All of Capla's Comments + Replies

This is a brilliant essay. One of the best in the sequences, I think.

If you are interested in AI risk or other existential risks and want to help, even if you don't know how, and you either...

1. Live in Chicago
2. Attend the University of Chicago
3. Are are intending to attend the University of Chicago in the next two years.

...please message me.

I'm looking for people to help with some projects.

[I'll post on next week's open thread as well.]

If you are interested in AI risk or other existential risks and want to help, even if you don't know how, and you either...

  1. Live in Chicago
  2. Attend the University of Chicago
  3. Are are intending to attend the University of Chicago in the next two years.

...please message me.

I'm looking for people to help with some projects.

Also, I'm not sure why anyone would want alcor (or anyone) to offer such necklaces. Don't we want' people to sign up for cryonics?

That kind of misses the point. There are lots of neckslaces that have peace sign on them, but they're not at all a good signal of pacifism, or nuclear disarmament (what the peace sign originally stood for). Think of how many people where a ying yang because it looks cool instead of to convey an affinity, much less a dedication to, for Taoist ideals.

It is because the necklace is expensive and represents an actual (if small) step towards destroying the awful-thing, that it is good signalling.

Part of this is because the more expensive the thing and the more ... (read more)

Also, I'm not sure why anyone would want alcor (or anyone) to offer such necklaces. Don't we want' people to sign up for cryonics?

I'd think of the hulk's universal strength as something like the difference between species instead of between individuals. I don't know, but I imagine that a mountain gorilla is much stronger than me, at bench pressing, at deadlifting, at overheard pressing, at throwing, etc.

Hmm...Let me check that out.

There's the polypahsic society. They are more-or-less the representatives of consensus among polyphonic folks. (I think. Perhaps I'm misrepresenting them?)

Stampi is not very helpful for figuring out what polyphasic people are doing while they sleep. So far, I've yet to find a single paper that features a polysomnographic evaluation of someone doing uberman or everyman, much less one that does a basic evaluation of whether someone who has been polyphonic (long term) is exhibiting clinical symptoms of sleep deprivation. Both of those, but particularly the polysomnograph, would be very informative.

I've read some of the Polyphasic Society's website, and they make a different argument. Unfortunately it doesn't seem the website exists any longer (or now it's at a different location?), but the Internet Archive has the page I read []. You can see that they claim something a little more sophisticated than that they go straight into REM (with the implication that REM is all you need, etc.). Likely, they do this because the REM claims are false for multiple reasons. I discussed this with ChristianKI on LessWrong a year ago []. Beyond the REM claims, their newer claims are contradicted by the research in Stampi's book (see the link in the previous sentence for justification). The reason you don't see studies about polyphasic schedules like Uberman and Everyman is probably because sleep researchers consider the idea to be so far-fetched that it's not worth doing a study. I have seen some polyphasic sleep proponents use Zeo, however. Look at the Polyphasic Society link I gave in the previous paragraph for an example.

I agree with your skepticism. The polyphasic community claims that they are able to make drastic reduction in sleep time because they go straight into REMs when taking a nap. This conflicts with a lot of my understanding.

It is my suspicion that they are mistaken about that, and that actually, if a person has acclimated to polyphasic, he/she isn't going into REM at all and that this is where gains come from.

Who do you mean with "the polyphasic community" exactly? Who's actually doing polyphasic sleep and claiming such a thing (e.g. hasn't read Stampi)?

Can I get a little clarification? Are people up-voting because they like the content of this post or because they like the prospect of later posts on sleep?

I was unsure of whether to put this up, since I thought it didn't have much in the way of novel insight, just background knowledge.

Both. It may not have been original, but it was new (or at least unfamiliar) to me.

Since jujutsu is very...uh...intimate.

Personal experience says you should just used to this. It is weird at first, but it isn't that bad.

I am curious to what extent the info in this post is common knowledge. Are these things familiar to people?

