LessWrong 2.0 Reader

I feel like the risk associated with keeping the weights encrypted in a way which requires >7/10 people to authorize shouldn't be that bad. Just make those 10 people be people who commit to making decryption decisions only based on welfare and are relatively high integrity.

Domain: Business & Business Communication, Mastering Difficult Conversations,  Coaching

Link: Misha Glouberman - Recorded Coaching Sessions

Person: Misha Glouberman (That's me)

Background: Consultant, Business Coach, and Co-Author of The Chairs Are Where The People Go.

Why: 

While there’s lots of reading materials on this kind of work, this recording offers the unique opportunity to actually listen and experience the coaching work and learnings happening in real-time. The concepts discussed can be applied to work-related, difficult conversations, but also to any difficult and/or important conversations, personal or professional.

Misha Glouberman records a couple of consecutive coaching sessions with a volunteer (Tanya) who has an important and difficult conversation they need to have at work. After the coaching sessions, Tanya has the important conversation, and then returns to discuss with Misha how his coaching sessions helped shape the end result.

More like burning the body of a cryonically preserved dead person though right?

Also some discussion in this thread [LW(p) · GW(p)].

On a twitter lent at the moment, but I remember this thread. There's also a short section in an interview with David Deutsch:

So all hardware limitations on us boil down to speed and memory capacity. And both of those can be augmented to the level of any other entity that is in the universe. Because if somebody builds a computer that can think faster than the brain, then we can use that very computer or that very technology to make our thinking go just as fast as that. So that's the hardware.

and:

So the more memory and time you give it, the more closely it could simulate the whole universe. But it couldn't ever simulate the whole universe or anything near the whole universe because it is hard for it to simulate itself. Also, the sheer size of the universe is large.

I think this happens when people encounter the Deutsch's claim that humans are universal explainers [LW · GW], and then misgeneralize the claim to Turing machines.

So the more interesting question is: Is there a computational class somewhere between FSAs and PDAs that is able to, given enough "resources", execute arbitrary programs? What physical systems do these correspond to?

Related: Are there cognitive realms? (Tsvi Benson-Tilsen, 2022)

Can you point to one or two of the claims that the human brain is a general-purpose turing machine that can run any program?  I don't think I'd seen that, and it seems trivially disprovable by a single example.  Most humans cannot perform even fairly simple arithmetic in their heads, let alone computations that would require a longer (but still finite) tape.

Of course, using tools, humans can construct turing-machine-equivalent mechanisms of large (but not infinite) size, but that seems like a much weaker claim than humans BEING such machines.

with "one outcome is real" axiom

How would you formulate this axiom?

The point is that I can understand the argument for why the true stochasticity may be coherent, but I don't get why it would be better.

I find your post hard to respond to because it asks me to give my opinion on "the" mathematical model of true stochasticity, yet I argued that classical math is deterministic and the usual way you'd model true stochasticity in it is as many-worlds, which I don't think is what you mean (?).

I don't know, any model you like? Space of outcomes with "one outcome is real" axiom. The point is that I can understand the argument for why the true stochasticity may be coherent, but I don't get why it would be better.

I would add “finish it”. Many projects don’t actually get finished, you skip the last working set etc etc

There's no theoretical nor empirical reason to believe we know how to build intelligent machines that are more powerful than human in terms of planning, reasoning, and general executive abilities.