BenRayfield — LessWrong

LESSWRONG
LW

Replying toHow to detonate a technology singularity using only parrot level intelligence - new meetup.com group in Silicon Valley to design and create it

BenRayfield15y

How to detonate a technology singularity using only parrot level intelligence - new meetup.com group in Silicon Valley to design and create it

Yes there is a strong collective mind made of communication through words, but its a very self-deceptive mind. It tries to redefine common words to redefine ideas that other parts of the mind do not intend to redefine, and those parts of mind later find their memory has been corrupted. Its why people start expecting to pay money when they agree to get something "free". Intuition is much more honest. Its based on floating points at the subconscious level instead of symbols at the conscious level. By tunneling between the temporal lobes of peoples' brains, Human AI Net will bypass the conscious level and access the core of the problems that lead... (read more)

-3

Replying toHow to detonate a technology singularity using only parrot level intelligence - new meetup.com group in Silicon Valley to design and create it

BenRayfield15y

How to detonate a technology singularity using only parrot level intelligence - new meetup.com group in Silicon Valley to design and create it

My plan will have approximately the same effect as connecting many peoples' temporal lobes (where audio first comes into brains) to other peoples' temporal lobes, the same way brain parts normally wire to or disconnect from other brain parts, forming a bigger mind. The massively multiplayer audio game is to make those connections.

Its like tunneling a network program through SSL, but this is much more complex because its tunneling statistical thoughts through mouse movements, audio software, ears, brain, mouse movements again (and keep looping), internet, audio software, ears, brain, mouse movements, audio software, ears brain (and keep looping), and back on the same path to the first person and many other people.

If... (read more)

-7

Replying toHow to detonate a technology singularity using only parrot level intelligence - new meetup.com group in Silicon Valley to design and create it

BenRayfield15y

How to detonate a technology singularity using only parrot level intelligence - new meetup.com group in Silicon Valley to design and create it

Networking Human minds together subconsciously (through feedback loops of mouse movements and generated audio) either (1) doesn't work, or (2) causes people to think x amount more like 1 mind and therefore is x amount of progress toward Coherent Extrapolated Volition. The design is not nearly smart enough to create superhuman intelligence without being a CEV, so there is no danger of UnFriendly AI.

-9

Replying toHow to detonate a technology singularity using only parrot level intelligence - new meetup.com group in Silicon Valley to design and create it

BenRayfield15y

How to detonate a technology singularity using only parrot level intelligence - new meetup.com group in Silicon Valley to design and create it

Its not a troll. Its a very confusing subject, and I don't know how to explain it better unless you ask specific questions.

How to detonate a technology singularity using only parrot level intelligence - new meetup.com group in Silicon Valley to design and create it

BenRayfield

15y

http://www.meetup.com/technology-singularity-detonator

9 people joined in the last 5 hours and the first meetup hasn't even happened yet. This is the meetup description, including technical designs and how it leads to singularity:

The plan is to detonate an intelligence explosion (leading to a technology-singularity) starting with an open-source Java artificial intelligence (AI) software which networks peoples' minds together through the internet using realtime interactive psychology of feedback loops between mouse movements and generated audio. "Technological singularity refers to the hypothetical future emergence of greater-than human intelligence through technological means." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity Computer programming is not required to join the group, but some kind of technical or abstract thinking skill is. We are going to make this

... (read 2308 more words →)

-25

Replying toWith whom shall I diavlog?

BenRayfield15y

With whom shall I diavlog?

When he says "intelligent design", he is not referring to the common theory that there is some god that is not subject to the laws of physics which created physics and everything in the universe. He says reality created itself as a logical consequence of having to be a closure. I don't agree with everything he says, but based only on the logical steps that lead up to that, him and Yudkowsky should have interesting things to talk about. Both are committed to obey logic and get rid of their assumptions, so there should be no unresolvable conflicts, but I expect lots of conflicts to start with.

Replying toWith whom shall I diavlog?

BenRayfield15y

With whom shall I diavlog?

I suggest Christopher Michael Langan, as roland said. His "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU)" ( download it at http://ctmu.org ) is very logical and conflicts in interesting ways with how Yudkowsky thinks of the universe at the most abstract level. Langan derives the need for an emergent unification of "syntax" (like the laws of physics) and "state" (like positions and times of objects) and that the universe must be a closure. I think he means the only possible states/syntaxes are very abstractly similar to quines. He proposes a third category, not determinism or random, but somewhere between that fits into his logical model in subtle ways.

QUOTE: The currency of telic feedback... (read more)

-1

Replying toNewcomb's Problem standard positions

BenRayfield15y

Newcomb's Problem standard positions

This is my solution to Newcomb's Paradox.

Causal decision theory is a subset of evidential decision theory. We have much evidence that information flows from past to future. If we observe new evidence that information flows the other direction or the world works a different way than we think which allows Omega (or anyone else) to repeatedly react to the future before it happens, then we should give more weight to other parts of decision theory than causal. Depending on what we observe, our thoughts can move gradually between the various types of decision theory, using evidential decision theory as the meta-algorithm to choose the weighting of the other algorithms.

Observations are all we... (read more)

-9

Replying toCached Selves

BenRayfield15y

Cached Selves

The cache problem is worst for language because its usually made entirely of cache. Most words/phrases are understood by example instead of reading a dictionary or thinking of your own definitions. I'll give an example of a phrase most people have an incorrect cache for. Then I'll try to cause your cache of that phrase to be updated by making you think about something relevant to the phrase which is not in most peoples' cache of it. Its something which, by definition, should be included but for other reasons will usually not be included.

"Affirmative action" means for certain categories including religion and race, those who tend to be discriminated against are given... (read more)

-4

Replying toNonperson Predicates

BenRayfield15y

Nonperson Predicates

Humans evolved from the ancestors of Monkeys therefore there is no line between person and nonperson. There are many ways to measure it, but all correct ways are a continuous function. More generally, the equations of quantum physics are continuous. There is a continuous path from any possible state of the universe to any possible state of the universe. Therefore, for any 2 possible life forms, there is a continuous path of quantum wavefunction (state of the universe) between them, which would look like a video morphing continuously between 2 pictures but morphing between living patterns instead of pictures. For example, there is a continuous path between both possible states (alive and... (read 674 more words →)

-5

Replying toHedging our Bets: The Case for Pursuing Whole Brain Emulation to Safeguard Humanity's Future

BenRayfield16y

Hedging our Bets: The Case for Pursuing Whole Brain Emulation to Safeguard Humanity's Future

I think someone needs to put forward the best case they can find that human brain emulations have much of a chance of coming before engineered machine intelligence.

I misunderstood. I thought you were saying it was your goal to prove that instead of you thought it would not be proven. My question does not make sense.