All of gilch's Comments + Replies

"attractive" to mean "having physical features that appeal to the sex drive"

Was with you up to here. I might call that "alluring", rather than "attractive", which I use to mean "appealing to my romantic drive" (as you put it), and not just from physical features, which seems like nearly the opposite meaning, and I used it in that sense in the part you just quoted (contrasting it with "arousing", which I meant as a purely sexual turn-on). Was that your mistake or am I using a different terminology version?

the other half say they always coincide. I don

... (read more)
Yeah, this is a difference in terminology. To describe "having physical features that appeal to the sex drive"... "Alluring" is decent, although it might carry a connotation of "deliberately setting a lure", of intentionality, and I want a word that covers the non-intentional. (Perhaps even primarily the non-intentional, because if I can tell that someone is deliberately making herself sexually appealing, that probably makes it "sexy".) "Sexually appealing" might be slightly better—though, again, "appeal" can be a verb. I don't have a name for it that I'm unambiguously pleased with.... I guess "sexually attractive" is probably best. Bonus terminology item: People seem to often use "cute" to mean "pretty", and possibly even to mean some aspects of "sexually appealing". (Good lord, Google confirms that "informal North American" usage means "sexually attractive".) I use "cute" to mean "having features reminiscent of a child or baby, which makes me want to watch over them, hug them, and take care of them"; and I think it's probably best not to use the same word to mean what attracts people to adults. Now, it is possible for adults to be cute in the above sense, and for that to increase their overall appeal (because it's an extra reason to look at them, so if their looks are appealing, it magnifies the effect of their looks), and some adults do deliberately try to be cuter to attract attention. I have misgivings about what might happen if this goes too far. Another bonus item (not serious). "Toothsome" means tasty; one could say it means you'd like to get your teeth into it. By analogy, "handsome" therefore means... Ahem. Anyway. I haven't tried to research it. I do have the impression that men are commonly aware of a distinction between "someone who would be a good wife" and "someone you'd just want short-term sex with", but the former could refer to character, mind, etc.; I don't have evidence specifically about whether they distinguish between physical characterist

I am sincerely curious about male preferences, whether the answer is something "politically correct" or that men literally only care about boob size.

Definitely not that simple. Boobs don't do much for me either. I've heard men fall into three categories—boobs men, butt men, and legs men (and more vulgar synonyms)—depending on which feature they find most arousing. If he's not a boobs man, then you don't need big boobs to arouse him.

I think the current hypothesis for the evolutionary function of boobs is that most male mammals mount the female from behin... (read more)

I've thought about some of the fine distinctions in this area, so I'll say what I've come up with: * I have a sex drive and a romantic drive. The sex drive is about looking at and touching erogeneous zones on a woman's body and on my body, and involves sexual arousal. The romantic drive is about admiring a girl—generally looking at her face and thinking "wow, she's lovely"—wanting her to smile, wanting to smile at her, being hyper-aware of her physical presence, wanting to touch her with affection (especially her cheek, especially with my cheek; also wanting to hug her); and often involves blushing and sometimes nervousness, but usually does not involve sexual arousal. * The sex drive and romantic drive are separate. They're certainly linked—e.g. situations that satisfy one desire will tend to inflame the other, and there are plenty of people for whom I feel both drives—but also plenty of cases where I feel one strongly but the other weakly or not at all. * In terms of physical attributes. Romantic drive is affected mostly by face and hair, and also by overall health (weight and athleticism factor into that). Sex drive is affected mostly by the boobs/butt/legs attributes you mention, and sometimes aspects of the face (e.g. heavy lipstick may appeal to the sex drive but probably not the romantic drive). * Terminology. I tend to use "pretty" to mean "having physical features I'd admire" (i.e. appealing to the romantic drive), "beautiful" to mean "very pretty", "attractive" to mean "having physical features that appeal to the sex drive", "sexy" to mean "having physical features that appeal to the sex drive and lead me to think about sex", and "hot" as a synonym for "sexy". (For example, a somewhat tight outfit that shows someone's curves but no skin would look "attractive", but if it showed lots of skin it would be "sexy".) I'm aware that most people don't seem to make these fine distinctions in

Now something controversial. (Heh.) I believe that higher intelligence is always a plus, for both sexes. However, many women report that men feel threatened by smart women. How is that possible? I suspect that these women are not entirely correct. What I think I observe in such situation is women using their education as a symbol of higher status. Yes, telling your man every day that he is inferior to you and your university-educated friends (including male friends) is generally a bad idea for a happy relationship.

