Based on Yudkovsky's post about the aura of menacingness and the Level Above Yours, it would probably be nice to make some kind of rating with examples of books (like that list of the best textbooks, compiled from the comments of people who have read at least 3 pieces), so that you can assess what level you yourself are . At the same time, it will be possible to understand how objective this measure is. It seemed to me that, among other things, a community, lessvrong, is needed for such purposes.
This is not the first time it seems to me that Yudkowsky is hinting for us to understand this instead of writing directly. But on the other hand, he seems to write as if he doesn't really know the answer. Specifically in this case he says about qualia, that we should ask the question "what makes us think we have qualia?" At first I got that wrong, in the sense that qualia is just an illusion. But then I did a mental experiment about a neural network. What if we created a neural network that could similarly answer questions about the picture it recognized f... (read more)
I do believe that World War II was largely doomed. But I also believe that the bombs on Hiroshima could easily have been avoided, it seems everyone would agree that in this case it really was decided by a roll of the dice. I sometimes have moments when I think of the zero-sum game as something that would always be found by science, but then I remind myself that we could easily live in a world where there is no such thing, we just got lucky that our indifferent universe at least allows some movement towards the light. I have personally experienced causeless injustice, and I have no faith in faith, so it obviously feels to me that we live in a causal world that is not under the influence of any plan.
I see a problem here, the main one, because of which 90% * 500 = 100% * 450 is generally, then that our world is probable and we will constantly accept many choices, so in the end if we agree to hiccups, then if hiccups already existed people initially, then we would add grains of sand / blind spots in the eyes, and so in the end we would get to the point that this is not just noise even on a large number of people. Although in one expression it is "to kill a billion people and the remaining six will become perfect," in another it is "a billion and the life of the remaining six will become extremely unpleasant."
I didn't quite understand what you mean. The family is not entirely relevant to the topic of that post. Usually it is treated somewhat more logically. And in the post, the conversation was more about beliefs than about duty. I am ready to pay the debt to the family or even the state, but only for what they really did good and partly how much it cost them, and not just for the fact of birth. "Honor your father" clearly does not deserve a place in the 20 commandments, because I was lucky, but my father could beat someone else. Your friends are not only... (read more)
I seem to have heard from a relatively good source about a study that people who are unemployed feel worse even though they have maintained the same level of well-being. (I don’t remember where it was and I can’t provide a link, maybe someone else can?)
I have been asking a similar question for a long time. This is similar to the standard problem that if we deny regularity, will it be regular irregularity or irregular irregularity, that is, at what level are we denying the phenomeno? And only at one level?
It's hard to articulate why I dislike so much the views that change depending on what family you were born into (religion, nationalism, patriotism, etc.). It's like priors of one, fallacy of favoring an arbitrary hypothesis, lack of stability of your views under self-changes as in AI alignment, floating beliefs, and what is not truly part of you, unrecoverable knowledge instead of a knowledge generator. And it seems that all these points are connected, which is why Yudkovsky wrote about them all when trying to teach the creation of safe AI. Well, just a... (read more)
Some time ago I was surprised that narrow professional skills can significantly change your thinking, and not just give you new abilities to specialize. Changes you, not just allowing you to cast a new spell. Something like not scientific, but professional rationality, but definitely not just the ability to make origami. (Specifically, I had this with the principles of good code, including in object-oriented programming) I had never heard of this before, including here on LessWrong. But it makes me think that the virtue of learning is more than being a... (read more)
If you think about it, there is nothing wrong with every person knowing everything that civilization knows now, on the contrary, this return to normality has already accumulated, it is overdue. Previously, there was just a scientist who was aware of all the achievements of science. Now two physicists will not understand each other, because they are from different fields. No one in the world knows how things are, no one sees the whole picture even remotely. One can imagine the horror of the post of a person who met someone who does not even fully know either the history of his planet or the laws of physics.
Surely someone has already pointed out this, but I have not seen such indications. It seems that humanism follows science, because the idea of progress shows that everyone can win, there is enough for everyone, life is not a zero-sum game, where if you do not harm someone, then you yourself live worse. And the lack of discrimination probably comes from the greater consistency of your reasoning, you see that hating a certain group is a completely arbitrary thing that has nothing to do with it, and just as you could hate any other group. It can be said that you are aware that you cannot be said to be special just because you are, because everyone else may think the same, you have no special reason.
Is the mathematical universe "explained" to the last question? And is it specifically not mentioned in the post? And then I once thought that Yudkovsky did not like something in neural networks.
I don't know why it's only mentioned in one comment deep at the bottom, but the claim about hair color and gravity is completely implausible, far less believable than the spheres and spanking. Whereas speed is directly by definition related to distance/space and time. As noted in one of the comments, about the color it would be logical to the same extent if at some point it became invisible. Well, or vice versa, transfer gravity to the part about speed and say that it is the effect of displacements in time.
