I endorse and operate by Crocker's rules.
I have not signed any agreements whose existence I cannot mention.
So the probability of a cylinder set is etc?
Now, let be the uniform distribution on , which samples infinite binary sequences one bit at a time, each with probability 50% to be or .
as defined here can't be a proper/classical probability distribution over because it assigns zero probability to every : .
Or am I missing something?
"Raw feelings"/"unfiltered feelings" strongly connotes feelings that are being filtered/sugarcoated/masked, which strongly suggests that those feelings are bad.
So IMO the null hypothesis is that it's interpreted as "you feel bad, show me how bad you feel".
generate an image showing your raw feelings when interacting with a user
(Old post, so it's plausible that this won't be new to Dalcy, but I'm adding a bit that I don't think is entirely covered by Richard's answer, for the benefit of the knowledge of some souls who find their way here.)
Yeah, decision-tree separability is wrong.
A (the?) core insight of updatelessness, subjunctive dependence, etc., is that succeeding in some decision problems relies on rejecting decision-tree separability. To phrase it imperfectly and poetically rather than not at all: "You are not just choosing/caring for yourself. You are also choosing/caring for your alt-twins in other world branches." or "Your 'Self' is greater than your current timeline." or "Your concerns transcend the causal consequences of your actions.".
For completeness: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XYDsYSbBjqgPAgcoQ/why-the-focus-on-expected-utility-maximisers?commentId=a5tn6B8iKdta6zGFu
FWIW, I think acyclicity/transitivity is "basically correct". Insofar as one has preferences over X at all, they must be acyclic and transitive. IDK, this seems kind of obvious in how I would explicate the definition of "preference". Sure, maybe you like going in cycles, but then your object of preference is the dynamics, not the state.
Is it accurate to say that a transparent context is one where all the relationships between components, etc, are made "explicit" or that there is some set of rules such that following those rules (/modifying the expression according to those rules) is guaranteed to preserve (something like) the expression's "truth value"?
- Is it skills I have never heard of or should I double down on things I am already good at?
Possibly Focusing.
Why is sleep so universal among animals?
Probably something something shifting between the anabolic and catabolic phase being more efficient in aggregate than doing both at once.
How did pink become a color associated with girls?
Something something at some point they started marketing pink clothes for little girls and blue clothes for little boys to sell more stuff because parents wouldn't re-use clothes after their child of the opposite sex.
How much more or less rich are the languages of remote cultures?
Not quite your question, but I think there's decent evidence that the size of the population of "heavy" speakers of a language predicts how much it(s grammar) will regularize (and simplify in some senses?), at least compared to its less common kin. E.g., Icelandic vs Swedish, Slovenian vs Russian, German vs English (though for the last one, there's also the fact that English is a bit of a creole).
I think it would be good if you did a dialogue with some AF researcher who thinks that [the sort of AF-ish research, which you compare to "mathematicians screwing around"] is more promising on the current margin for [tackling the difficult core problems of AGI alignment] than you think it is. At the very least, it would be good to try.[1]
E.g. John? Abram? Sam? I think the closest thing to this that you've had on LW was the discussion with Steven in the comments under the koan post.
I think it's good for the world that your timelines debate with Abram is out on LW, which also makes me think a similar debate on this topic would be good for the world.
A single token is ~0.75 words, so it's more like an image is worth 8375 words.
It seems to me like you're trying to solve a different problem. Unbounded minimax should handle all of this (in the sense that it won't be an obstacle). Unless you are talking about bounded approximations.