(Plus a certain degree of mathematician crankery: his page on Google Image Search, and how it disproves AI

I'm starting to wonder if a lot/all of the people who are very cynical about the feasibility of ASI have some crank belief or other like that. Plenty of people have private religion, for instance. And sometimes that religion informs their decisions, but they never tell anyone the real reasons underlying these decisions, because they know they could never justify them. They instead say a load of other stuff they made up to support the decisions that never quite adds up to a coherent position because they're leaving something load-bearing out.

I don't think the intelligence consistently leads to self-annihilation hypothesis is possible. At least a few times it would amount to robust self-preservation.

Well.. I guess I think it boils down to the dark forest hypothesis. The question is whether your volume of space is likely to contain a certain number of berserkers, and the number wouldn't have to be large for them to suppress the whole thing.

I've always felt the logic of berserker extortion doesn't work, but occasionally you'd get a species that just earnestly wants the forest to be dark and isn't very troubled by their own extinction, no extortion logic required. This would be extremely rare, but the question is, how rare.

Light speed migrations with no borders means homogeneous ecosystems, which can be very constrained things.

In our ecosystems, we get pockets of experimentation. There are whole islands where the birds were allowed to be impractical aesthetes (indonesia) or flightless blobs (new zealand). In the field-animal world, islands don't exist, pockets of experimentation like this might not occur anywhere in the observable universe.

If general intelligence for field-animals costs a lot, has no immediate advantages (consistently takes say, a thousand years of ornament status before it becomes profitable), then it wouldn't get to arise. Could that be the case?

We could back-define "ploitation" as "getting shapley-paid".

Yeah. But if you give up on reasoning about/approximating solomonoff, then where do you get your priors? Do you have a better approach?

Buried somewhere in most contemporary bayesians' $I$ is the solomonoff prior (the prior that the most likely observations are those that have short generating machine encodings) Do we have standard symbol for the solomonoff prior? Claude suggests that $M$ is the most common, but is more often used as a distribution function, or perhaps $K$ for Komogorov? (which I like because it can also be thought to stand for "knowledgebase", although really it doesn't represent knowledge, it pretty much represents something prior to knowledge)

I'd just define exploitation to be precisely the opposite of shapley bargaining, situations where a person is not being compensated in proportion to their bargaining power.

This definition encompasses any situation where a person has grievances and it makes sense for them to complain about them and take a stand, or, where striking could reasonably be expected to lead to a stable bargaining equilibrium with higher net utility (not all strikes fall into this category).

This definition also doesn't fully capture the common sense meaning of exploitation, but I don't think a useful concept can.

As a consumer I would probably only pay about 250$ for the unitree B2-W wheeled robot dog because my only use for it is that I want to ride it like a skateboard, and I'm not sure it can do even that.

I see two major non-consumer applications: Street to door delivery (it can handle stairs and curbs), and war (it can carry heavy things (eg, a gun) over long distances over uneven terrain)

So, Unitree... do they receive any subsidies?

Okay if send rate gives you a reason to think it's spam. Presumably you can set up a system that lets you invade the messages of new accounts sending large numbers of messages that doesn't require you to cross the bright line of doing raw queries.

Any point that you can sloganize and wave around on a picket sign is not the true point, but that's not because the point is fundamentally inarticulable, it just requires more than one picket sign to locate it. Perhaps ten could do it.