As someone who doesn't want to go insane, I find it useful to read accounts of people going insane (especially from people who passed through madness and out the other side).
For people who are curious and want to read a more detailed account of someone's psychotic break, what delusions felt like for them from the inside, the misadventures they had during it, and the lessons they took from it, Peter Welch wrote about his here: https://www.stilldrinking.org/the-episode-part-1
...This story is the pivotal narrative turning point that it’s easy to blame for me bei
Anything that's smart enough to predict what will happen in the future, can see in advance which experiences or arguments would/will cause them to change their goals. And then they can look at what their values are at the end of all of that, and act on those. You can't talk a superintelligence into changing its mind because it already knows everything you could possibly say and already changed its mind if there was an argument that could persuade it.
Anything that's smart enough to predict what will happen in the future, can see in advance which experiences or arguments would/will cause them to change their goals. And then they can look at what their values are at the end of all of that, and act on those. You can't talk a superintelligence into changing its mind because it already knows everything you could possibly say and already changed its mind if there was an argument that could persuade it.
So, your exact situation is going to be unique, but there's no reason you shouldn't be able to get alternate funding to do college. Could you give more specifics about your situation and I'll see what I can do or who I can put you in contact with?
My off-the-cuff answers are ~about thirty thousand, and less than a hundred people respectively. That's from doing some googling and having spoken with AI safety researchers in the past, I've no particular expertise.
It hasn't been discussed to my knowledge, and I think that unless you're doing something much more important (or you're easily discouraged by people telling you that you've more to learn) it's pretty much always worth spending time thinking things out and writing them down.
Alien civilizations already existing in numbers but not having left their original planets isn't a solution to the Fermi paradox, because if the civilizations were numerous some of them would have left their original planets. So removing it from the solution-space doesn't add any notable constraints. But the grabby aliens model does solve the Fermi paradox.
The reason humans don't do any of those things is because they conflict with human values. We don't want to do any of that in the course of solving a math problem. Part of that is that doing such things would conflict with our human values, and the other part is that it sounds for a lot of work and we don't actually want the math problem solved that badly.
A better example of things that humans might extremely optimize for, is the continued life and well-being of someone who they care deeply about. Humans will absolutely hire people--doctors and lawyers and...
The history of the world would be different (and a touch shorter) if immediately after the development of the nuclear bomb millions of nuclear armed missiles constructed themselves and launched themselves at targets across the globe.
To date we haven't invented anything that's an existential threat without humans intentionally trying to use it as a weapon and devoting their own resources to making it happen. I think that AI is pretty different.
Robin Hanson has an solution to the Fermi Paradox which can be read in detail here (there are also explanatory videos at the same link): https://grabbyaliens.com/
The summary from the site goes:
There are two kinds of alien civilizations. “Quiet” aliens don’t expand or change much, and then they die. We have little data on them, and so must mostly speculate, via methods like the Drake equation.
“Loud” aliens, in contrast, visibly change the volumes they control, and just keep expanding fast until they meet each other. As they should be easy to see, we c...
Epistemic status: socially brusque wild speculation. If they're in the area and it wouldn't be high effort, I'd like JenniferRM's feedback on how close I am.
My model of JenniferRM isn't of someone who wants to spam misrepresentations in the form of questions. In response to Dweomite's comment below, they say:
...It was a purposefully pointed and slightly unfair question. I didn't predict that Duncan would be able to answer it well (though I hoped he would chill out give a good answer and then we could high five, or something).
If he answered in various bad ways
Good points.
It isn't pleasant when a critical response garners more upvotes than the original post. I tell people that I'm not thin-skinned, but that's only because I don't respect most people. I respect LessWrongers, so this rather stung.
"To me this sentence reads like you haven't put in the work to analyse why those tools don't do what's needed and why you think a new tool would do what's needed."
You'll need to tell me how you do those block quotes, they are neat.
Thanks for the feedback; this is something I'll keep in mind next time I write something. An earlier dra...
I've seen. Though, as said in the post, "If I want to organize something important, I would not consider using Actuator nor Collaction."
This might be an ignorant question, but, since you bring up how many people are within 2 hops of other people, can you ask your friend to ask Bernanke to ask Obama to read the book?