I knew about melatonin and red/blue light from reading people in this community. I also had a vague understanding that circadian rhythms controlled falling asleep and were based on light, but I don't think I'd seen things spelled out as clearly as they are here. Thank you for putting this together and I do look forward to the rest of your series.
See this post [] and discussion from 5 years ago. I saw someone wearing red goggles at an LW meetup years ago. EDIT: Even if this has been discussed before, I still read and enjoyed your post, and it contained new info. I think sleep optimization is important - somebody should be keeping me informed of any new research. ;)
Didn't see the original, but it looks good now.

Ok. I just read another comic by the same author, Demon, about a (sociopathic) character who discovers that he can't die (in an interesting way). It's great! The protagonist does exactly the sort of experimentation I would do in his situation, and several charterers make plans that are authentically clever, and legitimately surprising.

Highly recommended.

Aren't most of the apples on earth precisely the ones we bread to be edible (and tasty)?

I'm not sure what your point is?

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

I generally don't care what level a post is at if I'm going to upvote it, but when I see something has a negative core that I think is unfair, I'll bump it up by one.

I'm a little disturbed by the thought of reconstructing my personality from others' impressions of my personality.

which is what is the most any person, more specifically, I can do for FAI?

First thing you should do is talk to the people that are already involved in this. CFAR seems to be the gateway for man people (at least, it was for me).

So maybe the first step would be to upload some humans and give them more processing power,

I would like this plan, but there are reasons to think that the path to WBE passes through nueromorphic AI which is exceptionally likely to be unfriendly, since the principle is basically to just copy parts of the human brain without understanding how the human brain works.

Is your position written out somewhere where I can read it?

Not in one place, sadly.

The smarter you are, the more likely you are to think you're the exception, and neglect the outside view.

That curve got to bend at some point -- if you're very very very smart you should realize this and adjust for it.
I'd say the smarter you think you are, the more likely you are to think you're the exception. I'd say that saying that IQ positively correlates with overconfidence is a much stronger claim than saying that the overconfidence effect exists.

I didn't realize until you said it.

I still don't get it. Could you (or someone else) please explain it?

Sure. But religion is supposed divinely inspired and thus completely correct on every point. If one piece of the bundle is disproven, the whole bundle takes a hit.

Even if religion is divinely inspired, a person's understanding of one aspect of religion can be wrong without invalidating all of that person's other religious beliefs.

I'd say FUNDAMENTALS OF CRYOBIOLOGY, followed by Baust's ADVANCES in BIOPRESERVATION. However, you may find another starting point better. I recently felt the need (out of self defense) to learn about dentistry. That's a bit like saying I decided to learn about neurosurgery:that covers a lot of ground. However, mostly what I was interested in was plain old restorative dentistry and the much more exotic implant dentistry. There are easily half a dosen textbooks on basic, restorative dentistry... After perusing a number, I settled on one as a proper "re... (read more)

I'm leading a rationality training group. We're working through the most recent CFAR curriculum, but I also want to work from parts of the sequences.

Which posts in the sequences were particularly impactfull for you? Not just ones that you found interesting, but ideas that you actually implemented in your thinking about object-level stuff.

I'm particularly interested in posts that we could spin out into techniques to practice, like noticing confusion or leaving a line of retreat.

“That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.” [] I couldn't find the sequence that covers it directly, but going through my old journals, this one came up repeatedly while facing hard decisions.
Think the thought that hurts the most. []

And as the level of interaction with the rest of reality increases, P(D1) approaches 50%. Right?

and this is de-coherence? This is why the macro-world is seemingly classical? There are some many elements in the system that you never get anything that doesn't intact with something else and all the configurations are independent?

Clarification: an amplitude is the value of a configuration?

so { a photon going from A to B = (-1 + 0i) } is a configuration and { (-1 + 0i) } is an amplitude?

I'll add two extra posts to the suggested readings, if you have time (but focus on the main four).


I might be pushing it, but it shouldn't take more than a half hour to read all six.

I'm reminded of another Feynman anecdote: when he invented his own mathematical notion in middle school. It made more sense to him, but he soon realized that it was no good for communicating ideas to others.

Every time I try to learn to sight-sing I get sidetracked by trying to invent better notation for music. After many repeats of this process I've decided that music notation is pretty good, given the constraints under which it used to operate. Now I'm trying to just force myself to learn to sight-sing, already.

"The danger in trying to do good is that the mind comes to confuse the intent of goodness with the act of doing things well."

