I recommend Cloudflare.
Zolmeister
Karma: 177
Superintelligence FAQ [1] as well.
Along the same lines, I found this analogy by concrete example exceptionally elucidative.
While merely anti-bacterial, Nano Silver Fluoride looks promising. (Metallic silver applied to teeth once a year to prevent cavities).
Yudkowsky has written about The Ultimatum Game. It has been referenced here 1 2 as well.
When somebody offers you a 7:5 split, instead of the 6:6 split that would be fair, you should accept their offer with slightly less than 6⁄7 probability. Their expected value from offering you 7:5, in this case, is 7 * slightly less than 6⁄7, or slightly less than 6.
Maybe add posts in
/tag/ai-evaluationsto/robots.txt
Sure, but it does not preclude it. Moreover, if the costs of the actions are not borne by the altruist (e.g. by defrauding customers, or extortion), I would not consider it altruism.
In this sense, altruism is a categorization tag placed on actions.
I do see how you might add a second, deontological definition (‘a belief system held by altruists’), but I wouldn’t. From the post, “Humane” or “Inner Goodness” seem more apt in exploring these ideas.
I do not see the contradiction. Could you elaborate?
55-60% chance there will be “signs of life” in 2030 (4:06:20)
“When we’ve got our learning disabled toddler, we should really start talking about the safety and ethics issues, but probably not before then” (4:35:36)
These things will take thousands of GPUs, and will be data-center bound
“The fast takeoff ones are clearly nonsense because you just can’t open TCP connections above a certain rate” (4:36:40)
Broadly, he predicts AGI to be animalistic (“learning disabled toddler”), rather than a consequentialist laser beam, or simulator.
I found this section, along with dath ilani Governance, and SCIENCE! particularly brilliant.
This concept is introduced in Book 1 as the solution to the Ultimatum Game, and describes fairness as Shapely value.
When somebody offers you a 7:5 split, instead of the 6:6 split that would be fair, you should accept their offer with slightly less than 6⁄7 probability. Their expected value from offering you 7:5, in this case, is 7 * slightly less than 6⁄7, or slightly less than 6.
_
Once you’ve arrived at a notion of a ‘fair price’ in some one-time trading situation where the seller sets a price and the buyer decides whether to accept, the seller doesn’t have an incentive to say the fair price is higher than that; the buyer will accept with a lower probability that cancels out some of the seller’s expected gains from trade. [1]
Eliezer: What do you want the system to do?
Bob: I want the system to do what it thinks I should want it to do.
Eliezer: The Hidden Complexity of Wishes
Gwern has a fantastic overview of time-lock encryption methods.
A compute-hard real-time in-browser solution that doesn’t rely on exotic encryption appears infeasible. (You’d need a GPU, and hours/days worth of compute for years of locking). For LW, perhaps threshold aggregate time-lock encryption would suffice (though vulnerable to collusion/bribery attacks, as noted by Gwern).
I agree with Quintin Pope, a public hash is simple and effective.
Vitalik’s Optimism retro-funding post mentions a few instances where secret ballots are used today, and which could arguably be improved by these cryptographic primitives:
The Israeli Knesset uses secret votes to elect the president and a few other officials
The Italian parliament has used secret votes in a variety of contexts. In the 19th century, it was considered an important way to protect parliament votes from interference by a monarchy.
Discussions in US parliaments were less transparent before 1970, and some researchers argue that the switch to more transparency led to more corruption.
Voting in juries is often secret. Sometimes, even the identities of jurors are secret.
In general, the conclusion seems to be that secret votes in government bodies have complicated consequences; it’s not clear that they should be used everywhere, but it’s also not clear that transparency is an absolute good either.
If we cannot prove who anyone actually voted for, we can’t prove who actually won at all.
Using zero-knowledge proofs it is possible to prove that votes were counted correctly, without revealing who anyone voted for. See MACI [1], which additionally provides inability to prove your own vote to a third party.
if the two agents are able to accurately predict each others’ actions and reason using FDT, then it is possible for the two agents to cooperate
Couldn’t you equally require QV participants pre-commit to non-collusion?
In The Case against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money, Bryan Caplan uses Earth data to make the case that compulsory education does not significantly increase literacy.
My reading is that he claims compulsory education had little effect in Britain and the US, where literacy was already widespread.
When Britain first made education compulsory for 5-to-10-year-olds in 1880, over 95% of 15- year-olds were already literate. [1]
There’s an interesting footnote where he references a paper on economic returns of compulsory education, which cites many sources (p14) finding little to no economic return from schooling reform (though limited to Europe).
Follow the white rabbit
The source makes explicit reference to refined starches:
c All foods are assumed to be in nutrient-dense forms; lean or low-fat and prepared with minimal added sugars; refined starches, saturated fat, or sodium
Though to be clear, I do not endorse the ‘system’ as proposed. I do not believe that it adequately reflects nuance in health effects of food consumption, nor do I believe it accurately represents modern food health science (where are their sources?).
For example, the hard-line stance against saturated fats is questionable [1] [2] [3]. Not explicitly mentioning glycemic index is another obvious failure, for which I assume ‘added sugar’ is a proxy.
There are gut-microbiome differences across carbohydrates with similar GI [4], but I do not have enough information to recommend one sugar over another.
I was referring to their (free) DDoS protection service, rather than their CDN services (also free). In addition to their automated system, you can manually enable an “under-attack” mode that aggressively captchas requests.
Setup is simply pointing DNS name-servers at Cloudflare. Caching HTML pages for logged out (i.e. cookie-less) users is a trivial config (“cache-everything”).