Wiki Contributions


I happened to stumble on an old comment where I was already of the opinion that progress is not a "refinement" but will "defocus" from old division lines.

At some midskill "fruitmaximisement" peaks and those that don't understand things beyond that point will confuse those that are yet to get to fruitmaximization and those that are past that.

If someone said "you were suboptimal on fruit front, I fixed that mistake for you" and I arrive at a table with 2 worm apples, I would be annoyed/pissed. I am assuming that the other agent can't evaluate their cleanness - it's all fruit to them.

One could do similarly with radioactive apples etc. In a certain sense yes, it is about ability to percieve properties and even I use the verb "evaluate". But I don't find the break so easy to justify between preferences and evaluations. Knowing and opining that "worminess" is a relevant thing is not value neutral. Reflecting upon "apple with no worm" and "apple with worm" can have results that overpower old reflections on "apple" vs "pear" even thought it is not contradicted (wormless pear vs wormful apple is in a sense "mere adversial example" it doesn't violate species preference but it can absolute render it irrelevant).

My example of wacky scenarios are bad. I was thinking that if one holds that playing Grand Theft Auto is not unethical and "ordinary murder" is unethical, then if it turns out that reality is similar to GTA in "relevant way" this might be a non-trivial reconciliation. There is a phenomenon of referring to real life people as NPCs.

The sharedness was about like a situation with a book like Game Of Thrones. In a sense all the characters are only parts of a single reading experience. And Jaime Lannister still has to use spies to learn about Arya Starks doings (so information passing is not the thing here). If a character action could start the "book to burn" Westeros internal logic does not particularly help to opine about that. Doc warning Marty that the stakes are a bit high here, is in a sense introducing previously incomprehensibly bad outcomes.

The particular dynamics are not the focus but that we suddenly need to start caring about metaphysics. I wrote a bit long for explaining bad examples.

From the dialogue on the old post

Is this bad according to Alice’s own preferences? Can we show this? How would we do that? By asking Alice whether she prefers the outcome (5 apples and 1 orange) to the initial state (8 apples and 1 orange)?


Expecting super-intelligent things to be consistent kind of assumes that if a metric ever becomes a good goal higher levels will never be weaker on that metric, that maximation strictly grows and never decreases with ability for all submetrics.

This is written with competence in mind but I think it still work for taste as well. Fruit-capable Alice indeed would classify worm-capable Alice to be a stupid idiot and a hellworld. But I think that doing this transition and saying "oops" is the proper route. Being very confident that you opine on properties of apples so well that you will never-ever say "oops" in this sense is very closeminded. You should not leave fingerprints on yourself either.

I encountered a similarish pattern a long time ago

Not comenting on the referenced content as here we are at:
epistemic status: crazy corner

Something that is very resonant to the approach but has a big point of deviation

$30 for each link that leads to me reading

 Total bounty capped at $600, first come first served.

I have a ideological beef with that "first come first served" bit. At 20 links the cap is exactly filled. If you receive 40 links each linker should get 15$. Even as is, it is nearly impossible to tell whether you are the 22nd linker because of the time gap when 20th link is received and the gap is announced fullfilled might be something like 2 days. With my style there would be a rollingly updated display of what is the current bounty per link, after 80 links new linkers can expect to only ever get up to 7.5$. A real reservation is that if I go fetching a link with 30$ in my mind but eventually only get 15$ I might feel cheated. But the promise isn't super solid as a "sorry, you were just out of time" can still net you 0$.

At some point you would "close the market", submissions stop being accepted and money is doled out. The advantage of this old style is that each submission can get instantly rewarded instead of being delayed.

One could also imagine a kind of reverse operation where rather than fetching information we are broadcasting it

$30 for each early access reader

Total paywall capped at 600$, distributed equally among readers

Then a paper having 40 readers would cost 15$ for each new reader to access. This kind of market we do not need to close for the producer, after the 20th reader the author has got their 600$ compensation and the rest is just new readers resharing the burden amongs the old readers.

If you are wondering "who tf would go fetching a link for uncertain reward" then you should be of the opinion that these read licences should sell like hotcakes. "This authors last paper cost 400$ distributed among 4 million readers for which has access price of 0.0001 $. Since you were the 1 millionth reader you have 0.0003 $ free credits to use . Would you be interested to access the new paper costing 600$ that has 600 current readers for access price of $1?"

Oh right, the whole world doesn't have education as a right.

Are you trying to argue from existing law to moral or practical value?  That would be easier if the whole world hadn't had slavery and monarchy until fairly recently.

My tone is bad and inappropriate especially in this contex. What I actually mean or should have meant is that "parents lose money" is not really descriptive of my local reality and I have trouble taking on that perspective. Trying to imagine a counterfactual what would have needed to be different to not have universal education starts to baffle me a little. My brains come up with questions like "Do people in this world have to pay the police if they call them to protect from gunmen?" which are more obviously out of touch what I know to be the case. The money loss is a facet of some corners of reality. I am familiar with the organization where teachers are first accountable to society or state rather than accountable through parents. So "What are we paying you for?" has two sides to it that I am extremely unfamiliar with.