  • Ursula k. Le Guin, Tales from Earthsea
In my version of the book the preface is 23 pages. I wouldn't buy a new book just for that.
How long is that preface?

I chose to love regardless of how the other feels towards me.

Hmm...I would very much like to know if my very stringent criteria for basic-possibility-of-a-relationship will change with time. I suppose I should evaluate my goals and why I have those criteria.

upvote for noticing a (possibly) uncharitable reaction in yourself and taking steps to do better.

No stupid questions thread?

What make a person sexual submissive, sexually dominant, or a switch? Do people ever change d/s orientation?

Based on some experiences that transgender people I know have had, it seems like a change in sex hormones can change their d/s orientation. Also, age seems to push people more towards sexual dominance.
Unknown. It is probably not purely genetic, because the heredity is less than for a lot of personality stuff. People do change, but trying to change or push somebody to change tends to fail.

I've been planing on staring this soon. Is it important to have a recent edition. How much has changed since the first publishing?

I'm just starting to read the 20th-anniversary edition (from 1999 I think) and he states in the preface that even the typos haven't been corrected.

Similarly, I go the same answer, but only by process of elimination. I knew it didn't have dots, I knew it didn't have a diamond, I knew it didn't have an x, by just extrapolating from the "cut offs" in the problem. That left me with 2, but it felt...wrong. It didn't feel intuitively right. If I had to pick on without thinking about it, number 2's the last one I'd pick.

I only understand the pattern in a cohesive way from looking at the comments. Now it makes sense, instead of being deduced from bits of dis-unified information.

Do I know my IQ now?

Why is this on Vimeo instead of Youtube? I can adjust the play-speed on YT videos.

5Liron8y []

Tell me where and how. If I can preserve cell samples for under $1000, I'll almost certainly do it. I think it would be relatively easy to convince my parents it's a good idea ("just in case"), and I can use the commitment effect from this minor precaution as a foothold to convince them to sign up for cryonics.

I want to spend a few weeks seriously looking into cryonics: how it works, the costs, the theory about revival, the changes in the technology in the past 60 years, the options that are available.

I want to become an expert in cryonics to the extent that I can answer, in depth, the questions that people typically have when they hear about this "crazy idea" for the first time. {Hmm...That sounds a little like bottom-line reasoning, trying to prepare for objections, instead of ferreting out the truth. I'll have to be careful of that. To be fair, I will need to overcome objections to get my family to sign up. Still, be careful of looking for data just to affirm my naive presumption.}

What should I read?

Ralph Merkle's cryonics page [] is a good place to start. His 1994 paper on The Molecular Repair of the Brain [] seems to be the most technical explanation of why it looks feasible. Since whole brain emulation is expected to use many of the same techniques, that roadmap (long pdf) [] is worth looking at.
Read Chronospause [], Cryonics [], and Mike Darwin's comment history []. Mike Darwin is very, very based. If you still want more, try reading all the articles under the "cryonics" tag [] and gwern's "Plastination versus Cryonics" [].

Since, neither is listed on the best textbooks thread, can anyone recommend good textbooks for

1) Social psychology

2) Cognitive psychology


Ok. I'm not saying you're wrong, but what on what basis. You call bullocks, and I check...what? We can't really make concrete statement bout how these scenarios will work.

Why not? From where I'm sitting it sure seems like we can. We have all sorts of tools for analyzing the behavior of computer programs, which include AIs. And we have a longer history of analyzing engineering blueprints. We have information theory which triggers big red warning signs when a solution seems more complex than it needs to be (which any nefarious solution would be). We have cryptographic tools for demanding information from even the most powerful adversaries in ways that simply cannot be cheated. So, saying we can never trust the output of a superhuman AI "because, superhuman!" seems naïve and ignorant at the very least.

Sure, but also, P(those-jokes-weren't-funny) .

Is the author unaffiliated with LessWrong?

As far as I am aware yes. Their framing, priorities and vocabulary all make me strongly believe so.

Other than Superintelligence and Global Catastrophic Risks what should I read to find out more about existential risk?

"X-Events:The Collapse of Everything" covers some similar ground but from a more popular perspective.
Load More