Wiki Contributions


That sounds like "let the salesman get the foot in the door".

I wouldn't admit it was right. I might admit that I can see no holes in its argument, but I'm a flawed human, so that wouldn't lead me to conclude that it's right.

Also, can you confirm that the AI player did not use the loophole described in that link?

If you believe X and someone is trying to convince you of not-X, it's almost always a bad idea to immediately decide that you now believe not-X based on a long chain of reasoning from the other person because you couldn't find any flaw in it. You should take some time to think about it, and to check what other people have said about the seemingly convincing arguments you heard, maybe to actually discuss it.

And even then, there's epistemic learned helplessness to consider.

The AI box experiment seems designed to circumvent this in ways that wouldn't happen with an actual AI in a box. You're supposed to stay engaged with the AI player, not just keep saying "no matter what you say, I haven't had time to think it over, discuss, or research it, so I'm not letting you out until I do". And since the AI player is able to specify the results of any experiment you do, the AI player can say "all the best scientists in the world looked at my reasoning and told you that there's no logical flaw in it".

(Also, the experiment still has loopholes which can lead the AI player to victory in situations where a real AI would have its plug pulled.)

If someone managed to actually do this for real (probably not possible with current AI technology), that's polluting the commons. Dating apps are useful because they offer personal contact. If dating apps become full of fake personal contacting, users of dating apps will take this into account and trust such apps less. And if people don't trust dating apps because they're full of fakes, the apps will become less worthwhile. (Even independently of the fact that fakes themselves make the apps less worthwhile.)

It seems to me that hiring a cleaner or organizer would have a lot of overhead, to make sure everything is legal, to communicate your quirks so they don't clean/organize things in ways you don't intend, to make sure they are not doing things like dragging out the process to get more billable hours, and to make sure they're not actually going to harm you. Much of this overhead would require a lot of expensive-in-time personal attention from you, and a lot of unknown unknowns.

A lot of it is also much less of a problem for a rich person.

Note how much of the original complexity of yoga gets changed to fit the colonizing culture.

This is true of cultural elements that stay in the same country as well. Compare Casper the Friendly Ghost to how people thought of ghosts 150 years ago.

Neither of these people is anyone that matters.

That's like saying "well, 40 people were murdered on my block, but I don't know any of them, so it's nobody that matters". The fact that a random person is victimized means that the system allows victimization of random people. The next fake Twitter message could be posted in your name and ruin your reputation. (And "I don't use Twitter" isn't going to prevent it from affecting you.)

By this reasoning, why is the current lifespan perfect, except by astonishingly unlikely chance? If it's so good to have death because it makes replacement valuable, maybe reducing lifespan by 10 years would make replacement even more valuable?

Social dynamics are self-balancing, if somebody is an unlikable person, they will become disliked over time naturally.

I think that doesn't count as self-balancing unless that's the only way to become disliked.

Perfect due process is impossible for the reasons you describe. But there's a difference between "not perfect" and "egregiously bad", and if you focus too narrowly on the inability to make the process perfect, people are going to get away with processes that are egregiously bad.

If you wrote this in February, it preceded the Nonlinear accusations. From what I can tell from what I read here, they're a lot closer to "egregiously bad" than to "not perfect". Do they change your opinion of due process to any extent?

Load More