LessWrong 2.0 Reader

Thanks!

I'm not sure how well curated and indexed most information is.

Working memory allows for looking at the whole picture at once better with the full might of human intelligence (which is better at many things than LLMs), while removing frictions that come from delays and effort expended in search for data and making calculations.

Of course we have smart people together now, but getting multiple 7+SD people together would have many further benefits beyond having them work solo.

We probably have at least a generation (we're probably going to slow down before we hit SAGI due to the data wall, limited production of new compute, and regulation).

The focus should be on moving quickly to get a group ecliping current human capabilities ASAP, not on going much further

I do think that there are mechanisms in the human brain that make prosocial behavior more intrinsically rewarding, such as the mechanisms [LW · GW] you pointed out in the Valence sequence. 

But I also notice that in the right kind of environments, "being nice to people" may predict "people being nice to you" (in a primary reward sense) to a higher degree than might be intuitive. 

I don't think that's enough because you still need to ensure that the environment is sufficiently likely to begin with, with mechanisms such as rewarding smiles, touch inclinations, infant care instincts or whatever. 

I think this story of how human empathy works may plausibly involve both social instincts as well as the self-interested indirect reward in very social environments.

The idea of inertia is excellent, extending the idea of momentum far further (and naturally inspiring thoughts on mass, velocity, etc)

I'm still bothering you with inquiries on user information. I would like to check this in order to write a potential LW post. Do we have data on the prevalence of "mental illnesses" and do we have a rough idea of the average IQ among LWers (or SSCers since the community is adjacent) I'm particulary interested in the prevalence of people with autism and/or schizoid disorders. Thank you very much. Sorry if I used offensive terms. I'm not a native speaker.

Good job for guessing that it was Google correctly! Here’s the arXiv print.

Quick summary of a reason why constituent parts like of super-organisms, like the ant of ant colonies, the cells of multicellular organisms, and endosymbiotic organelles within cells^[1] are evolutionarily incentivized to work together as a unit:

Question: why do ants seem to care about the colony than care about themselves?  Answer: reproduction in an ant colony is funneled through the queen.  If the worker ant wants to reproduce its genes, it can't do that by being selfish.  It has to help the queen reproduce.  Genes in ant workers have nothing to gain by making their ant more selfish and have much to gain by making their worker protect the queen.

This is similar to why cells in your pancreas cooperate with cells in your ear.  Reproduction of genes in the body is funned through gametes.  Somatic evolution does pressure the cells in your pancreas to reproduce selfishly at the expense of cells in your nose (this is pancreatic cancer).  But that doesn't help the pancreas genes long term.  Pancreas-genes and the ear-genes are forced to cooperate with each other because they can only reproduce when bound together in a gamete.

This sort of bounding together of genes making disperate things cooperate and act like a "super organism" is absent in members of a species.  My genes do not reproduce in concert with your genes.  If my genes figure out a way to reproduce at your expense, so much the better for them.

1. ^{^}

   Like mitochondria and chloroplasts, which were separate organisms but evolved to work so close with their hosts that they are now considered part of the same organism.

I think the burden of proof goes the other way? Like, the default wisdom for polling is that each polling error^[1] is another sample from a distribution centered around 0. It's not very surprising that it output a R bias twice in a row (even if we ignore the midterms and assume it was properly twice in a row). It's only two samples! That happens all the time.

If you want a positive argument: pollsters will have attempted to correct mistakes, and if they knew that there would be an R/D bias this time, they'd adjust in the opposite way, hence the error must be unpredictable.

Yes, you could fix it by making the portal pay for lifting. An alternative fix would be to let gravity go through portals, so the ball feels the Earth's gravity by the direct route and also through the portal. Which I think makes the column between the two portals zero G, with gravity returning towards normal as you move radially. This solution only deals with the steady-state though, at the moment portals appear or disappear the gravitational potential energy of objects (especially those near the portal) would step abruptly.

Its quite a fun situation to think about.

I didn't see any references to group selection or extended phenotypes.  If you consider those concepts obvious background, it might be good to put in a few words about them so we know how your thoughts relate (or don't relate).  And if you aren't familiar with those concepts, I'd suggest reading up!  Many smart people have spent decades arguing about this sort of thing and there are some great books there.