Because you flagged it as controversial... (read more)

Men are supposed to compete with other men. Women are supposed to compete with other women. A woman trying to compete with a man she likes is playing a lose/lose game. If she loses, she will hate him for making her lose. If she wins, she will stop respecting him for being a loser. I guess the confusion happens because women are encouraged to take traditional men's roles, be competitive, make careers, etc. And, as long as it's "just work", why not? But do not bring that style into a relationship. Relations are not supposed to be competitions. Perhaps seeing the man of your dreams being competitive makes you horny, but it doesn't work the other way round. Men often have enough competition at their work; they want to take a break at home. (Also, male hierarchies have different traditional rules of fighting than female hierarchies. Men fight hard; then they shake hands and have a beer together. Women smile at each other, and wait for the right moment to stab in the back; they never forgive. So, a man and a woman fighting will perceive each other as someone who breaks the rules. "Why does he always have to win?" "Why can't she ever leave the subject?")

There has been some past trauma. I can understand a reluctance to risk opening old wounds.

I mostly agree with this.

I can only provide my opinions and best guesses, of dubious quality. Given that there are men whose preferences I do not understand at all, I certainly have many blind spots.

I expressed similar thoughts in my answer. The more men who compare notes, I think the better we can discern which preferences are idiosyncratic and which are universal, so I'll try to point out where we differ. That won't, by itself, tell us which of us is weird.

The behavior I associate with young women is wearing light colors, especially pink, and laugh

... (read more)
Haha, same here. But it is a behavior that exists for a reason. (It is obnoxious when it is done too much or too crudely.) It sends the signal "pay attention: young woman here" across the whole room immediately. All heterosexual men notice. What is the point of being attractive, if potential mates happen to be looking in a different direction? I guess the trick is to find the nearest things that is not obnoxious. (That is, use this description as a pointer in the approximate direction, not literally.) It is not an art that I practice, so I cannot provide exact instructions. However: * high pitch is a signal of feminity (but maybe avoid too high, unless you are an opera singer) * laughing signals status (you feel safe to laugh audibly, don't expect to be bullied by other girls)

How do you expect Yudkowsky to settle this if he's been turned into paperclips? It might distort the number a bit.

5Martin Randall13d
I don't expect Yudkosky to settle this if he's dead. If he dies, I will resolve the market N/A per the description. If I die then it will be in the hands of my next-of-kin. If everyone dies then it probably will not resolve. I'm aware that humanity may not make it to 2030. This distorts the number less than you might think. Today, most people do not think the world will end prior to 2030, and will continue to bet as normal. Additionally, currently Manifold offers automatic subsidized interest-free loans on bets. If you somehow know that the world will end prior to 2030 then you can bet freely on post-2030 markets and know that you will never need to repay those loans. This differs from real-money prediction markets. As I read this "death with dignity" post, the claim is that we are doomed, not that we are doomed in the next seven years. The basic argument does not change much in a world where we make it to 2030, or indeed to 2050. Regarding timelines, Yudkowsky wrote in [] that: I think the 2030 date on the market is compatible with this.

I didn't downvote either, but I can see possible reasons why others might. This probably should have been a question post. [This has been fixed.] The question is too broad to answer very succinctly. It kind of feels like it could be a culture-war trap, where you might take a good-faith, but bluntly-honest rationalist answer and use it as ammunition in extremist feminist circles to rally attacks against the community. The fact that your account has no other posts or karma is not helping. That seems totally possible, but also possible that you're an establis... (read more)

Oof, it really isn't [] but I can imagine why someone might think that. I don't see the topic as scary in any culture-war-adjacent way. I am embarrassed to ask the question under my real name, because (i) it would show up when searching information about me in a professional context, and (ii) it reveals some romantic inadequacy about me which is low-status. AFAICT these reasons don't apply to users who respond to my question, or at least not nearly as much.
Answer by gilchJan 17, 202310

[Epistemic status: not really an expert, but I can tell you what I think I know. Also, as a heterosexual male human person with some skill at introspection, I'm sure I have some insights about how men think, but I may have trouble separating that from my own idiosyncrasies.]

Evolutionary psychology tells us that human instincts are optimized for the Stone Age. The period of written history is too short to have contributed much (although there have been some small effects noted in other areas) and the modern era (however you define that) is even shorter.

