User Profile

star0
description0
message22

Recent Posts

Curated Posts
starCurated - Recent, high quality posts selected by the LessWrong moderation team.
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Frontpage Posts
Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines: • interesting, insightful, useful • aim to explain, not to persuade • avoid meta discussion • relevant to people whether or not they are involved with the LessWrong community.
(includes curated content and frontpage posts)
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
All Posts
personIncludes personal and meta blogposts (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

No posts to display.

Recent Comments

Maybe a tangent, but: Are we humans corrigible?

I think about this a lot -- it seems that no matter what I do, I'm not able to prevent a sufficiently motivated attacker from ending my life.

> I often observe with people that we don't all share the same meaning for the word, and that the discrepancy is significant.

YES! This is the study of ethics, I think: "by what rules can we generate an ideal society?"

> Do we have a shared meaning for this word?

NO!

This is why ethical formalis...(read more)

Absolutely. The proper response to this confusion should be: "fix the site to have a third, lower priority level", not "increase the frequency of our hack".

I find broadcast speech in general, and especially recorded narration such as audiobooks, to be slow enough as to provoke distraction.

On top of the additional focal intensity, there's double the time bandwidth. Of course, it's sensitive to my mental state -- sometimes when I'm de-energized I need ...(read more)

Essentially, this sounds like temporal sampling bias. The points about ease of recombination and augmentation bespeak a lack of infrastructure investment in post-text meda, not a fundamental property. Yes, communication mediums begin with text. But the low emotional bandwidth (and low availability o...(read more)

The biggest difference I see is that driving overloads (or extends) fairly deeply embedded/evolved neural pathways: motion, just with a different set of actuators.

Intelligence is yet lightly embedded, and the substrate is so different with software vs wetware.

I find this an immensely valuable insight: continuity, or "haecceity", is the critical element of self which naive uploading scenarios dismiss. Our current rational situation of self as concept-in-brain has no need for continuity, which is counterintuitive.

We know a good deal about the universe, b...(read more)

Yes, this is at first glance in conflict with our current understanding of the universe. However, it is probably one of the strategies with the best hope of finding a way out of that universe.

It seems the disconnect is between B & C for most people.

But *why* is the generative simulation (B) not morally equivalent to the replay simulation (C)?

Perhaps because the failure modes are different. Imagine the case of a system sensitive to cosmic rays. In the replay simulation, the everett bu...(read more)

Unfortunately, no, what you ask for is not a permissible thing to do on LessWrong.