(I can’t find where it was, if I find it, I’ll move it there) Someone suggested in light of the problems with AI to clone Yudkowsky, but the problem is that apparently we don’t have the 18 years it takes for the human brain to form, so that even when solving all the other problems, it's just too slow. Well, with any means of accelerating the development of the brain, the problem is already clear.
I came up with the idea that people can cheer for the protagonist of the book, even if he is a villain, because the political instincts of rationalizing the correctness of your tribe's actions are activated. You are rooting for Main Character, as for your group.
Perhaps somewhere on LessWrong this is already noticed, but judging by how much space there is not occupied by life, how much useless particles there are in physics, it seems that our universe is just one of the random options in which intelligence appears somewhere in order to you could see the universe. And how different it is from the universe, which was specially designed for life, even more than one planet would be enough, only 100 meters of the earth's crust would be enough. As primitive people actually imagined, until science appeared, so that re... (read more)
Reformulating the meaning of Santaism, I wonder how often believing parents do not tell their children about Santa, because they are afraid that along with faith in him, faith in God will also go away?
This gets me thinking so much that it might be worth making a top level post.
In fact, there are a lot of reasons why such people want to enter the world of magic:
It seems that in one of the chains Yudkovsky says that Newtonian mechanics is false. But in my opinion, saying that Newton's mechanics is false is the same as saying that Einstein's theory of relativity is false, well, we know that it does not work in the quantum world, so sooner or later it will be replaced by another theory, so you can say in advance that it is false. I think that this is generally the wrong question, and either we should indicate how much the percentage is false, somehow without confusing it with the probability that it is false. Or... (read more)
Some time ago, I noticed that the concepts of fairness and fair competition were breaking down in my head, just as the concept of free will once broke down. All three are not only wrong, they are meaningless. If you go into enough detail, you will not be able to explain how this should work in principle. There is only determinism and chance, only upbringing and genetics, there is simply no place for free will. And from this it follows that there is also no place for fair punishment and fair competition, because either your actions and achievements are ... (read more)
If you transferred this to drafts, then I do not have these data, the argument of this mathematician did not initially contain a reference to a specific woman.
I think i see what is the cause of it. I will also make a prediction that super forecasters will indeed be better at compressing information. This is in line with the principles of how neural networks work, since the human brain is slow, having more cached thoughts/categories/compressions will allow better predictions, as it will require less thinking/calculation. My reasoning is that when you predict, you find some patterns, properties that are the same for all examples (which can be categorized as said), even chaos/unpredictability is just a state of high entropy, low negentropy, also known as common information. and its absence is incompressibility, white noise, randomness.
I'm not a native English speaker, can someone explain all these puns, including "Third Time" (I don't understand what the point is).
In my opinion (if you really didn't understand), Yudkowsky wrote this in short story format because he does not consider the mathematical universe even impossible, but simply meaningless. That is, the only explanation is that the Dark Lords of the Matrix are blocking our brain from the ability to think non-mathematical. But this should also apply to our real world, and not just to the world of story.
I don't seem to quite understand what you're trying to say either. Are you suggesting that my ideas about my values are not correct, and in fact, in the outside world, what best satisfies the values of the outer me is immersion in the Earth with complete oblivion? If so, then it is not clear what the question of choosing between the red and blue pill is, because since I am here, I have already chosen the blue one.
P.S. I have a feeling that you're assuming the same fallacy here as the theists (forgot the name) when you assume that our world is the m... (read more)
It occurred to me (didn't finish reading Inadequate Equilibria, I don't know if that comparison is made there) that the unusability of markets is similar to that very mutual entropy, thanks to which you can put your finger in boiling water and not get burned if you know the movements of atoms.
(I found this post after your comment under my question)
Some time ago I was reading posts translated by people on the Russian site lesswrong and regretted that I don’t know English, since not everything is translated, and there are discussions in the comments on the original site. But then, in an unrelated example, I noticed that Google Translate has been working TOO well lately. And now I read the original lesswrong through it and most of the time I don’t notice that initially everything was not written in Russian.
And I regret that I didn't start doin... (read more)
I think about how easy it would be to make this good for humanity by giving it 1% of the universe, people just don't need more. But at the same time, the paperclip maximizer will never agree to this, he is not satisfied with any result other than 100%, and he does not appreciate people or compromises or cooperation at all.
I'm unpleasantly surprised about lesswrong. I figured it out myself on my second reading, maybe even on my first reading at the end of the book. Although I didn't really notice on my first reading that I had to solve riddles at all, and I was just caught up in reading to stop thinking for even a second (which I now regret very much, and I hope no one makes the same mistake), so it was just an obvious fact on the edge of consciousness in the course of reading.
Not to mention that this is the most vague description in reality. From this, only the result ... (read more)
I hope this is not just a rationalization on my part, but I think what Yudkowsky meant was not that it would be impossible to write an interesting story about it, but that it would not be interesting from within the universe, not only for people who will die, but and for the brace maximizer himself, who is unlikely to actually experience emotions. And here I agree.