Thos... (read more)

[Epistemic status: a little out of my depth. There might be subtleties I'm missing.]

An oracle machine with a halting oracle is a type of hypercomputer that can "solve" (by fiat, the known laws of physics do not permit such a thing) the halting problem of any conventional Turing machine, but then an analogous oracle-machine halting problem would appear which is undecidable by these halting oracle machines, so this doesn't get rid of undecidable problems.

If we then suppose a second-order halting oracle, we can "solve" the oracle-machine halting problem, but ... (read more)

Specifically, I was trying to make a reflective oracle, shown here: [] So it's a non-standard oracle I'm trying to make.

Lasers can be widened with optics, like curved reflectors. Fiber could potentially distribute an intense source to multiple endpoints, although UVC would require the use of special materials. I’m not an optics specialist either. I don’t know of quantum dots in the UVC range, maybe it hasn’t been done yet. For visible wavelengths they can be pretty bright, so maybe? I don’t think these alternatives exist yet, but so many approaches seem potentially viable that I’m not sure it will take ten years.

Forecasting is hard. Maybe conventional LEDs wouldn’t be that easy, but there may be other approaches superior to excimer lamps we could use for pathogen control. Only one of them has to work, making this a disjunctive claim. For example, frequency-doubling solid-state lasers can kick blue light up to the UVC range. Also, quantum dots can be tuned very precisely, even without changing the component materials.

Can quantum dots emit light at intensities sufficient to disinfect a room? I always see them made and used on the nanoscale. And can a laser be wide enough so that you could make a “laser sheet” to disinfect any air that passes through it? Otherwise it seems like quantum dots are too small and lasers are too focused to work. But I am not an optics person.

As always, not investment advice. There are signs that a volatility spike is imminent, which often coincides with a market drop. I have reversed my usual short vol position and bought tail insurance (e.g. OTM puts). Remember vol can fall just as quickly. How long a spike lasts depends on how high it goes.

Can AI destroy modern civilization in the next 30 minutes?

Doubt it, but it might depend on how much of an overhang we have. My timelines aren't that short, but if there were an overhang and we were just a few breakthroughs away from recursive self-improvement, would the world look any different than it does now?

Can a single human being unilaterally decide to make that happen, right now, today?

Oh, good point. Pilots have intentionally crashed planes full of passengers. Kids have shot up schools, not expecting to come out alive. Murder-suicide is a th... (read more)

Reminder that "The Merge" for Ethereum is coming up soon. There are bullish signs, like call-to-put ratios. Totally not advice, and please Don't bet the farm; crypto has high volatility.

Interest on these is now between nine and ten percent. If it was a good deal then, maybe it's an even better deal now. I bought another one (not investment advice). Also, someone pointed out that if you buy multiple smaller ones, you don't have to cash them all in at once.

How did you decide which posts to include?

Normal browser bookmarks do work. Use the link icon between the date and karma to get the URL for one.

I think I'm lacking some jargon here. What's a latent/patent in the context of a large language model? "patent" is ungoogleable if you're not talking about intellectual property law.

The Eyeronman link didn't seem very informative. No explanation of how it works. I already knew sensory substitution was a thing, but is this different somehow? Is there some neural net pre-digesting its outputs? Is it similarly a random-seeming mismash? Are there any other examples of this kind of thing working for humans? Visually?

Would the mismash from a smaller text model be any easier/faster for the human to learn?

My money's on: typo.

Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism. The inferential gap problem is real. Newcomers often really don't know enough, but we can't afford to re-hash the basics every time someone new shows up, or we'd never get to the interesting stuff, so when they're not up to our standards, we really do have to boo them off the stage. Sorry that had to happen to you. Fortunately, we have introductory material. Both of those linked posts are from The Sequences, and there's a lot more where that came from. It's pretty long, but you should get a lot out of it long before you f... (read more)

Yeah, I will have a look at it. From your viewpoint, your actions do make sense to me. Since I am sincere, I am still offended, but I am very thankful you took the time to explain what the baseline is. Now I will have to gather some strength to go on a learning journey, so the long comment will be my last for a while. Then I will have a baseline to compare with. Again, thanks a lot for taking the time, I appreciate it, and I guess I am sorry I didn't think about the possibility that even though I view myself as intelligent, that isn't everything.
Given that new users don't produce a significant number of bad posts/comments, I think ~zero karma targeting is currently better for bad posts/comments from new users (unless the post/comment is absolutely horrible or hopeless), it improves the chances that they lurk and learn. But it should go into the negatives when there are more posts/comments by a given user (even more good posts/comments, otherwise the norm is too complicated to channel). This could get UI support in the form of a new-user badge near the voting buttons with alt-text explaining the welcoming-voting norm.

