User Profile

star0
description3
message31

Recent Posts

Curated Posts
starCurated - Recent, high quality posts selected by the LessWrong moderation team.
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Frontpage Posts
Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines: • interesting, insightful, useful • aim to explain, not to persuade • avoid meta discussion • relevant to people whether or not they are involved with the LessWrong community.
(includes curated content and frontpage posts)
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
All Posts
personIncludes personal and meta blogposts (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

LINK: Can intelligence explode?

6y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
4

[SEQ RERUN] Some Claims Are Just Too Extraordinary

7y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
28

[SEQ RERUN] A Fable of Science and Politics

7y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
10

Recent Comments

These are good points. Do you think that if the researchers did find the sort of discretization that they are hypothesizing, that this would represent at least some weak evidence in favor of the simulation hypothesis, or do you think it's completely uninformative with respect to the simulation hypot...(read more)

Damn. I quickly checked to see if this link had been posted, but I guess I didn't look far back enough--I assumed that if it had been, it would have been very recently, but apparently it was actually posted 10 days ago... my bad.

Have to disagree with you on, well, several points here.

> Heuristics in Heuristics and Biases are only descriptive. [...] Heuristics in Heuristics and biases are defined as having negative side effects.

If your claim is that heuristics are defined by H&B theorists as being explicitly not prescrip...(read more)

> What I'm saying is that is how many people tend to wrongly interpret such statistics to define their own null hypothesis in the way I outlined in the post.

But that's not right. The problem that your burden of proof example describes is a problem of *priors*. The theist and the atheist are starti...(read more)

> As an aspiring scientist, I hold the Truth above all.

That will change!

More seriously though... > As one can see, the biggest problem is determining burden of proof. Statistically speaking, this is much like the problem of defining the null hypothesis.

Well, not really. The null and alternati...(read more)

It doesn't sound unreasonable to me given the severity of your symptoms. But I'm not a sleep doctor.

Consider also that there are other ways to procure drugs like this, i.e., shady online vendors from overseas. Just make sure you do your research on the vendors first. There are people who have orde...(read more)

How about Modafinil or a similar drug? It is prescribed for narcolepsy. More generally, can I safely assume that "everything" includes having talked to your doctor about how serious these symptoms are?

I think you're taking the fundamentally wrong approach. Rather than trying to simply predict when you'll be sleepy in the near-term, you should try to actively get your sleeping patterns under control.

Robin Hanson's posts from the AI Foom debate are not included in the list of all articles. Covering only Yudkowsky's side of the debate would be a little strange for readers I think. Should we feature Hanson's posts (and others who participated in the debate) during that time as well?

Yes, that's exactly right.

And although I'm having a hard time finding a news article to verify this, someone informed me that the official breast cancer screening recommendations in the US (or was it a particular state, perhaps California?) were recently modified such that it is now *not* recomme...(read more)