Tractor pulling is a midwestern sport where people compete to build the tractor with the greatest pulling power, and then use it to pull against an ever-increasing drag. Whoever gets furthest wins. There are no restrictions on the types of engine or tractor, aside from overall weight. So it's basically a contest in who can buy the biggest jet engine? No, because the rules require that it be piloted by hand. No gyroscopes, electronics, or mechanical steering. That keeps the sport human and engaging.
The automatic guidance required for superhuman tractor pull driving is pretty simple (I looked into it in about 1991 when I was going to tractor pulls). You could... (read more)
Another how not to die of carbon monoxide tip: Don't fall asleep in a car below decks on a ferry that has trucks idling. I was poisoned into unconsciousness, but revived with oxygen.
This could have been much shorter and more straightforwardly written, while being even more engaging.
Because then we can't trust that that's what the moons of Neptune really look like. The information has come from a source with goals and motivations and long-term plans, and the ability to lie. If a space probe tells us that the largest moon of Neptune has black geysers and terrain shaped like cantaloupe skin, we can trust it because it's subhuman and incapable of fooling us. With an AI we have to think "what if it's wrong? What if it has an ulterior motive?"
It occurs to me that both of my examples are similar, in that the moon of Neptune are remote in space, while historical facts are remote in time.... (read more)
We have pictures of the moons of Neptune. Verifying them would require sending another space probe, and be no easier than the first one.
Lots of historical facts were easy to determine at the time they were written down, and now quite impossible to check.
All of your points are good ones. I now think my original position was an over-reaction. I'm still worried in general, but this was a carefully composed post, and i think my original position went too far.
I agree that it should be possible to make political posts here that are consistent with rational thought. But i think that we, as fallible humans, will have a hard time doing it. And an outbreak of political disagreement here would be very unfortunate. We've done so well thus far keeping out the toxoplasma of rage.
I just want to register my protest at this explicitly political post appearing on Less Wrong. We've got a marvelously politics-free space here. Let's keep it that way. If you want to talk politics, you have essentially every other web site in the Internet to do it.
When our kids were toddlers and youngsters, we had a rule that a whiny kid would not get what they asked for. We eventually developed a custom where if a kid asked for something in a whiny manner, we would dramatically intone “If you whine, you get…” and the kid would reply “NOTHING!” Then they would ask for whatever-it-was in a pleasant manner, and often get it. Kids often don’t realize that they’re whining, so this was a way of helping them to notice. And by often giving them the thing when they asked nicely, instead of holding the whining against them, we encouraged self-correction.
I have some experience in the design of systems designed for high reliability and resistance to adversaries. I feel like I’ve seen this kind of thinking before.
Your current line of thinking is at a stage I would call “pretheoretical noodling around.” I don’t mean any disrespect; all design has to go through this stage. But you’re not going to find any good references, or come to any conclusions, if you stay at this stage. A next step is to settle on a model of what you want to get done, and what capabilities the adversaries have. You need some bounds on the adversaries; otherwise nothing can work. And of course you need... (read more)
My understanding of brain vasculature suggests that you should cool the carotid arteries in the neck, not the scalp. The scalp is fed by the external branch of the carotid, while the brain is fed by the internal branch. So cooling the scalp won’t cool the blood going to the brain.
There has been research on using localized microwave heating to cook brain tumors. Forty five years ago, it was located in the basement of building 26 at MIT. My father looked into it and said that it was hard to get good localized heating because heat was carried away so fast by the blood.
Epistemic status: all from memory, don’t have time for research, got to go now. 30% chance I’ve gotten something importantly wrong.
I've wanted to build a self-reproducing machine since I was 17. It's forty-five years later, and it has finally become feasible. (I've done a few other things along the way.) I'm going to describe one such device, and speculate as to its larger implications. It's a pretty detailed design, which I had to come up with to convince myself that it is feasible. No doubt there are better designs than this.
Here's a top-level description of the device I'm thinking of. It's called an Autofac, which is what they were called in the earliest story about them. It looks like a little metal shed, about a meter cubed. It weighs about 50... (read 2440 more words →)
Epistemic status: I didn't read the paper but I read the blog post.
In 1976, the essay "Artificial Intelligence meets Natural Stupidity" pointed out a failure mode into which AI researchers can fall. I fear this is another example, 50 years later. It goes as follows:
Of course there is no necessary connection between the new... (read more)