The art on the LessWrong site and books is amazing. The consistent theme across everything is beautiful! hm... I just checked the physical book and it credits Midjourney. But I feel there must have been some serious prompt crafting/human artistry behind this? Is there some human that deserves credit for this?
Note: I would have done this as a Quick Take, but it doesn't allow images. In the spirit of How I got 4.2M YouTube views without making a single video, I improved a diagram on the wikipedia page for Pareto Efficiency. ORIGINAL VERSION NEW VERSION Based on the text, I...
The art on the LessWrong site and books is amazing. The consistent theme across everything is beautiful! hm... I just checked the physical book and it credits Midjourney. But I feel there must have been some serious prompt crafting/human artistry behind this? Is there some human that deserves credit for...
In the spirit of You Are A Brain, this is a 6 minute presentation I gave at Toastmasters on Evolutionary Psychology and may repeat. Be sure to click on show speaker notes (in Actions) to see the full text. 6 Minute Intro to Evolutionary Psychology Any suggestions for improvements? Some...
The guidelines above say "Before users can moderate, they have to set one of the three following moderation styles on their profile...". But I don't see this displayed on user profiles. Is "Norm Enforcing" or "Reign of Terror" displayed anywhere? Also I don't think "Easy Going" really captures the "I Don't Put Finger on Scales" position.
If the author's policy is displayed somewhere and I just didn't find it then this seems good enough to me as a Reader. I hope there is a solution that can make authors both like Eliezer and Wei happy. It will be nice to make Commenters happy also and I've thought less about that.
Brainstorming: I wonder if it will be possible to have a subtle indicator at the bottom of the comment section for when comments have been silently modified by the author (such as a ban triggered). I think this may still be unfair to party 1, so perhaps there could instead be badges in prominent author profiles that indicate whether they fall into the "gardener" or "equal scales" position (plus perhaps a setting for users that is off by default but will allow them to see a note for when an article has silent moderations/restrictions by author) or a way for authors to display that they haven't made any silent edits/restrictions?
Here's my understanding of the situation. The interested parties are:
Perhaps in most of the simulations, they help by sharing what they've learned. giving brain enhancements, etc, but those ones quickly reach philosophical dead ends, so we find ourselves in one of the ones which doesn't get help and takes longer doing exploration.
(This seems more plausible to me than using the simulations for "mapping the spectrum of rival resource‑grabbers" since I think we're not smart enough to come up with novel ASIs that they haven't already seen or thought of.)
Why do you think they haven't talked to us?
Creating zillions of universes doing bad philosophy (or at least presumably worse than they could do if the simulators shared their knowledge) doesn't seem like a good way to try to solve philosophy.
Even if they prefer to wait and narrow down a brute force search to ASIs that the surviving civilizations create (like in jaan's video), it seems like it would be worth not keeping us in the dark so that we don't just create ASIs like they've already seen before from similarly less informed civilizations.
I'm not sure how yours is creepy? Is it in the idea that all the worst universes also exist?
Yes, and also just that I find it a little creepy/alien to imagine a young child that could be that good at math.
Care to explain? Is the Servant God an ASI and the true makers the humans that built it? Why did the makers hide their deeds?
Thanks for the riff!
Note, I wasn't sure how to convey it but in the version I wrote, I didn't mean it as a world where people have god-like powers. The only change intended was that it was a world where it was normal for six-year-olds to be able to think about multiple universes and understand what counts as advanced math for us, like Group Theory. There were a couple things I was thinking about:
Prompt: write a micro play that is both disturbing and comforting
--
Title: "The Silly Child"
Scene: A mother is putting to bed her six-year-old child
CHILD: Mommy, how many universes are there?
MOTHER: As many as are possible.
CHILD (smiling): Can we make another one?
MOTHER (smiling): Sure. And while we're at it, let's delete the number 374? I've never liked that one.
CHILD (excited): Oh! And let's make a new Fischer-Griess group element too! Can we do that Mommy?
MOTHER (bops nose) That's enough stalling. You need to get your sleep. Sweet dreams, little one. (kisses forehead)
End
Note: I would have done this as a Quick Take, but it doesn't allow images.
In the spirit of How I got 4.2M YouTube views without making a single video, I improved a diagram on the wikipedia page for Pareto Efficiency.
ORIGINAL VERSION
NEW VERSION
Based on the text, I don't think the author understood that Cooperate/Cooperate isn't the only Pareto efficient outcome ("Thus Both Cooperate is Pareto-efficient"). It's a small change and I think the text is more in need of improving, but this is all I can do now.
We can be virtually certain that 2+2=4 based on priors. This is because it's true in the vast multitude of universes. In fact all the universes except the one universe that contains all the other universes. And I'm pretty sure that one doesn't exist anyway.
How about a voting system where everyone is given 1000 Influence Tokens to spend across all the items on the ballot? This lets voters exert more influence on the things they care more about. Has anyone tried something like this?
(There could be tweaks like if people are avoiding spending on winners it could redistribute margin of victory, or if avoiding spending on losers it could redistribute tokens when losing, etc. but I'm not sure how much that would happen. The more interesting thing may be how does it influence everyone's sense of what they are doing?)
Should you cooperate with your almost identical twin in the prisoner's dilemma?
The question isn't how physically similar they are, it's how similar their logical thinking is. If I can solve a certain math problem in under 10 seconds, are they similar enough that I can be confident they will be able to solve it in under 20 seconds? If I hate something will they at least dislike it? If so, then I would cooperate because I have a lot of margin on how much I favor us both to choose cooperate over any of the other outcomes so even if my almost identical twin doesn't favor it quite as much I can predict they will still choose cooperate given how much I favor it (and more-so that they will also approach the problem this same way; if I think they'll think "ha, this sounds like somebody I can take advantage of" or "reason dictates I must defect" then I wouldn't cooperate with them).
Imagine you have a button and if you press it, it will run through every possible state of a human brain. (One post estimates a brain may have about 2 to the sextillion different states. I mean the union of all brains so throw in some more orders of magnitude if you think there are a lot of differences in brain anatomy.) Each state would be experienced for one instant (which I could try to define and would be less than the number of states but let's handwave for now; as long as you accept that a human mind can be represented by a computer imagine the specs of the components and... (read more)
The art on the LessWrong site and books is amazing. The consistent theme across everything is beautiful!
hm... I just checked the physical book and it credits Midjourney. But I feel there must have been some serious prompt crafting/human artistry behind this?
Is there some human that deserves credit for this?
In the spirit of You Are A Brain, this is a 6 minute presentation I gave at Toastmasters on Evolutionary Psychology and may repeat. Be sure to click on show speaker notes (in Actions) to see the full text.
6 Minute Intro to Evolutionary Psychology
Any suggestions for improvements? Some people didn’t get it. Also, is it accurate enough? Also, I think the Wason Selection argument isn’t all that compelling and takes up about half of the time. Is there a better example I could use? (The speech was supposed to be for either informing or persuading and persuading required informing so I tried to focus just on informing.)
@Duncan Sabien (Inactive): given the updated totals @habryka mentioned does this increase your sense of LessWrong being a great place for co-thinking?
(Current totals are 42/39 and 16/11.)