User Profile


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
Personal Blogposts
personPersonal blogposts by LessWrong users (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

New Philosophical Work on Solomonoff Induction

1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Existential risk for non-consequentialists

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

The Neglected Virtue of Curiosity

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Survey on X-risk: Feedback needed

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

[LINK] Videos from FHI's Winter Intelligence Conference

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Recent Comments

I don't think it's fair to say that "nobody understood induction in any kind of rigorous way until about 1968." The linked paper argues that Solomonoff prediction does not justify Occam's razor, but rather that it gives us a specific inductive assumption. And such inductive assumptions had previousl...(read more)

Non-cognitivism strictly speaking doesn't imply the orthogonality thesis. For instance, one could consistently hold that increased intelligence leads to a convergence of the relevant non-cognitive attitudes. Admittedly, such a position appears implausible, which might explain the fact (if it is a fa...(read more)

I don't think Sweden is significantly more transhumanist than several other western European countries. The fact that two influential transhumanists (Bostrom and Sandberg) are Swedish could be due to chance. Once they became known, they may have attracted a disproportionate number of Swedes to adopt...(read more)

You can prove everything from a *contradiction*, but you can't prove everything from a false premise. I take it that you mean that we can derive a contradiction from the assumption of moral realism. That may be true (although I'd hesitate to call either moral realism or free will *logically* imposs...(read more)

If moral realism is simply the view that some positive moral claims are true, without further metaphysical or conceptual commitments, then I can't see how it could be at odds with the orthogonality thesis. In itself, that view doesn't entail anything about the relation between intelligence levels an...(read more)

I'm not familiar with his writings on the foundations of quantum mechanics, but in addition to his work on causality, the three volumes on [measurement]( he co-authored have also been hugely influential. ...(read more)

Well, I hope you're in Oxford soon again, João! :)

Some might find it more convenient to set this up as a Google Form.

Just came across the book [Behavior Modification in Applied Settings](, which I don't think has been mentioned on Less Wrong previously. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but it looks like it could be useful for t...(read more)