I'm not trying to be cruel, but this appears to be your first post and I thought you might like to know why I voted it down, rather than be left wondering about the nebulous community disapproval.

MBTI is pretty much pseudoscience. Seriously, it's a half-step up from horoscopes, in that it at least asks questions that might have something to do with personality. Except for the intraversion/extraversion axis (which has a more scientific version in the Big Five tests), I've always found it less than useless, remain appalled that it retains as much following a... (read more)

Hello gilch, yeah, of course I would like to know ;). Throwing negative karma on newcomers, before even asking questions or explaining why doesn't sound like a good strategy to welcome people. I come with actual interest and goodwill - but from a different culture of epistemic hygiene. I do not believe my way of seeing things is bad, in many regards it is better it seems, but I am curious. And getting downvotes instead of curiousity, is a real bummer. I did not know there was this much contention about MBTI as there seems to be. Thanks for letting me know. And it is good to know you did get something out of Magic The Gathering. I haven't not played much, but I did like the feel of some of the cards. The art is beautiful. And, as you point out, they do not make the claim of being scientific. Which I also never did. I'm not trying to prove MBTI, or even Spiral Dynamics for that matter. I am using them as reference points to explain how I connect the dots - how I use my mind to understand, view and order information, facts, intuitions and feelings. If you don't like it, you can take it out of my post, it isn't like it would make much of a difference. If I am doing something horrible with regards to rationality and logic in general, I would be happy to know. I assume that reading the Sequences might give me some ideas. So I do not mind learning about The Sequences. And, even though I am happy someone finally made something like a case for their disapproval. I would love to know if there is any other reason people downvote, so if you did, do you mind explaining why? Even just a sentence would be fine, and if you have concrete tips to what I can do to improve - let me know. What I take from it though is that some people here are very critical towards pseudoscience. Which is fine. Maybe it is because I am a newcomer, but upvoting and downvoting.. It gives knowledge and posts this feeling of getting a rating on Amazon or something. Isn't the point of commenting to im

Perhaps not wacky enough, so I'll just comment, but language is something of a tool of thought. Proper math notations can be the difference between something being unthinkable and obvious. Some notations, like APL, are extremely terse, allowing one to fit entire algorithms in ones head at once that would otherwise only be understandable in smaller chunks. Perhaps learning and expanding upon such notations could be valuable.

Similarly, there are conlangs with extreme terseness, such as Ithkuil. This language is extremely difficult, and even its creator canno... (read more)

Answer by gilchJul 14, 202211

There's a tuplamancy-adjacent construct called a "servitor", which sounds like a kind of persistent hallucination that might be able to perform various automatic functions. I can't imagine such a thing being any more useful than a smartphone (probably much less), but perhaps it would have a faster direct-mental interface.

For example, I wonder if some kind of "notepad" servitor could expand one's working memory, which seems like a major bottleneck in humans. I.e. quickly offload writing/images to the persistent hallucination, and then just look at it to rel... (read more)

Answer by gilchJul 14, 202220

Trepanning. I've heard rumors that this reduces CSF pressure on the brain allowing it to expand a bit and increase intelligence. It was once common practice among many ancient cultures, but that doesn't prove they had good reasons. I find the supposed effect and proposed mechanism of action highly dubious, and, of course, brain damage/infection may well kill you if done improperly, but you asked for "risky" and "wacky".

The idea of generating and directly transferring a pre-digested latent representation is super interesting, but my prior is that this couldn't work. However a neural network trained from initially randomized weights represents concepts is likely to be highly idiosyncratic to that particular network. Perhaps this could be accomplished between AIs if we can somehow make that process and initial state less random, but how could that ever work for humans?

The highest-bandwith sensory input for humans is their eyes. Doesn't this idea just amount to diagrams of high-dimensional data?

