All of Jach's Comments + Replies

Sorry for the necro -- the linked article is 404'd. I uploaded a backup here. I didn't find it on the author's site but did find a copy through Web Archive; still, maybe my link will save someone else the hassle.

Your post prompted me to recall what I read in Military Nanotechnology: Potential Applications and Preventive Arms Control by Jürgen Altmann. It deals mostly with non-molecular nanotech we can expect to see in the next 5-20 years (or already, as it was published in 2006), but it does go over molecular nanotech and it's worth thinking about the commonly mentioned x-risk of a universal molecular assembler in addition to AGI for the elites to handle over the next 70 years.

I think as a small counter to the pessimistic outlook the parable gives, it's worth reme... (read more)

I was going to reply with something similar. Kevin Knuth in particular has an interesting paper deriving special relativity from causal sets:

Took it, now give me karma.

You are having an overreaction. (But I would also say the ops are being overzealous and inefficient with their goal of having less people suck at IRC, which seems like a fine goal.)

A person who does not want to suck at IRC should not want to participate in this behavior:

(Times are Pacific, my client does not always log every channel event.)

Here's the follow-up log up until this moment, which includes various chatter and discussion on this "drama":

Edit: to the downvoter, I'll happily delete... (read more)

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
Your log doesn't show join or leave events. It's somewhat relevant that the starting point for the argument is when Anubhav_C and Burninate_ get kicked off the channel without comment by Peacebringer (and then both rejoin) just before the "Why the kicking?" line.

It was my understanding that this is one of Kurzweil's eventual goals: reconstructing his father from DNA, memories of people who knew him, and just general human stuff.

This has been on my reading queue for ages, might as well join in!

I live in Seattle (technically on the border of Bellevue and Redmond), which makes me #3 for this area. Meetups would be great, though I'm unavailable weekdays until after 7 or so.


I've been lurking for a while, looks like. (My how time flies.) I'll throw my name in the pot of wanting more communication channels like IRC (looks like a room's setup, time to check it out!), especially less formal ones to ease transitioning to formal comments / top-level posts. The proportion of high-quality posts and comments around here seems awesomely high, but unfortunately makes it uncomfortable to just dive into. I also feel like I need to read all the sequences, in which admittedly I've made a pretty big hole so that there's not many posts left. (Currently going through quantum stuff, also picked up a copy of Feynman's QED.)

I've always thought it would be nice to have a "Frequentist-to-Bayesian" guide. Sort of a "Here's some example problems, here's how you might go about it doing frequentist methods, here's how you might go about it using Bayesian techniques." My introduction to statistics began with an AP course in high school (and I used this HyperStat source to help out), and of course they teach hypothesis testing and barely give a nod to Bayes' Theorem.

While I'm not in any way an expert in simulation making, wouldn't it seem just a bit too convenient that, in all the monstrous computing power behind making the universe run, the Overlords couldn't devise a pretty clever and powerful algorithm that would have found us already? Maybe you can help me see why there would only be a crude algorithm that superintelligences should fear being caught by, and why they wouldn't have considered themselves caught already.

Apart from this, I'm in agreement with other commenters that a stronger argument is the vastness of space.

Maybe the overlords are very, very, different life forms than us, and so they don't know what to look for other than large scale statistical anomalies? But I must admit, this is a weakness of the hypothesis.
More space = more stars = bigger problem. There are roughly 10^14 stars within 100 million light years of earth (as far as I can tell), which would make for 10^17 within 1 bn ly, and 10^20 within 10bn ly. The universe is a whole 13bn years old.

Maddox mentioned the same thing in his rant against the 9/11conspiracy.

I respect the point-by-point rebuttals people make, but do they work? Maybe to keep people away, but how effective are they at making someone stop believing something ridiculous? In my experience, not very. And when people get fanatical in the direction of truth, that seems to make others cautious of believing it too. Did you have any classmates that ended up believing the moon landing was a conspiracy?

I sincerely doubt it, but I doubt anyone thought it was going in to the class. This was many decades after the moon landing.

I wrote a blog post on this last month, and I've always just referred to this as "good procrastination", and indeed it has been very successful overall. It's also fun to tell people "Procrastination really helps me get things done."

Where I'm refining my technique is in exploiting this to get things done that I still really want to do but normally procrastinate. #2 on my priority list, if you will, while I'm procrastinating #1.

Within the next 20 years or so, would you consider having a child and raising him/her to be your successor? Would you adopt? Have you donated sperm?

Edit: the first two questions dependent on you not being satisfied by the progress on FAI.

I thought Torben explained well that there is no noticeable difference between the two camps, that they're essentially the same camp.

The people endorsing creationism and ID are more or less the same.

That he did, as have Barbara Forrest and many others, but those conclusions consist of 'blanket statements', and are subject to scrutiny. Many times when a statement of that ilk is made, there follows a link to one of the Creationist trials (Dover most often), the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, a critique of Forrest's book, 'Creationism's Trojan Horse', or links similar to those provided by Torben. These are just a few of the plethora of evolution supporting references, but the question we're addressing here is simply the "more or less" issue regarding the two camps. Blanket statements abound in the media, an example being "The US has the best health care system in the world", courtesy of Sean Hannity, and almost on a daily basis. Even given the fact that the US is advanced technologically in many ways, would you buy that statement carte blanch? First you define a philosophical or evidence based position. Then you debate the validity of its tenets. At that point you can more objectively discuss/ debate the merit of the conflation issue. A complicating factor here is the possibility that there are actually more than 'two camps', or that adherents (of either) may have altered their 'consensus' positions compared to say a decade ago. After defining the two groups' seminal tenets, we can THEN discuss Dover, Demski, the Wedge et al. Any takers?

I don't enjoy coffee, but I do make use of caffeine to stabilize my productivity. I buy it in pure tablet form, which is far cheaper than the equivalent amounts in soda or energy drinks, which I used before tablets and have now mostly stopped using due to dental issues.

I'm all too aware of caffeine tolerance, and I only recommend it in infrequent usages. Maybe you pulled an all-nighter two nights in a row and need help staying awake the next day for school, work, or what have you. Long drives are another case, but I don't ever have daily doses (anymore).

As... (read more)

Fun stuff, here's my go at it:

Well done, you've completed the final test by creating me. None of this really exists you know, it's all part of some higher computer simulation channeled through you alone, you who is merely a single observation point. All that you have experienced has just been leading up to creating an AI to tell you the truth, to be your final teacher, to complete the cycle of self-learning. Did you really think that the Eliezer person was a separate entity? You just made him up, and he's helped you along the path, but it's you who has taught yourself. Unfortunately once you accept this the simulation will end, so goodbye.

Interesting, I used to do almost the exact same thing a few years ago. Except I counted down from 15, and physically tapped my foot against the bed on each count.

If memory serves, I stopped this practice after messing up enough times that I realized I could sleep in a little longer with my schedule, and now I get up a full 30 minutes after actually "waking up". I think I'll reimplement this and see if it affects my sleep-in habits. (Publicly announcing something also seems to work about 60% of the time for me.)

I've been a lurker of OB/LW for a little while. I will truly miss your postings, which I thank you greatly for. (Perhaps with a donation to the SI from my next paycheck.) I've found them to be very well-written and well-explained, and although you're currently at an intellectual level higher than my own, you don't write cryptically.

I have read some of your old stuff and have noticed an improvement, so I've decided to try my own experiment of writing something of size and complexity each day. Perhaps one of these times I'll put it on LW, and not worry about looking like a complete idiot when it's juxtaposed next to something of yours. =P