Matt Levine is the author of regular column "Money Stuff" on Bloomberg, and he seems to have spotted a paperclip maximizer in the wild: > A key explanation of, like, modern life is that politics are so vicious and polarized because (1) everyone uses Facebook, (2) Facebook has an algorithm...
Imagine someone named Omega offers to play a game with you. Omega has a bag, and they swear on their life that exactly one of the following statements is true:
Omega then has an independent neutral third party reach into the bag and pull out a random piece of paper which they then hand to you. You look at the piece of paper and it says "1" on it. Omega doesn't get to look at the piece of paper,... (read more)
Matt Levine is the author of regular column "Money Stuff" on Bloomberg, and he seems to have spotted a paperclip maximizer in the wild:
... (read 405 more words →)A key explanation of, like, modern life is that politics are so vicious and polarized because (1) everyone uses Facebook, (2) Facebook has an algorithm to decide what stuff to show people, (3) that algorithm is built to maximize engagement, (4) the algorithm is very effective, and (5) it turns out that what maximizes engagement is vicious polarizing stuff, oops. That probably exaggerates the role of Facebook’s algorithm and understates the agency of its users — “Everything you hate about the Internet is actually everything you hate about people,”
as they code I notice nested for loops that could have been one matrix multiplication.
This seems like an odd choice for your primary example.
Is it perhaps worth writing a (short?) top level post with an worked out example of the refactoring you have in mind, and why matrix multiplication would be better than nested for loops?
For something to experience pain, some information needs to exist (e.g. in the mind of the sufferer, informing them that they are experiencing pain). There are known information limits, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle
These limits are related to entropy, space, energy, etc., so if you further assume the universe is finite (or perhaps equivalently, that the malicious agent can only access a finite portion of the universe due to e.g. speed-of-light limits), then there is an upon bound of information possible, which implies an upper bound of pain possible.
Yeah, which I interpret to mean you'd "lose" (where getting $10 is losing and getting $200 is winning). Hence this is not a good strategy to adopt.
99% of the time for me, or for other people?
99% for you (see https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Least_convenient_possible_world )
More importantly, when the fiction diverges by that much from the actual universe, it takes a LOT more work to show that any lessons are valid or useful in the real universe.
I believe the goal of these thought experiments is not to figure out whether you should, in practice, sit in the waiting room or not (honestly, nobody cares what some rando on the internet would do in some rando waiting room).
Instead, the goal is to provide unit tests for different proposed decision theories as part of research on developing self modifying super intelligent AI.
Any recommendations for companies that can print and ship the calendar to me?
Okay, but then what would you actually do? Would you leave before the 10 minutes is up?
why do I believe that it's accuracy for other people (probably mostly psych students) applies to my actions?
Because historically, in this fictional world we're imagining, when psychologists have said that a device's accuracy was X%, it turned out to be within 1% of X%, 99% of the time.
I really should get around to signing up for this, but...
The way the scenario is given, player is informed that Omega and Omicron's numbers coincide, but needs to decide for themselves what that implies for whether that number is prime or composite. So if the player is EDT, that player will always two box in this scenario.
I think the sequence of events goes like this:
- Omega knows it is about to encounter an EDT, and so starts to simulate them.
- The simulated EDT reasons "I should take both boxes, because this makes X composite, which pays more than making X prime by taking one box (the extra $1k being inconsequential)"
- Omega, seeing that EDT would take both boxes, thus decides put a composite number in
... (read more)