epistemic daddy uncertainty” they call it.
android phone with google chrome
(related phenomena can be observed by scrolling to the 16-17 boundary and lowering the browser window width)
There are typos in the articles for example the category theory one:
A statement about terminal object is that any
maybe “terminal object” was a link with “s” added at the end but it reverted to its natural form in the importing process
there’s weird shit going on on mobile like items 1-16 scroll a but horizontally
For 99% of random[3] reversible circuits , no such exists.
What’s the proportion of circuits where P(C) is true?
if they were written today I’d be like “that’s giga obvious”
wait is the lever position meaningful like that? I used lever direction = where the train go, cause it seemed intuitive.
“activating in another pattern” sounds similar enough to “scrambling”. so are you saying, the brain will keep/change the patterns based on them being good/bad? it would seem partly likely (on my model), like say the motor function is scrambled in a useless way, it would be rescrambled into a way that works by learning, and if it happens to work better it would be kept. but it seems unlikely this process would strongly reflect my deepest intellectual endorsement. there could be conscious feedback fixing it, but the worry extends into the feedback “getting scrambled”.
additional thought: I’d be especially worried about “destructive” changes—compare to lobotomy, it was also a procedure done directly on the brain that was considered to cure stuff, but now we consider it bad because it was destroying stuff.
[uninformed neurology is fun]
first time I hear of TMS. I find it sus for the same reason as I find electroconvulsive therapy sus. like, what’s the mechanism of the healing? sounds like it scrambles your brain and the new configuration is not depressed. but given this effect on depression, I would be worried about having other parts of me scrambled.
the fun and/or clarity can be improved/worsened. a way to improve fun is to have less text and more puzzle, here’s a more fun hitchhiker version
burning the dog defense commons 😔
cute, I hoped it would be more like historical or philosophical
An argument against computationally bounded Solomonoff induction is that it wouldn’t get quantum physics, because it’s exponentially hard to compute. But quantum computation isn’t less natural than classical, so we might as well base it on a bounded quantum computer, which gets around the objection.
Warty’s Shortform
I generally think non-descriptive names are overused, but this isn’t the worst of it because at least it’s easy to tell which is which (1 comes before 2). Intuition/Reason aren’t a perfect replacement since the words are entangled with other stuff.
I also found a huge effect in my twitter poll https://twitter.com/warty_dog/status/1773479101568786736 , though that has worse potential selection issues than ACX poll
couldn’t work for me cause I lowkey love nail biting. didn’t know other people were getting fucked up nails without the enjoyment