LessWrong 2.0 Reader

Hi Justin, I already read both the posts you linked there.

My desire for Truth is overwhelmingly strong, I would change my stance if anyone would present some actual counter-arguments that go beyond the surface level.

Will give longer rebuttal later, am currently on vacation in Spain 🤝

Thanks for linking, I love Worm

For everyday life, flat earth is more convenient than round earth geocentrism, which in turn is more convenient than heliocentrism. Like we don't constantly change our city maps based on the time of year, for instance, which we would have to do if we used a truly heliocentric coordinate system as the positions of city buildings are not even approximately constant within such a coordinate system.

This is mainly because the sun and the earth are powerful enough to handle heliocentrism for you, e.g. the earth pulls you and the cities towards the earth so you don't have to put effort into staying on it.

The sun and the planetary motion does remain the most important governing factor for predicting activities on earth, though, even given this coordinate change. We just mix them together into ~epicyclic variables like "day"/"night" and "summer"/"autumn"/"winter"/"spring" rather than talking explicitly about the sun, the earth, and their relative positions.

Can you explain what this coordination would look like?

Your definition seems like it fits the Emperor of China example--by reputation, they had few competitors for being the most willing and able to pessimize another agent's utility function; e.g. 9 Familial Exterminations. 
And that seems to be a key to understanding this type of power, because if they were able to pessimize all other agents' utility functions, that would just be an evil mirror of bargaining power. Being able to choose a sharply limited number of unfortunate agents, and punish them severely pour encourager les autres, seems like it might just stop working when the average agent is smart enough to implicitly coordinate around a shared understanding of payoff matrices.
So I think I might have arrived back to the "all dominance hierarchies will be populated solely by scheming viziers" conclusion.

I guess this is sorta about your 3, which I disbelieve (though algorithms for tasks other than learning are also important). Currently, Bayesian inference vs SGD is a question of how much data you have (where SGD wins except for very little data). For small to medium amounts of data, even without AGI, I expect SGD to lose eventually due to better inference algorithms. For many problems I have the intuition that it's ~always possible to improve performance with more complicated algorithms (eg sat solvers). All that together makes me expect there to be inference algorithms that scale to very large amounts of data (that aren't going to be doing full Bayesian inference but rather some complicated approximation).

Sequence 1 length:3 

Sequence 2 length:6 

Alignment length: 6 

Identity: 3/6 (50.00%) 

Similarity: 3/6 (50.00%) 

Gaps: 3/6 (50.00%)

---AGC
   |||
AGCAGC

Like this. Difference between lengths is considered non-matching.

https://en.vectorbuilder.com/tool/sequence-alignment.html

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8122027/

I've reverted the part that automatically generates jargon for drafts until we've figured out a better overall solution.

Counterpoint: when I was about 12, I was too old to collect candy at my Synagogue on Simchat Torah, so I would beg a single candy from someone, then trade it up (Dutch book style) with naive younger kids until I had a decent stash. I was particularly pleased whenever my traded up stash included the original sweet.