Extremely neophilic. Much of my content is on Quora (I was the Quora celebrity). I am also on forum.quantifiedself.com (people do not realize how alignment-relevant this is), rapamycin.news/latest, and crsociety.org
...People say the craziest things about me, because I'm a peculiar star...
I care about neuroscience (esp human intelligence enhancement) and reducing genetic inequality. The point of transhumanism is to transcend genetic limitations - to reduce the fraction of variance of outcome explained by genetics. I know loads of people in self-experimentation communities (people in our communities need to be less risk-averse if we have to make any difference in our probability of "making it"). When we are right at "the precipice", traditionalism cannot win (I am probably the least traditionalist person ever). I get along well with the unattached.
Slowing human compute loss from reducing microplastics/pollution/noise/rumination/aging rate are alignment-relevant (insofar as the most tractable way of "human enhancement" is to slow decline with age + make human thinking clearer). As is tFUS. I aim to do all I can to make biology keep up with technology. Reconfiguring reward functions to reward "wholesome/growthful/novel tasks over "the past" [you are aged when you think too much of the past].
Alignment through integrating all the diverse skillsets (including those who are not math/CS geniuses) and integrating all their compute + not making them waste time/attention on "dumb things" + making people smarter/more neuroplastic (this is a hard problem, but 40Hz-tACS [1] might do a little).
Unschooling is also alignment-relevant (most value is destroyed in deceptive alignment, and school breeds deceptive alignment). As is inverting "things that feel unfun".
Chaotic people may depend more on a sense of virtue than others, but it takes a lot to get people to trust a group of people/make themselves authentic when school has taken out much of their authenticity. Some people don't lose much or get much emotional damage from it (I've noticed it from several who dropped out of school for alignment), but some people get way more, and this is a way easier problem to solve than directly increasing human intelligence.
I like Dionysians. However, I had to cut back after accidentally destroying an opportunity (a friend having egged me onto being manic...)
Breadth/context produces unique compute value of its own
https://twitter.com/InquilineKea
facebook.com/simfish
I have a Twitter alt.
I trigger exponential growth trajectories in some. I helped seed the original Ivy League Psychedelics communities and am very good friends with Qualia Research Institute people (though I cannot try them much now)
Main objectives: not get sad, not get worked out over dumb things, not making my life harder than it is now.
I really like https://www.lesswrong.com/users/bhauth. Zvi is smart too https://www.lesswrong.com/users/zvi?from=post_header
[1] there are negative examples too
tFUS could be one of the best techniques for improving rationality, esp b/c [AT THE VERY MINIMUM] it is so new/variance-increasing and if the default outcome is not one that we want (as was the case of Biden vs Trump, and Biden dropping out was the desireable variance-increasing move) [and is the case now among LWers who believe in AI doom], we should be increasing variance rather than decreasing it. tFUS may be the avenue for better aligning people's thought with actions, especially when their hyperactive DMN or rumination gets in the way of their ability to align with themselves (tFUS being a way to shut down this dumb self-talk).
Even Michael Vassar has said "eliezer becoming CEO of openwater would meaningfully increase humanity's survival 100x" and "MIRI should be the one buying openwater early devices trying to use them to optimize for rationality"
[btw if anyone knows of tFUS I could try out, I'm totally willing to volunteer]
Why is thing IQ measuring mostly lognormal
How about people who just don't "give a fuck", are Nishkama Karma, and maintain emotional composure even in times when others doubt them/do not believe them (knowing that the end is what matters).They are graceful on the inside, and maintain internal composure in the face of chaos, but others may view their movements as ungraceful particularly b/c they have the sense (and enough of a reality distortion field) to "make the world adapt to them", rather than "adapt to the world" (if they succeed, they make the world adapt to them such that the world around them becomes more harmonious long-term after the initial reduction in harmony [due to the clumsiness of the world learning to adapt to them]). It takes time to learn grace, and when choosing the ordering of vital skills to learn, grace is often learned later than skills one has comparative advantage in.
[as an example, I know I have historically been ungraceful when reacting to my own dumb mistakes. I have historically done it to signal awareness/remorse/desire to correct, but in an overly emotional way that may cause some people to doubt my emotional stability near-term - is it really necessary? sometimes it's better just to have no contact for sufficiently long enough that when you re-emerge, you come off as so different they're surprised].