4Quintin Pope7mo
It works for AIs very easily. Just feed the patents from AI 1 into AI 2. No need for special engineering of the two AIs. It also works for humans, at least somewhat. E.g., the Eyeronman vests I mentioned translate 3-D scene representations into vibrations. After enough time with one, people can pick up a sense of what the environment around them is like through the vibrations from the vest. Translating LLM patents into visual input wouldn’t look like normal diagrams. It would look like a random-seeming mishmash of colors and shapes which encode the LLM’s latents. A person would then be shown many pairs of text and the encoded latents the model generated for the text. In time, I expect the person would gain a “text sense” where they can infer the meaning of the text from just the visual encoding of the model’s latents.

Neanderthals had a bigger braincase than Homo Sapiens. It's not likely that they were any smarter than us, but we can't totally rule that out. They're so closely related to us that their genes for bigger heads ought to be pretty compatible if we splice them in where they belong. Would literally bigger brain volume with otherwise Sapiens neurons make us any smarter?

Could one build a whale-sized brain with fairy wasp–sized neurons?

Fairy wasp neurons are even smaller [citation needed].

Motivation is the wrong approach, because you can't control it much. Take advantage of it when you have it, but don't worry about "getting motivated". Willpower is also limited, so what you really want are habits: things that are easier to do than to not do. See my book review on how to convert limited willpower into habits.

Hypnotherapy, or self-hypnosis, may also be worth looking into, both for pain management, and for executive function/habit building. You can probably find library books on this.

I wish it was so simple. I don't know how to make habbits since I Am waking every day each time at different time, besides I have nothing to do whole day is just enduring insane boredom and physical pain! Also I don't have anything to reward myself with and I never have any motivation EVER for anything - it is complicated! I don't even know how I will go sleep on time!!! Which is my most pressing problem, I Am so insanely bored it hurts like knives and even though of going to sleep is painful. Self-hypnosis, I never got hypnosis, but I have nothing to lose by trying... Don't know if I will be even able currently. If I only could go asleep every day at 11pm, it would make my life so much more easier. Problem is I already spent reading thousands of articles about these issues and nothing works, because I Am very unorthodox person, and have weird issues... It is literally so bad I have maybe energy on something 5-15 minutes a day, rest is enduring pain literally!

If you’ve exhausted medical options, meditation may still help. Look into it.

It’s cliché, but the secret to action is taking the first step. Let’s unpack that a little though. A plan must be back-chained all the way to the present moment, or no action happens. It’s like trying to climb a ladder when you forgot to install the bottom rungs.

Break it down to the simplest possible starting action, and then form a strong intention to trigger that action based on something you were already going to do—eating breakfast, getting up, even blinking or taking your nex... (read more)

Interesting concept thanks! I will try, but I if you knew how bored I Am, I Am constantly looking whole day for pleasure otherwise pain is too much, I hunt even for 1 molecule of dopamine against working! Because I Am soo bored out of my mind that I can't take it! And if I Am bored my whole head is tingling, and hurts insanely that I Am completely paralyzed, I even try 3 hours to do something and still defer it! I invest my whole energy to enduring pain of boredom and even that is becoming difficult! Geez... Also I read you solve procrastination by motivation, instead of willing, because you have limited amounts of resources! This has been always true for me from experience, I never had motivation for anything. My dopamine system seems to be primed for far future, and by using will it is always 1 step forward: 2 steps back: it doesn't work at all! Problem is I can't do anything with my motivation :/ To add: it is so bad, I Am agitated all day from boredom and I Am doing nothing else than hunting for molecule to get rid of feeling like thorns in my brain. Sometimes I have minute of clarity and it is crazy how bad it is!

Voice recording and dictation software is probably the easiest, since it doesn't interrupt your thought process as much. It's definitely worth a try, but actually writing may slow you down too much. You might consider picking up shorthand to take notes more quickly. I also wonder if a high-gain mic next to your face could pick up a whisper well enough to be intelligible, if not for dictation software, then at least for you. Could be worth experimenting with.

Wow, even the tulpas. Autistic people don't simply lack empathy. It's more like it's undertrained and improves somewhat with experience. More exposure helps, even if it's fictional.

Anime, particularly the kind emphasizing relationships, was helpful for me. "Great" literature, which lets you get inside someone else's (fictional) head, should be helpful for the same reason. Shallower pop fiction may be less helpful. Quality varies a great deal. As for your case, I'm not qualified to diagnose it.

