Aprillion (Peter Hozák)

https://peter.hozak.info

Posts

Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions

Comments

yeah, I got a similar impression that this line of reasoning doesn't add up...

we interpret other humans as feeling something when we see their reactions

we interpret other eucaryotes as feeling something when we see their reactions 🤷

(there are a couple of circuit diagrams of the whole brain on the web, but this is the best.  From this site.)

could you update the 404 image, please? (link to the site still works for now, just the image is gone)

I agree with what you say. My only peeve is that the concept of IGF is presented as a fact from the science of biology, while it's used as a confused mess of 2 very different concepts.

Both talk about evolution, but inclusive finess is a model of how we used to think about evolution before we knew about genes. If we model biological evolution on the genetic level, we don't have any need for additional parameters on the individual organism level, natural selection and the other 3 forces in evolution explain the observed phenomena without a need to talk about invididuals on top of genetic explanations.

Thus the concept of IF is only a good metaphor when talking approximately about optimization processes, not when trying to go into details. I am saying that going with the metaphor too far will result in confusing discussions.

humans don't actually try to maximize their own IGF


Aah, but humans don't have IGF. Humans have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness, while genes have allele frequency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution ..

Inclusive genetic fitness is a non-standard name for the latter view of biology as communicated by Yudkowsky - as a property of genes, not a property of humans.

The fact that bio-robots created by human genes don't internally want to maximize the genes' IGF should be a non-controversial point of view. The human genes successfully make a lot of copies of themselves without any need whatsoever to encode their own goal into the bio-robots.

I don't understand why anyone would talk about IGF as if genes ought to want for the bio-robots to care about IGF, that cannot possibly be the most optimal thing that genes should "want" to do (if I understand examples from Yudkowsky correctly, he doesn't believe that either, he uses this as an obvious example that there is nothing about optimization processes that would favor inner alignment) - genes "care" about genetic success, they don't care about what the bio-robots outght to believe at all 🤷

Some successful 19th century experiments used 0.2°C/minute and 0.002°C/second.

Have you found the actual 19th century paper?

The oldest quote about it that I found is from https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/12/07/3085614.htm

Or perhaps the story began with E.M. Scripture in 1897, who wrote the book, The New Psychology. He cited earlier German research: "…a live frog can actually be boiled without a movement if the water is heated slowly enough; in one experiment the temperature was raised at the rate of 0.002°C per second, and the frog was found dead at the end of two hours without having moved."

Well, the time of two hours works out to a temperature rise of 18°C. And, the numbers don't seem right.

First, if the water boiled, that means a final temperature of 100°C. In that case, the frog would have to be put into water at 82°C (18°C lower).

Surely, the frog would have died immediately in water at 82°C. 

I'm not sure what to call this sort of thing. Is there a preexisting name?

sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence to me 🤔 (not 100% overlap and also not the most useful concept, but very similar shaky pointer in concept space between what is described here and what has been observed as a phenomena called Emergence)

Thanks to Gaurav Sett for reminding me of the boiling frog.

I would like to see some mention that this is a pop culture reference / urban myth, not  something actual frogs might do.

To quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog, "the premise is false".

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

PSA: This is the old page pointing to the 2022 meetup month events, chances are you got here in year 2023 (at the time of writing this comment) while there was a bug on the homepage of lesswrong.com with a map and popup link pointing here...

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ynpC7oXhXxGPNuCgH/acx-meetups-everywhere-2023-times-and-places seems to be the right one 🤞

sampled uniformly and independently

 

🤔 I don't believe this definition fits the "apple" example - uniform samples from a concept space of "apple or not apple" would NEVER™ contain any positive example (almost everything is "not apple")... or what assumption am I missing that would make the relative target volume more than ~zero (for high n)?

Bob will observe a highly optimized set of Y, carefully selected by Alice, so the corresponding inputs will be Vastly correlated and interdependent at least for the positive examples (centeroid first, dynamically selected for error-correction later 🤷‍♀️), not at all selected by Nature, right?

Load More