LessWrong 2.0 Reader

Also, the US did consider the possibility of waging a preemptive nuclear war on the USSR to prevent it from getting nukes. (von Neumann advocated for this I think?) If the US was more of a warmonger, they might have done it, and then there would have been a more unambiguous world takeover.

If you have the memories of every single human up to that point, then you don't know which of them you are.

This depends on the mechanism of attaining all these memories.  In that world, it COULD be that you still know which memories are privileged, or at least which ones include meeting God and being in position to be asked the question. 

I mean, I'm with you fundamentally: it's not obvious that ANYTHING is truly objective - other people can report experiences, but that's mediated by your perceptions as well. In most cases, one can avoid the confusion by specifying predicting WHAT experiences will happen to WHICH observer.

I would pay to see this live at a bar or one of those county fair (we had a GLaDOS cover band once so it's not out of the question)

Governments are not social welfare maximizers

Most people making up governments, and society in general, care at least somewhat about social welfare.  This is why we get to have nice things and not descend into chaos.

Elected governments have the most moral authority to take actions that effect everyone, ideally a diverse group of nations as mentioned in Daniel Kokotajlo [LW · GW]'s maximal proposal comment.

Who is pushing for totalitarianism? I dispute that AI safety people are pushing for totalitarianism.

If you have recommendations, post them! I doubt the author tried to filter the subjects very much by "book subjects" it's just what people seem to have found good ones so far. 

Flippant response: people pushing for human extinction have never been dead under it, either.

I was enthusiastic about the title of this post, hoping for something different from the usual lesswrong content, but disappointed by most of the examples. In my view if you take this idea of learning tacit knowledge with video seriously, it shouldn't affect just how you learn, but what you learn, rather then trying to learn book subjects by watching videos.

In that post, you say that you have a graph of ${10}^{100}$ vertices with a particular structure. In that scenario, where is that structured graph of ${10}^{100}$ vertices coming from? Presumably there's some way you know the graph looks like this

rather than looking like this

If you know that your graph is a nice sparse graph that has lots of symmetries, you can take advantage of those properties to skip redundant parts of the computation (and when each of your ${10}^{100}$ nodes has at most 100 inbound edges and 100 outbound edges, then you only have on the order of a trillion distinct nodes (if we consider e.g. (0, 0, 0, ..., 0, 0, 1) to be identical to (0, 0, 0, ..., 0, 1, 0, ..., 0, 0, 0)).

It's probably worth looking at the process which is generating this graph, and figuring out if we can translate the output of that process directly to a coordinate in our 100-dimensional space without going through the "translate the output to a graph, and then embed that graph" intermediate step.

See also Rational Polarization.