LessWrong 2.0 Reader

Downside is it doesn't work. There are several reasons it doesn't work, but one is: What happens to the vaporized rock? Were you thinking it just goes up a 20km deep hole without condensing on the walls?

I mean, one of the participants wrote [LW(p) · GW(p)]: "getting comments that engage with what I write and offer a different, interesting perspective can almost be more rewarding than money". Others asked us for feedback on their non-winning entries. It feels to me that interaction between more and less experienced folks can be really desirable and useful for both, as long as it's organized to stay within a certain "lane".

• ^[4]
• AI life coaches

not excited about this - such a coach is either going to give very politically correct opinions, or target audiences with glaring insecurities, like young or low confidence men.. just like human coaches. 

Huh? The whole point of the Born rule is to get a set of ordinary probabilities, which you can then test frequentistically, over a run of experiments. Quantum mechanical measure-- amplitude-- isn't ordinary probability, but that's the thing you put into the Born rule, not the thing you get out of it.

I dont know if you are aware, but this post was covered by Yannic Kilcher in his video "No, Anthropic's Claude 3 is NOT sentient" (link to timestamp) 

You probably need to be a bit more explicit in tieing your title to your text.  I'd guess you're just pointing out that these labels ("materialist" and "idealist") are both ridiculous when taken to the extreme, and that all sane people use different models for different decisions.  Oh, and that all cognition is about models and abstractions, which are always wrong (but often useful).

If I'm wrong in that, please use more words :)

As to your questions about the moon, I don't thing "observable" has ever meant only and exactly "directly viewable by the person doing the writing".  It means "inferrable from observations and experiences that are causally linked in simple/justifiable ways".

How do cancer vaccines work?

If I understand this right, you train a transformer on data generated from a hidden markov process, of the form {0,1,R} and find that there is a mechanism for tracking when R occurs in the residual stream, as well as that the transformer learns the hidden markov process. is that correct?

It only makes sense to two-box if you believe that your decision is causally isolated from history in every way that Omega can discern.

Right.  That's why CDT is broken.  I suspect from the "disagree" score that people didn't realize that I do, in fact, assert that causality is upstream of agent decisions (including Omega, for that matter) and that "free will" is an illusion.