Does anyone else, other than me, have a problem with noticing when the discussion they're having is getting more abstract? I'm often reminded of this fact when debating some topic. This is relating to the point on "Narrowing the scope", and how to notice the need to do this.
I signed up for a CFAR workshop, and got a scholarship, but couldn't travel for financial reasons. Is there a way to get travel assistance for either WAISS or the MIRI Fellowship program? I'll just apply for both.
What reaches your attention when you see is not ‘reality’ but a mix of light measurements with cryptotheories that were useful for making snap judgments in the environment of ancestral adaptation.
Eric S. Raymond here: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7076
Ethereum does this
See my above point about how reasoning by analogy at its best is reasoning from a weak reference class. (Do people think this is worth a toplevel post?)
Yes, I do. Intuitively, this seems correct. But I'd still like to see you expound on the idea.
If you practice mindfulness meditation, you'll realize that your sense of self is an illusion. It's probably true that most people believe that their "self" is located in their head, but if you investigate it yourself, you'll find that there's actually no "self" at all.
The core ideas in LW come from the Major Sequences. You can start there, reading posts in each sequence sequentially.
Sergey Levine's research on guided policy search (using techniques such as hidden markov models to animate, in real-time, the movement of a bipedal or quadripedal character). An example:
Sergey Levine, Jovan Popović. Physically Plausible Simulation for Character Animation. SCA 2012: http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~svlevine/papers/quasiphysical.pdf
The text of [the parts I've read so far of] Superintelligence is really insightful, but I'll quote Nick in saying that
"Many points in this book are probably wrong".
He gives many references (84 in Chapter 1 alone), some of which refer to papers and others that resemble continuations of the specific idea in question that don't fit in directly with the narrative in the book. My suggestion would be to go through each reference as it comes up in the book, analyze and discuss it, then continue. Maybe even forming little discussion groups around each reference in a section (if it's a paper). It could even happen right here in comment threads.
That way, we can get as close to Bostrom's original world of information as possible, maybe drawing different conclusions. I think that would be a more consilient understanding of the book.
This seems useful and simple enough to try. I'll set up an implementation intention to do this next time I find myself in a long conversation. It also reminds me of the reversal test, a heuristic for eliminating status-quo bias.
Bostrom, Ord (2006)