LessWrong 2.0 Reader

To avoid shorts/reels etc I use ScreenZen. I'm allowed to use all of YouTube and Instagram with no issues except for the short videos where I receive a special message that I can bypass but then my 100 days streak would be broken so... Yes I used my achievements addiction to force myself out of Reels/shorts.

Depending on how far gone you are it may not be enough but I found that this was great because it gave more control, for instance you can simply delete all shorts from the youtube interface iirc. 

Are you saying that the 1 aligned mind design in the space of all potential mind designs is an easier target than the subspace composed of mind designs that does not destroy the world?

I didn't mean that there's only one aligned mind design, merely that almost all (99.999999...%) conceivable mind designs are unaligned by default, so the only way to survive is if the first AGI is designed to be aligned, there's no hope that a random AGI just happens to be aligned. And since we're heading for the latter scenario, it would be very surprising to me if we managed to design a partially aligned AGI and lose that way.

No, because the you who can ask (the persons in power) is themselves misaligned with the 1 alignment target that perfectly captures all our preferences.

I expect the people in power are worrying about this way more than they worry about the overwhelming difficulty of building an aligned AGI in the first place. (Case in point: the manufactured AI race with China.) As a result I expect they'll succeed at building a by-default-unaligned AGI and driving themselves and us to extinction. So I'm not worried about instead ending up in a dystopia ruled by some government or AI lab owner.

To add to the other answers, outside of the induced consequences post-singularity, what happens pre-singularity still matters if the singularity does not happen extremely soon.

1. we don't know when (or IF!) the singularity will happen
2. does nothing matter until then? What if the singularity happens in a century? Should you abandon all your beliefs because one day when you'll be (likely) dead, people will have solved all problems?

huh?

I would want people who might meaningfully contribute to solving what's probably the most important problem humanity has ever faced to learn about it and, if they judge they want to work on it, to be enabled to work on it. I think it'd be a good use of resources to make capable people learn about the problem and show them they can help with it. Why does it scream "cult tactic" to you?

Solution: No internet at home. Gave me back ~3hr per day when nothing else worked.

Wikipedia can be downloaded via kiwix (~90GB for English WP with images), programming documentation with zeal & devdocs.io. No great solution for LLMs, all the ones I can run on my laptop are not good enough—may I should bite the bullet and get a GPU that can run of the big LLaMas locally). I have internet at my workplace, and a local library with internet 10 minutes away by walk that closes at 7PM. No mobile internet either.

(Self-Review.)

I still endorse every claim in this post. The one thing I keep wondering is whether I should have used real examples from discussion threads on LessWrong to illustrate the application of the two camp model, rather than making up a fictional discussion as I did in the post. I think that would probably help, but it would require singling out someone and using them as a negative example, which I don't want to do. I'm still reading every new post and comment section about consciousness and often link to this post when I see something that looks like miscommunication to me; I think that works reasonably well.

However, I did streamline the second half of the post (took out the part about modeling the brain as a graph, I don't think that was necessary to make the point about research) and added a new section about terminology. I think that should make it a little easier to diagnose when the model is relevant in real discussions.

This might not work well for others, but a thing that's worked well for me has been to (basically) block cheap access to it with anticharities. Introducing friction in general is good

There have been a lot of tricks I've used over the years, some of which I'm still using now, but many of which require some level of discipline. One requires basically none, has a huge upside (to me), and has been trivial for me to maintain for years: a "newsfeed eradicator" extension. I've never had the temptation to turn it off unless it really messes with the functionality of a website. 

It basically turns off the "front page" of whatever website you apply it to (e.g. reddit/twitter/youtube/facebook) so that you don't see anything when you enter the site and have to actually search for whatever you're interested in. And for youtube, you never see suggestions to the right of or at the end of a video.

Alcohol is also a drug. If Dalrymple really means "drugs" when he says "drugs", it would follow that he's advocating for prohibition to protect alcoholics from themselves.

We seem to have found a relatively tolerable equilibrium around alcohol where the substance is widely available, the majority of individuals who can enjoy it recreationally are free to do so, and yet it's legally just as intolerable for an intoxicated person to harm others as it would be for a sober person to take the same actions. Some individuals have addiction problems, and we have varyingly effective programs in place to help them deal with that, but ultimately the right of the majority to enjoy it responsibly (and the rights of the businesses to sell it to those who can use it responsibly) trump the "rights" of the minority to be protected from themselves by the government.

Maybe to get the same equilibrium around other drugs, we would need harsher punishments for the antisocial behaviors that we're actually trying to prevent by banning the drugs themselves. All I know is that anyone who unironically makes "ban the intoxicants" claims without considering what we can learn from our most widely accepted and normalized intoxicants is speaking on some level other than the literal and logical.

Agreed, but I will find a way.