What I am used to is that the public option is mostly appropriate, so children and parents are not constantly trying to escape it. Keeping "study duty" firm has for me the most important role that a parent while having large custodial rights may not fail to educate their kid. Alternative venues are fine but they can't be shambles, they must be worthy of the dignity of the progeny of civilization (so need to pass goverment checks). So if private schools are a large part of the equation why are not parents using the customisability if they are going the hard route anyway? If students are suffering why are the parents not advocating for their kids needs? Is it because the solutions exist but are paywalled and some that need them can not get them? How come the public options gets a pass for maleducating a significant stream of citizens? Is this some kind of thing where the most prestigious places are prestigious because they are harsh (and failures are because of students and not schools) and thus misery is a sign of status?

But jobs ideally produce value.  School often doesn't,

The word "value" has so different meaning in job context and school context that I am not confident on which idea this expresses and can't really follow.

In general I am very interested in finding out and rooting out bad schooling whereever it might be. But I think it might be appropriate to talk about specific schoolings rather than the abstract idea of schooling in general.

Yes, the edgecases are the things which kill perfectly good theories.

I would be pretty surprised if you said that your ethical stance would incorporate without hiccups if it turned out that simulation hypothesis is true. Or that the world shares one conciousness. So I am guessing that the total probability of all that funky stuff taken together is taken to be low. So nobody will ever need more than 640k. 10 000 years of AGI powered civilization and not one signficant hole will be found. That is an astonishingly strong grasp of ethics.

Oh right, the whole world doesn't have education as a right.

It does apply also to start of school. It is about developmentally appropriate environments. Schools are supposed to be where that can be a high objective. Keeping up skill development in work is rather hit and miss and can be quite narrow for profitability increasement.

That both destroy magic doesn't mean the destruction is it to the same degree. And school has its own magic. Jobs tend to have way less magic of their own.

Sure that is a common way to derive the challenge for physics that way.

But we can have it via other routes. Digits of pi do not listen to commands on what they should be. Chess is not mean to you when it is intractable. Failure to model is a lack of imagination rather than a model of failure. Statements like "this model is correct and nothing unmodeled has any bearing on its truth or applicability" are so prone to be wrong that they are uninteresting.

I do give that often "nature" primarily means "material reality" when I could have phrased it as "reality has no oblication to be clear" to mean a broader thing. To the extent that observing a target does not change it (I am leaving some superwild things out), limits on ability to make a picture tell more about the observer rather than the observed. It is the difference of a positive proof of a limitation vs failure to produce a proof of a property. And if we have a system A that proves things about system B, that never escapes the reservations about A being true. Therefore it is always "as far as we can tell" and "according to this approach".

I do think it is more productive to think that questions like "Did I do right in this situation?" have answers that are outside the individual that formulates the question. And that this is not bound to particular theories of rigthness. That is whatever we do with ethics (grow / discover / dialogue build etc) we are not setting it as we go. That activity is more of the area of law. We can decide what is lawful and what is condoned but we can't similarly do to what is ethical.

The take is a gross overcorrection to the stuff that it critisises. Yes, you need to worry about indescribable heaven worlds. No, you have not got ethics figured out. No, you need to keep updating your ontology. No, nature is not obligated to make sense to you. Value is actually fragile and can't withstand your rounding.

Voting behaviour would very weakly test for that bit. I am imagining a test of hypotheticals and calssifying as "yes" or "no" on whether the scenario is consistent with the role. Voting against someone because of influence of hate adds is hard to separate from voting against somebody for transgressions against political organization.

Having solely economic justifications has the danger of narrowing education to only vocational education. But I guess having just some measure that does not get instantly warped doesn't particularly care what flavour it is.

I know that some people have a mindset that everything should be measured but it is not intuitive to me why this would be universal. I get that there should not be disagreement on what is the performance and what would be a breach. But that it can always be understood as a quantity and never a duty or a quality is not immidietly obvious to me.

I know that other countries have high monetary involment in colleges and colleges are more used for class distinguishment which I understand if it boosts the signal side of it. To me it would be more natural for colleges to complain to high schools that the opening college courses need to be more extensive as the previous stage was slacking. That kind of dynamic does not particularly care about grade distribution among the students. But if it is about particular students getting to particular colleges then I understand that gets shadowed. It seems to me the role of "low end" tetriary education is somewhat different. Having a system where it makes sense to play even if you "lose" is very different from a game where if you "lose" then it is almost as good as if you did nothing.

Assuming and leaning on the assumption that systematically you will never mess up is very dangerous. An anti-murphy law, "everything that could go wrong will be okayish because otherwise we would be dead already".

I think it is a very solid phenomenon that pushing science forward will not diminsh the capability to be surprised. Models have limits. Singularities in the sense of "here our models breakdown and we can't anticipate what happens" are a real thing. Trying to classify and opine about a world that is in that singularity area of your models I would not call "describable".

That we can't rule out that an exotic state is good does not constitute a reason to think it is good. If we have reasons to think a world is bad, that we have doubts about it does not mean that we have (yet) lost reason to think so. Doubting inconvenient models is a not a get-out-of-jail-free card. But having a model does not oblige you to trust without verification.

Load More