[in the long run, learning to read a room is one of the best ways of developing grace, though it matters more if one is ultra-famous than when one is mostly unknown and can afford to experiment with consequence-free failure]
(asking questions that appear dumb to some people can also be "ungraceful" to the audience, even if important. the strategic among that crowd will just have good enough models of everyone to know who the safest people are to ask the "dumb questions" to)
Sometimes, the fastest way to learn is to create faster feedback loops around yourself ("move fast and break things"). The phrase "move fast and break things" appears disharmonious/ungraceful, but (if done in a limited way that "takes profits" before turning into full-blown mania), can be one of the fastest ways of achieving a more harmonious broader state, even when creating some local chaos/disharmony.
People who appear to have high levels of grace can also be extremely dangerous because they can get people to trust them to the very end, especially if their project is an inherently destabilizing project. Ideally, you want a 1-1 correspondence between authenticity/robustness/lack of brittleness and grace, but people's perception of gracefulness at all levels is not high enough for the perception of gracefulness to be the most reliable perception.
Having grace often means doing "efficient calculations" without being explicit about these calculations. It's like keeping your words to yourself and not revealing your cards unless necessary (explicit calculations are clumsy/clunky). Sometimes, a proper understanding of Strauss is necessary to develop grace in some environments (what you say is not what you really mean, except to the readers who have enough context to jump all the layers of abstraction - it may also be needed to communicate unobvious messages in environments where discretion is important)
Patience is also grace (and not getting into situations that cause you to "lose control"/be impatient/exciteable/manic OR do things out of order). At the same time, there are ways of turning a reputation of ditching meetings into gracefulness (after all, most meetings do last longer than needed, as Yishan Wong once mentioned) [some projects also require a high deal of urgency, potentially including eras of accelerated AGI timelines]
Having the appearance of "whatever happens, happens" is graceful (being in command of your emotions no matter what life throws at you - eg John Young was very graceful when he navigated moon landings with a uniquely minimally-increased heartrate). Being able to keep a poker face is graceful. Not acting in distress/pain in order to gain people's sympathy is graceful. As someone who knows many in the longevity community, I know that having the appearance of "fearing death" or "wanting to live forever" is super-ungraceful (and gives PR image problems in its ungracefulness). There are some people in longevity who are closet immortalists who can appear graceful because they don't appear as if they care that much about whether or not they live forever. In a similar way, doomerism about AI is extremely ungraceful (though those who are closeted doomers/immortalists can sometimes be secretly graceful to those who are less closeted about these things).
Things that are not the most graceful: over-correcting/over-compensating, irritability, appearing emotional enough to lose control, constantly seeking feedback (implies lack of confidence), visibly chasing likes, obsessing over intermediate computations/near-term reinforcement loops, "people pleasing" (esp when one is obvious about it), perseverating, laughing at one's own jokes, not being steadfast, not knowing when to stop (autistics are prone to this..), going for the food too early (semaglutide can help with grace..) Autistic people often lack grace, though some are able to develop it really well over long timescales.
Grace is having confidence over the process without becoming too attentive to short-term reinforcement/feedback loops (this includes patience as part of the process).
As with everything else, intelligence makes grace easier (and makes it possible to learn some things gracefully), but there is enough variation in grace that one can more than make up for lower intelligence with context+grace+strategic awareness. There is also loss of grace with older ages as working memory decline can increase impatience (Richard Posner said writing ability is the last to go, but that's because there's no real time observation of the process, and there's grace in observing the dynamics).
Wow, and Mexico's fertility rate just plunged to 1.82
Isn't that a non-disparagement clause, not a NDA?
This is a very promising start on some thesis (that could go further into the theory of computation/sid mani content/https://lifeiscomputation.com/), but the "intelligence growth curves" are not very intuitive. I wager that dimensionality is more important than number of elements in determining intelligence growth curves and especially number of discontinuous jumps.
Why does F^4_65's intelligence peak out at such a low value at time 2040? Why does 's intelligence peak out at a lower value than equal-dimensional fields with fewer elements in them?
at some point it may have to incorporate quality/diversity/taste, not just size
Has anyone tried Visia skin analysis to get feedback loops on skinhealth? (they reveal WAY more than just pictures) The problem with camera images is that visible light doesn't capture fine lines or wrinkles. My skin SEEMS to look as perfect as that of a 12-year old on the outside, but there is some small amount of wrinkling under my eyes that a visia reveals (which is why this thread prompted me to finally get dermatica tretonin)
Collagen peptides also can help increase collagen synthesis and relieve fine lines (it's my biggest pet peeve b/c I can't stand ingesting animal products, and this is the only thing Bryan Johnson will ditch veganism for). And it's really irritating that there isn't more vegan collagen available.
It's one of the most important issues ever, and has a chance of solving mass instability/unhappiness caused by wide inequality in IQs in the population, by giving the less-endowed a shot to increase their intelligence.