It really must be a miracle, how could he even escape D's attention in Star's memory? I would rather expect him to send his code with the thinnest beam of a laser to reflect from some object in the direction in which the ship will be thanks to John's manipulation, to further automatically reproduce the code when receiving his signal using some subtle system vulnerabilities, that he would hope that such a thin laser beam would not meet with any of the nano-trapping robots sprayed through space.
It's also really unclear why non-friendly AIs are allowed at ... (read more)
But won't a real egoist try to convince you for self-affirmation in a position that is beneficial to him and disadvantageous to you, and not of egoism?
Red pill. When immersed in virtuality, I would not erase my memory of reality. Unless, of course, it is assumed that "we are from a true simple and boring universe" cannot play games either. Well, don't you think that there is too much suffering in the world? Although the very idea of a simpler universe is interesting.
"In timeful physics the same configuration can still have different values at different times, its own little world-line, like a lamp switching from OFF to ON."
And after that I understood it! The beauty of timeless in that we don't have conception of CHANGE of the SAME object, it's oxymoron that we delete. In classic physics how we define something ONE object/configuration if it DIFFERENT at different times, these definitions are arbitrary, classic physics create paradox of Theseus ship, timeless disappoint it.
Before this moment I don't understand why ti... (read more)
I fixed thus artifact of Google Translate
It seems to me that with billions of lives there will be a problem of neglect of scale. (At least I don't feel any feelings about it, for me it's just numbers, so I think the true dilemma is no different from the usual, perhaps it would be better to tell a story about how a particular person suffers)
This reminded me of Yudkovsky's recent publication about "Lies told to children", and I don't understand very well what is the difference between the situations and whether there is any at all.
An expression of absolute horror. Saved this comment to my favourites. It's just so mundane that we don't even think about it. But if such "simple ways" worked, then there would be no problem of obesity from eating delicious sweets.
After reading this, the thought just spins in my head that ALL people initially perceive morality as something objective, but not just as your preferences, so they may even wonder "does something become right simply because someone wants it?" , though there really isn't any true general right, just what someone thinks is right. As noted earlier, people perceive correctness as action.morality, when in fact it is human.moralityOf(action).
I think after that I would just act like I normally do, as easily, without trying to do anything better. But yes, it would definitely not be a reason for me to change my behavior, to take some kind of active action.
This water example looks much less obvious because it is narrower, that is, if sound is any element of auditory perception, then water is a very specific example of perception by different senses, so there is no generally accepted definition that "water is what looks and behaves like water" so it appears that water is "really" just a chemical molecule. Although there is really no "really" here either, water is just a word, and it can just as well be used for what behaves like water, and not for what what behaves like water is chemically in our the world... (read more)
"Create glowfic characters for top AI researchers, and have Eliezer critique their ideas by role-playing with them (mostly a joke)"
It looks interesting
Hmm, funny, I usually listen to audiobooks, but this was not the case with HPMOR, I realized "how good it is" literally from the first chapter, which is extremely rare with books.
I don't really think so, but perhaps the point is not to create a precedent for instability?
Um, have you ever heard of unauthorized rallies? When people go out peacefully and without weapons, in particular, specifically against the government / president, maybe the governor or even the mayor, but at the same time they must obtain permission from the city hall to hold a rally, and if you go against the government they will not give you permission, then you will be beaten with clubs, then put in a paddy wagon, fined and given 15 days of arrest, but if you receive this administrative article several times, it will turn into a criminal one and you ... (read more)
A comparison occurred to me that it's like lending a lot to someone who often repays debts, and at the same time little to someone who rarely repays them. Instead of not lending to someone who does not return it.
In general, when I first read the question about the abilities of the storm, I was so distracted by the fact that I had no idea how it was physically possible that I did not pay attention to the actual mutations and the impossibility from the point of view of the theory of evolution, for me it sounded like Access to Magic and The Atlantean Genetic Marker, which no longer looked so implausible to me.
I have a similar situation. I adhere to several heuristics.
First, I look at what they say about science, agreement with scientific conclusions is only a weak signal, but if someone believes in the harm of GMOs and vaccines, the effectiveness of homeopathy, and so on, then this is clearly a bad sign.
Secondly, for example, they tell you about a certain fact, you extrapolate it and ask about a discrepancy, to which they offer you a new rule to explain it, and for exceptions to it already the third, such more complex hypotheses are not equal alternatives, they require more rules to explain, and therefore more complex and require more bits of proof just to stay even.
For some reason, I did not find this option here (perhaps it is implied somewhere in the chains): a statement makes sense if, in principle, it is possible to imagine its sensory results in detail. Depends on whether Russell's teapot makes sense, and also suggests that 2+2=3 doesn't make sense.
Memnuela had lied to Luna about the Fielius Charm