LessWrong 2.0 Reader

Yep, Claude sure is a pretty good coder: Wang Tile Pattern Generator

This took 1 initial write and 5 change requests to produce. The most manual effort I had to do was look at unicode ranges and see which ones had distinctive-looking glyphs in them. (Sorry if any of these aren't in your computer's glyph library.)

I don't think people who disagree with your political beliefs must be inherently irrational.

Can you think of real world scenarios in which "shop elsewhere" isn't an option?

Is there no event on Oct 29th?

Okay, I don't understand what do you mean by "degree of intergration". If we lived in a world where immigrant could have "high degree of intergration" within months, what would we have observed?

I'm confused about how continuity poses a problem for "This sentence has truth value in [0,1)" without also posing an equal problem for "this sentence is false", which was used as the original motivating example. 

I'd intuitively expect "this sentence is false" == "this sentence has truth value 0" == "this sentence does not have a truth value in (0,1]"

Hi, is there a way to get people in touch with a project or project lead? For example, I'd like to get in touch with Masaharu Mizumoto because iVAIS sounds related to the aintelope project. 

The post was likely downvoted because it conflicts with principles of empathy, cooperation, and intellectual rigor. Defending bullying, even provocatively, clashes with commonly held beliefs. The zero-sum framing of status is overly simplistic, ignoring positive-sum approaches. The provocative style comes off as antagonistic. Reframing the argument around prosocial accountability might get more positive responses.

I'm interested too. I think several of the above are solvable issues. AFAICT:

Solved by simple modifications to markets:

• Races to correct naive bidders
• Defending the true price from incorrect bidders for $ w/o letting price shift

Seem doable with thought:

• Billing for information value
• Policy conditionals

Seem hard/idk if it's possible to solve:

• Collating information known by different bidders
• Preventing tricking other bidders for profit

I think we're spinning on an undefined term.  I'd bet there are LOTS of details that effect my perception in subtle and aggregate ways which I don't consciously identify.

You're equivocating between perceiving a collection of details and consciously identifying every separate detail.

If I show you a grid of 100 pixels, then (barring imperfect eyesight) you will consciously perceive all 100 them. But you will not consciously identify every individual pixel unless your attention is aimed at each pixel in a for loop (that would take longer than consciously perceiving the entire grid at once).

There are lots of details that affect your perception that you don't consciously identify. But there is no detail that affects your perception that wouldn't be contained in your consciousness (otherwise it, by definition, couldn't affect in your perception).

Computability shows that you can have a classical computer that has the same input/output behavior

That's what I mean (I'm talking about the input/output behavior of individual neurons).

Input/Output behavior is generally not considered to be enough to guarantee same consciousness

It should be, because it is, in fact, enough. (However, neither the post, nor my comment require that.)

Eliezer himself argued that GLUT isn't conscious.

Yes, and that's false (but since that's not the argument in the OP, I don't think I should get sidetracked).

But nonetheless, if the only formalized proposal for consciousness doesn't have the property that simulations preserve consciousness, then clearly the property is not guaranteed.

That's false. If we assume for a second that the ITT really is the only formalized theory of consciousness, it doesn't follow that the property is not, in fact, guaranteed. It could also be that the ITT is wrong and that in the actual reality, the property is, in fact, guaranteed.