Theater sports or pen & paper RPGs (e.g. Dungeons and Dragon... (read more)

Well, I have no idea if autism is the thing I have, of course. Analyzing the feeling of this confusion about people over the years, I've developed the suspicion that I actually have an ugh field around the idea of empathizing with people, rather than necessarily an inability to do so. My mind slides off the thought of trying to in the first place, and goes sort of... strategically blank, if I try to force it to empathize anyway, making it look like I'm not good at it. (And I have a long history of not being interested in other people, preferring things or ideas.) But when I accidentally, passively empathize with people, predicting how they're feeling or what they're thinking without any ulterior motive for doing so, I'm usually as good at it as a neurotypical person. This implies (if it's correct, and not just yet another confabulated explanation for my inexplicable mental patterns) that I will have to figure out the cause of my discomfort around empathizing and dismantle it. Maybe the best way to explain my situation is that I can understand what people are thinking and feeling easily - as in the context of fiction, which I've always loved and read tons of - but I can't generate it independently - exactly as if I knew a foreign language well enough to understand it when someone else speaks it, but not well enough to speak it myself. released GPT-J, which is supposed to have similar or superior performance when compared to GPT-3's medium-sized models, although it can't match the largest Davinci model on some tasks. Might be worth a try, but I'm not sure what kind of hardware you need to run it.

DeepMind's Chinchilla suggests that GPT-3 was undertrained, so it's possible to get better performance with fewer parameters. This space has been rapidly evolving, so I'm not sure what the current best free options are.

Shortly after writing this answer, it occurred to me that you could dialog with GPT-3, rather than another human (or yourself). I'm not sure how accessible this is now, but there are certainly many alternatives. If even a silent rubber duck is useful, perhaps even an ELIZA-level chatbot is more useful, but I think options much better than that are freely available now.

As I mentioned in my other reply, silent ducks are not helpful for me, and similarly neither are chatbots. I indeed have used AI Dungeon for this purpose before and found it to be helpful for fictional stuff (as it's intended), but less effective as a philosophical conversation partner. I have no idea how to access the real, full GPT-3, but I greatly would like to, for this exact reason.
Answer by gilchJul 13, 202240

I honestly have no idea how to think clearly. Particularly from a blank slate, without prompting or real-time communication with another person, who can dig things out of me I cannot retrieve on my own, by reminding me of things with their questions.

The Rubber-Duck Technique: Get a rubber duck (or a figurine of some kind). When working through a problem, or trying to understand a new concept, explain it to the duck. As if it were a person.

Maybe the silent duck isn't enough. At least try it before moving on. But you can be the other person digging things... (read more)

I have often done all the elicitation suggestions you make. I even had tulpas - or more accurately, dissociated alters, since I was quite mentally unhealthy - for years. However, I have much less cognitive empathy than most people and I have never been able to imagine the interior of another person's mind to any significant extent. Every attempt at writing dialogues, the duck thing, etc has failed. I simply cannot imagine being someone other than who I am. Even when I was dissociative, my "souls", as I called them, were just aspects of myself with no actual separation. (It is possible I am on the autism spectrum, but for life reasons I've never had the opportunity to go to a psychiatrist.) That said, I've been explaining things to imaginary (totally silent and personality-less) people my whole life. I just never seem to write it down when I do it. Getting myself to notice when I've wandered into doing that, and force myself to write it down, may be a key here. The dictation suggestions are good, though due to thin walls and others in the house I could not speak my ideas aloud at night, nor could I type on a keyboard as it makes noise also. I don't have a tablet computer but that would likely work if I could get one.
Shortly after writing this answer, it occurred to me that you could dialog with GPT-3, rather than another human (or yourself). I'm not sure how accessible this is now, but there are certainly many alternatives. If even a silent rubber duck is useful, perhaps even an ELIZA []-level chatbot is more useful, but I think options much better than that are freely available now.

The mechanism isn't the same as for diseases, which can't be too virulent or they kill their hosts. Religions don't generally kill their hosts.

Don't drink the Kool-Aid ;)

Prevalent communicable diseases usually don't kill their hosts, because those that do (like Ebola) tend not to spread, and thus are not prevalent.

There have been multiple recorded instances of cults ending in mass suicide, as well as a gamut of other harms to adherents. Those that don't implode from their virulence may spread and survive, eventually becoming old enough to graduate and be called "religions" (i.e. prevalent cults).

Sounds like exactly the same mechanism to me.

I would not believe at all ETH at 30k-150k by next year, which is the original thesis. However, I think that the original dynamics he discusses will have a noticeable impact on the price. Specifically, switching from PoW to PoS does one very important thing, which is that all the selling pressure from the miners (that need to sell continuously to pay for the electricity) disappears.

