NineDimensions
67
6
NineDimensions has not written any posts yet.
NineDimensions has not written any posts yet.
In some cases something like this might work:
"The plumber says it's fixed, so hopefully it is"
Or
"The plumber says it's fixed, so it probably is"
Which I think conveys"there's an assumption I'm making here, but I'm just putting a flag in the ground to return to if things don't play out as expected"
I don't share your intuition here. I think many people would see blue as the "band together" option and would have confidence that others will do the same. For the average responder, the question would reduce to "choose blue to signal trust in humanity, choose red to signal selfish cowardice".
"Innate faith in human compassion, especially in a crisis" is the co-ordination mechanism, and I think there is pretty strong support for that notion if you look at how we respond to crises in real life and how we depict them in fiction. That is the narrative we tell ourselves at least, but narrative is what's important here.
I would be surprised if blue was less than 30%, and would predict around 60%.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.
Unless I expect the pool of responders to be 100% rational and choose red, then I should expect some to choose blue. Since I (and presumably other responders) do expect some to choose blue, that makes >50% blue the preferred outcome. Universal red is just not a realistic outcome.
Whether or not I choose blue then depends on factors like how I value the lives of others compared to mine, the number of responders, etc - as in the equations in your post.
Emperically, as GeneSmith points out, something is wrong with WalterL's suggestion that red is the obvious choice no matter your reasoning. Applying his logic would push the twitter poll away from the realistically ideal outcome of >50% blue and closer to the worst possible outcome (51% red).
No matter what the game theory says, a non-zero number of people will choose blue and thus die under this equilibrium. This fact - that getting to >50% blue is the only way to save absolutely everyone - is enough for me to consider choosing blue and hope that others reason the same (which, in a self-fulfilling way, strengthens the case for choosing blue).
Edit - This turned out pretty long, so in short:
What reason do we have to believe that humans aren't already close to maxing out the gains one can achieve from intelligence, or at least having those gains in our sights?
One crux of the ASI risk argument is that ASI will be unfathomably powerful thanks to its intelligence. One oft-given analogy for this is that the difference in intelligence between humans and chimps is enough that we are able to completely dominate the earth while they become endangered as an unintended side effect. And we should expect the difference between us and ASI to be much much larger than that.
How do we know... (read 520 more words →)
I lost 25kg in 9 months using a very similar method. Some suggestions to help with the hunger/willpower:
1. Brush your teeth straight after dinner. It adds a point of friction between you and more food ("I'd have to brush my teeth again"). Then drink herbal teas in the evening.
2. You don't have to feel hungry all the time. Choose when you consume your calories so that you're hungry at the least inconvenient times and for the fewest waking hours. I usually eat a decent breakfast as late as I can, because I'm not as hungry in the mornings. Then I eat two half-sized meals, one at noon and one mid afternoon. Followed... (read more)