Don't know if this is where it comes from, but I always thought of "sequences" as an elaboration on the idea of rationality as a martial art; the term has some significance in theatrical swordplay, and it could also be compared to the Japanese kata.
I read the first half, skimmed the second, and glanced at a handful of the slides. Based on that, I would say it's mostly introductory material with nothing new for those who have read the sequences. IOW, a summary of the lecture would basically be a summary of a summary of LW.
To me it seems like a joke.
This would explain why some people recommend starting sentences with "I think..." etc. to reduce conflicts.
In a model-sharing mode that does not make much sense. Sentences "I think X" and "X" are equivalent.
I think it does make sense, even in model-sharing mode. "I think" has a modal function; modal expressions communicate something about your degree of certainty in what you're saying, and so does leaving them out. The general pattern is that flat statements without modal qualifiers are interpreted as being spoken with great/absolute confidence.
I also question the wisdom of dividing interpersonal communication into separate "listener-handling" and "model-sharing" modes. Sharing anything that might reasonably be expected to have an impact on other people's models is only not "listener-handling" if we discount "potentially changing people's models" as a way of "handling" them. Which doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.
Seconded. Granted, my sample size is pretty minuscule, but still.
And as an extra reason why LW folks might be interested in Rajaniemi's books, the second book of the series, The Fractal Prince, mentions something called "extrapolated volition" being at the heart of one of the cultures in the novels' setting.
Why do you think that having Asperger's gives you immunity to revulsion at the quality of a review?
- Are there other values that, if we traded them off, might make MFAI much easier?
I don't understand this question. Is it somehow not trivially obvious that the more values you remove from the equation (starting with "complexity"), the easier things become?
Sign me up for the interest list as well. On a related note: given the number of upvotes for the others who have expressed interest, the writeup might warrant a Discussion-level post when the time comes; if it does end up working anywhere near as well as Rhinehart's personal experiences, I feel we shouldn't risk the finding being buried in the comments of this thread.
Also, in case you don't share his misgivings about providing brand names, such a list would be appreciated. Part of the reason is that Rhinehart says he lives in one of the largest metropolitan areas in the world, and if he says some things are "hard to get" and have to be obtained from small suppliers, I might end up having to import them.
I mostly steer clear of AI posts like this, but I wanted to give props for the drawing of unsurpassable elegance.
Sure, but not optimizing for a particular identity can easily be just as harmful. This goes especially for social situations; consider being gay and not optimizing for a non-gay facade in an emphatically anti-gay environment.
Given that, the obvious follow-up question is how to tell the good identities from the bad, and I think the post does well in identifying some of the bad types. This, for example:
...seems well on the mark and I see a lot of myself in it. Could do without the superlative ("The worst thing you can possibly do!"), but otherwise it seems sound.