Did you see the new one about Slow motion videos as AI risk intuition pumps?

Thinking of ourselves like chimpanzees while the AI is the humans is really not the right scale: computers operate so much faster than humans, we'd be more like plants than animals to them. When there are all of these "forests" of humans just standing around, one might as well chop them down and use the materials to build something more useful.

This is not exactly a new idea. Yudkowsky already likened the FOOM to setting off a bomb, but the slow-motion video was a new take.

1Lone Pine7mo
Yes I did, in fact I was active in the comments section. It's a good argument and I was somewhat persuaded. However, there are some things to disagree with. For one thing, there is no reason to believe that early AGI actually will be faster or even as fast as humans on any of the tasks that AIs struggle with today. For example, almost all videos of novel robotics applications research are sped up, sometimes hundreds of times. If SayCan can't deliver a wet sponge in less than a minute, why do we think that early AGI will be able to operate faster than us? (I was going to reply to that post with this objection, but other people beat me too it.)

The strap on mine broke (actually one of the plastic buckles). It looks like (better?) third-party alternatives cost about as much as a replacement, but I don't know which to choose. Any recommendations?

3Yonatan Cale7mo
I heard "kiwi" is a company with a good reputation, but I didn't try their head strap myself. I have their controller-straps which I really like

SquishChaos made a thorough case for Ether settling well above $30k and possibly briefly hitting $150k by 2023. If that's true, the current price of ~$1k is a good deal.

However, this report was published in late April '21. Have recent events invalidated this thesis at all? Ether has lost over 90% before and still recovered.

I'm not super familiar, but I just read the one page summary of the report. One of the supposed catalysts for $150k was EIP1559, which went into effect last August and didn't seem to affect the price. The other catalyst was supposed to be PoS coming shortly after, which has been continually delayed (though probably coming soon) and will have had a much longer gap after EIP1559. ETH HODLing seems to not be significant as expected, so that's another driver that has failed. The narrative also isn't there, and the recent crypto crashes are working against it. The spike to $150k seems to be impossible since the different drivers didn't line up. Moreover, I suspect that SquishChaos' prediction for ETH now would be at least somewhere in the middle of the price at the time of the report (~$2000) and $30k, so perhaps $15k? Instead ETH peaked under $5k in November and is back down to $1k, so I would say that the report seems pretty much falsified. That doesn't mean it won't hit prices that high, but I certainly would not expect them any time this year, or even in the next few years.

Thank you for putting a number on it. Here's another one: Current prediction is $5,180.

As Ether is trading around $1,000 now, I'd say that's undervalued, even in the relatively short term of 2023. But how much can we trust these predictions?

Unfortunately, that question was set up poorly so that it is impossible to guess lower than a median of $5010. Of course, that's because the actual price of ETH was around $4800 back in November 2021, so the predictors are basically saying that it won't recover to that price by the end of 2022.
I wouldn't trust Metaculus predictions on finanical(-ish) markets a single bowl of rice.

I didn't realize bacitracin allergies were nearly as prevalent as neomycin. Still, better one allergen than three.

Avoid the Neosporin. Prolonged exposure to one of the active ingredients (neomycin) often causes an allergic reaction, i.e. inflammation indistinguishable from an infection. Then putting more on to treat the "infection" just makes it worse. The triple-action seems to be more marketing than science. Polysporin, plain bacitracin, or even just petroleum jelley (Vaseline) is probably a better choice. The moisturizer is helpful (because it prevents scab formation and scarring), but it's not clear that the antibacterials are helping much. There's also some concern that Neosporin may promote antibiotic-resistant bacteria, like MRSA.

