Ericf — LessWrong

LESSWRONG
LW

Ericf — LessWrong

Replying toGuide to rationalist interior decorating

Ericf10mo

Guide to rationalist interior decorating

There are a few members who prefer a serious tone and down vote all attempted humor.

-1

Replying toNever Drop A Ball

Ericf10mo

Never Drop A Ball

Not all tasks/responsibilities count as "balls" in this metaphor. Continuing with the hike example; the teacher's task list might include

Drink water
Avoid trail hazards like poison ivy
Stop for a snack
Talk about different plants
Answer student questions

None of which count as a "ball" - you do as much of the "nice to have" stuff as the (time/energy) budget allows after ensuring that no student gets lost.

Ericf1yQuick Take

Years ago, I advocated banning crypto as a means of limiting the damage AI could do, thinking an advanced AI might be able to mine or hack exchanges (eg by guessing passwords of "lost" bitcoins) and accumulate wealth (ie power).

Apparent it could also just make a meme coin, and generate billions from nothing, given a sufficiently edgy coin (for example, AI itself)

https://www.axios.com/2025/01/19/donald-trump-crypto-billionaire

I am once again humbly suggesting that all un-regulated currency, especially distributed ledgers, be banned worldwide as a precautionary measure.

-2

Ericf's Shortform

Ericf

This is a special post for quick takes (aka "shortform"). Only the owner can create top-level comments.

Replying toWho Feels More Alone?

Ericf1y

Who Feels More Alone?

The clean lines make me think you didn't use hypergeometric calculations. If I have 2 extrovert friends, on any given day 0 (25%), 1(50%), or 2(25%) of them will want to hang out. If I want to hang out on day N, there is a 25% chance I fail to.

Replying toTwo LessWrong speed friending experiments

Ericf1y

Two LessWrong speed friending experiments

Virtually no-one differentiates between a 4 and a 5 on these kind of surveys. Either they are the kind of person who "always" puts 5, or they "never" do.

With Rat. Adjacent or other overthibkers, you can give more specific anchors (eg 5 = this was the best pairing). Or you can have specific unsealed questions (ie:

I would go to another room to avoid this person at a party
I do not want to see this person again
Whatever
If someone else did the work to plan it, I would show up and spend time with this person again
I will schedule time to see this person again.

Replying toI would have shit in that alley, too

Ericf2y

I would have shit in that alley, too

Airline tickets are a bad example because they are priced dynamically. So if more people find/exploit the current pricing structure, the airline will (and does) shift the pricing slightly until it remains profitable.

Replying toDyslucksia

Ericf2y

Dyslucksia

+1 for substituting brain processes. High-g neurodivergents of all flavors tend to run apps in the "wrong" parts of their brain to do things that neutotypicals do automatically. Low-g neurodivergents just fail at the tasks.

Replying toOn Not Pulling The Ladder Up Behind You

Ericf2y

On Not Pulling The Ladder Up Behind You

Replying toFailures in Kindness

Ericf2y

Failures in Kindness

Por que no los dos? It's a minority of people who have the ability and inclination to learn how to conform to a different mileu than thier natural state.

Replying toFailures in Kindness

Ericf2y

Failures in Kindness

CK, as used here, seems more transactional and situation specific. Emotional Labor is usually referring to a pattern over time, including things like checking for unknown unknowns, and "making sure X gets done" Both ideas are playing in similar space.

Naive comments on AGIlignment

Ericf

Disclaimer: everything I know about AI I learned from reading stuff on the internet, mostly on this site.

Any self-modifying general intelligence cannot be bound by a utility function. The very nature of being able to self-modify means that the utility function is open to modification or being ignored in favor of a new function.
A self-improving process cannot know which variation is better without external feedback. For humans, that is the physics of the universe, and the behavior of other humans. For a program, it can't get the feedback to know what "improvement" is without affecting the same.
A superintelligence will have different ethics. But we have different ethics than humans 1000 years ago.

... (read more)

-8

Is January AI a real thing?

Ericf

Does anyone have experience or information about continuous glucose monitoring from "January AI"? https://january.ai/?utm_source=GoogleSearchNetwork&utm_campaign=12001902471&utm_content=121683842811&utm_term=492950869595&utm_medium=continuous glucose monitoring system-b&gclid=Cj0KCQjwl9GCBhDvARIsAFunhsk1iEFoN8X0QJGsifMUTKgcjuTmDwUzLaOuqN-sXsa2wiYHtzcReTwaAtLSEALw_wcB