My partner and I have been living together for a year. We currently share our finances to some extent (we have our own bank accounts, but have a shared credit card). I've been thinking about how our current system can be made more optimal. We mostly buy food, travel expenses,...
People tend to form what I guess I'm going to call default-hypothesis-reference-classes. This is what they see as the "default" hypothesis that new hypotheses have to compete against. Obviously this isn't how a perfect bayesian reasoner would act, but we're only human. These weird reference classes can be tricky, because...
My partner and I have been living together for a year. We currently share our finances to some extent (we have our own bank accounts, but have a shared credit card). I've been thinking about how our current system can be made more optimal. We mostly buy food, travel expenses, and other shared goods on the credit card.
Obviously, any system of sharing finances should leave both partners feeling like the arrangement is fair. That's what I mean by ethical. I think that a relationship should be a team effort, and if you can give your partner 1 utilon at the cost of 0.5 utilons to yourself, you should do it every time.... (read 361 more words →)
What's the problem with oracle AIs? It seems like if you had a safe oracle AI that gave human-aligned answers to questions, you could then ask "how do I make an aligned AGI?" and just do whatever it says. So it seems like the problem of "how to make an aligned agentic AGI" is no harder than "how to make an aligned orcale AI", which I understand to still be extremely hard, but surely it's easier than making an aligned agentic AGI from scratch?
People tend to form what I guess I'm going to call default-hypothesis-reference-classes. This is what they see as the "default" hypothesis that new hypotheses have to compete against. Obviously this isn't how a perfect bayesian reasoner would act, but we're only human.
These weird reference classes can be tricky, because you can get "sucked into them" and stop noticing that they're weird.
I started thinking of this when thinking about the CICO model of weight gain/loss. Calories-in-calories-out sounds obviously true under thermodynamics. There's about 2 × 1010 Calories in a gram of matter, and humans need about 2000 Calories per day, so make sure not to eat more than a tiny fraction of a... (read 454 more words →)
While I’m here I guess I may as well post that i’ve been using your rational breaks idea for about two weeks now and it’s worked very well for me. It’s not very polished but I made this little website to help track my time in work mode or break mode: https://chadnauseam.com/productivity/rational-breaks . Don’t refresh the page because it doesn’t persist your state haha. Also it starts you out in break mode with a few seconds of example time in each category but I’ll change that soon
I'm reading Being you and they make a similar point to the one you make about H20 and XYZ. It's part of their argument against p-zombies:
... (read more)Here’s why the zombie idea is supposed to provide an argument against physicalist explanations of consciousness. If you can imagine a zombie, this means you can conceive of a world that is indistinguishable from our world, but in which no consciousness is happening. And if you can conceive of such a world, then consciousness cannot be a physical phenomenon.
And here’s why it doesn’t work. The zombie argument, like many thought experiments that take aim at physicalism, is a conceivability argument, and conceivability arguments are intrinsically weak. Like