I see, interesting. I've tended to talk about Neosporin and Polysporin interchangeably, not knowing the difference and figuring they were similar; the thing I've been using is actually Polysporin. Looking into it... Wikipedia does say [] "In 2005–06, Neomycin was the fifth-most-prevalent allergen in patch test results (10.0%)". Is the 10% the number of people with an allergic reaction? (Would there be >10% with nonzero but subclinical reactions?) Also, if there are bacteria that the Neosporin doesn't kill, then might it actually be good for the body to be conducting a heightened immune response? Or would that interfere with wound healing in the common case? Googling suggests the latter is indeed a problem. I also find that both bacitracin and neomycin have been named Allergen of the Year []. Also, Wikipedia on bacitracin [] says "In 2005–06, it was the sixth-most-prevalent allergen in patch tests (9.2%)." Wow, that is kind of hilarious in the context of this debate. The article also says "[bacitracin] is generally safe when used topically, but in rare cases may cause hypersensitivity, allergic or anaphylactic reactions, especially in patient[s] allergic to neomycin." My impression of the immune system is that it's not too surprising for it to become highly prejudiced against anything new it encounters in open wounds... So is the one actually better than the other? I do find more internet-people advocating for Polysporin on allergen grounds, and I can believe that putting more potential allergens into a wound is more likely to cause a reaction. I would agree that, in lots of cases (e.g. a paper cut while indoors), there's little need for antibacterials; I mostly think of the moisturizing and "covering the wound" benefits, which would indeed be served by plain petroleum jelly. That said, if you have a tube of the stuff around

Placebos can still work even when the patient knows it's a placebo. The knowledge seems to operate at a different level. I don't think the lying part is actually necessary to get the benefits. When kissing makes it better, then most of the pain was emotional, not physical, and the effective treatment was to somehow comfort the child, but this can probably be done in a variety of ways.

Risk is still elevated, and surprises are possible, but insurance is no longer worth the cost to me. The market has regained its footing. I've removed my precautions, as of today.

Sure. I was simplifying, and said as much. Tit-for-tat is an excellent strategy in Prisoner's Dilemma (which is not the same game as nuclear war). But when both players use it, it leads to death spirals as soon as one side defects, even on accident, even due to faulty intelligence. Both players continue to defect thereafter.

But this is not the same game. We know that starting down path leads to Our destruction anyway, so why not gamble on a massive strike to disarm the Enemy so there's a chance Our destruction isn't total? Maybe We can get them all, or at ... (read more)

Newcomblike problem: it feels like there are two decisions to be made, but there is only one, in advance. If the Enemy knows you will never fire your missiles, They can pick off your cities one-by-one with impunity. But if you precommit to Mutual Assured Destruction if They ever cross the line, then it would be suicidal for Them to do so, so They won't (if They are rational). If losing one city to a nuclear attack is unacceptable, then that is your line in the sand. You must precommit to full retaliation in that event, and make it known to the Enemy.

In a g... (read more)

Newcomblike problem: it feels like there are two decisions to be made, but there is only one, in advance. If the Enemy knows you will never fire your missiles, They can pick off your cities one-by-one with impunity. But if you precommit to Mutal Assured Destruction if They ever cross the line, then it would be suicidal for Them to do so, so They won't (if They are rational). If losing one city to a nuclear attack is unacceptable, then that is your line in the sand. You must precommit to full retaliation in that event, and make it known to the Enemy.

Why is ... (read more)

Sure, assuming rational players with known capabilities. If it turns out one side has far fewer functioning warheads or delivery systems than expected, it's possible that humans override the trigger conditions for a smaller response, or that even with a full response, the initial attack isn't as complete as projected.

Market appears to have bounced as of this morning. Indicators of instability persist, however, they do lag a bit. In my estimation, risk level is still high, so my precautions remain.

I'm seeing some serious stock market instability this morning. I'm calling it. Market is crashing. I can't say how hard or for how long. The reasons should be obvious, but I'll say it: the present war in Ukraine.

I'll be taking some precautions, including going long volatility, and buying some index puts. I am not your financial advisor, but seriously, take a look at your portfolio RIGHT NOW!

These are short-term plays. Theoretically, puts will rapidly deflate in value once the market bottoms, so if one were to buy some defensively (or aggressively), one sho... (read more)

Risk is still elevated, and surprises are possible, but insurance is no longer worth the cost to me. The market has regained its footing. I've removed my precautions, as of today.
Market appears to have bounced as of this morning. Indicators of instability persist, however, they do lag a bit. In my estimation, risk level is still high, so my precautions remain.

Hypothesis was invaluable for getting the Unicode munging working properly. So many edge cases.

1Zac Hatfield-Dodds1y
Oh yeah. My personal favourite is the NFKD-normalization of identifiers, though I haven't built that into hypothesmith yet.

Hissp 0.3.0 is up. Check it out.

pip install -U hissp==0.3.0
1Zac Hatfield-Dodds1y
Hey, the example uses Hypothesis 😁 Always nice to see it in the wild.
Load More