niplav's Shortform

post by niplav · 2020-06-20T21:15:06.105Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW · 20 comments


Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by niplav · 2020-10-06T07:40:43.362Z · score: 9 (6 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Thoughts on Fillers Neglect Framers in the context of LW.

  • LW seems to have more framers as opposed to fillers
  • This is because
    • framing probably has slightly higher status (framing posts get referenced more often, since they create useful concept handles)
    • framing requires more intelligence as opposed to meticulous research, and because most LWers are hobbyists, they don't really have a lot of time for research
    • there is no institutional outside pressure to create more fillers (except high status fillers such as Gwern)
  • The rate of fillers to framers seems to have increased since LWs inception (I am least confident in this claim)
    • Perhaps this is a result of EY leaving behind a relatively accepted frame
  • I am probably in the 25th percentile-ish of intelligence among LWers, and enjoy researching and writing filling posts. Therefore, my comparative advantage is probably writing filling type posts as opposed to framing ones.
comment by niplav · 2020-10-15T22:22:45.996Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I just updated my cryonics cost-benefit analysis with

along with some small fixes and additions.

The basic result has not changed, though. It's still worth it.

comment by niplav · 2020-09-25T17:31:55.345Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Adblockers have positive externalities: they remove much of the incentive to make websites addictive.

comment by mr-hire · 2020-09-25T18:52:09.285Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

They also have negative externalities, moving websites from price discrimination models that are available to everyone, to direct pay models that are only available to people who can afford that.

comment by Viliam · 2020-09-27T09:04:21.178Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

If the adblockers become too popular, websites will update to circumvent them. It will be a lot of work at the beginning, but probably possible.

Currently, most ads are injected by JavaScript that downloads them from a different domain. That allows adblockers to block anything coming from a different domain, and the ads are blocked relatively simply.

The straightforward solution would be to move ad injection to the server side. The PHP (or whatever language) code generating the page would contact the ad server, download the ad, and inject it into the generated HTML file. From the client perspective, it is now all coming from the same domain; it is even part of the same page. The client cannot see the interaction between server and third party.

Problem with this solution is that it is too easy for the server to cheat; to download thousand extra ads without displaying them to anyone. The advertising companies must find a way to protect themselves from fraud.

But if smart people start thinking about it, they will probably find a solution. The solution doesn't have to work perfectly, only statistically. For example, the server displaying the ad could also take the client's fingerprint and send it to the advertising company. Now this fingerprint can of course either be real, or fictional if the server is cheating. But the advertising company could cross-compare fingerprints coming from thousand servers. If many different servers report having noticed the same identity, the identity is probably real. If a server reports too many identities that no one else have ever seen, the identities are probably made up. The advertising company would suspect fraud if the fraction of unique identities reported by one server exceeds 20%. Something like this.

comment by niplav · 2020-09-02T19:50:38.270Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Mistake theory/conflict theory seem more like biases (often unconscious, hard to correct in the moment of action) or heuristics (should be easily over-ruled by object-level considerations).

comment by niplav · 2020-06-20T21:15:06.685Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

[epistemic status: tried it once] Possible life improvement: Drinking cold orange juice in the shower. Just did it, it felt amazing.

comment by mr-hire · 2020-06-22T14:58:16.779Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Cold shower or hot shower?

comment by niplav · 2020-06-23T11:53:12.645Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Hot shower.

comment by niplav · 2020-07-19T18:27:26.359Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Idea to for an approach how close GPT-3 is to "real intelligence": generalist forecasting!

Give it the prompt: "Answer with a probability between 0 and 1. Will the UK's Intelligence and Security committee publish the report into Russian interference by the end of July?", repeat for a bunch of questions, grade it at resolution.

Similar things could be done for range questions: "Give a 50% confidence interval on values between -35 and 5. What will the US Q2 2020 GDP growth rate be, according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis Advance Estimate?".

Perhaps include the text of the question to allow more priming.

Upsides: It seems to me that making predictions is a huge part of intelligence, relatively easy to check and compare with humans

Downsides: Resolution will not be available for quite some time, and when the results are in, everybody will already be interested in the next AI project. Results only arrive "after the fact".

comment by niplav · 2020-10-16T10:33:32.491Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Two-by-two for possibly important aspects of reality and related end-states:

Coordination is hard Coordination is easy
Defense is easier Universe fractured into many parties, mostly stasis Singleton controlling everything
Attack is easier Pure Replicator Hell Few warring factions? Or descent into Pure Replicator hell?
comment by Dagon · 2020-10-16T16:28:27.005Z · score: 5 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I think there are multiple kinds of attacks, which matter in this matrix.  Destruction/stability is a different continuum from take control of resources/preserve control of resources.   

I also think there's no stasis - the state of accessible resources (heat gradients, in the end) in the universe will always be shifting until it's truly over.  There may be multi-millenea equilibria, where it feels like stasis on a sufficiently-abstract level, but there's still lots of change.  As a test of this intuition, the Earth has been static for millions of years, and then there was a shift when it started emitting patterned EM radiation, which has been static (though changing in complexity and intensity) for 150 years or so.

I agree with Daniel, as well, that coordination and attack-to-control leads to singleton (winner takes all).  I think coordination and attack-to-destroy may lead to singleton, or may lead to cyclic destruction back to pre-coordination levels.  Defense and coordination is kind of hard to define - perfect cooperation is a singleton, right? But then there's neither attack nor defense.  I kind of hope defense and coordination leads to independence and trade, but I doubt it's stable - eventually the better producer gets enough strength that attack becomes attractive.

comment by Daniel Kokotajlo (daniel-kokotajlo) · 2020-10-16T10:41:55.813Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Shouldn't the singleton outcome be in the bottom right quadrant? If attack is easy but so is coordination, the only stable solution is one where there is only one entity (and thus no one to attack or be attacked.) If by contrast defense is easier, we could end up in a stable multipolar outcome... at least until coordination between those parties happen. Maybe singleton outcome happens in both coordination-is-easy scenarios.

comment by niplav · 2020-09-26T07:28:03.019Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Happy Petrov Day everyone :-)

comment by niplav · 2020-09-05T13:46:04.068Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Politics supervenes on ethics and epistemology (maybe you also need metaphysics, not sure about that).

There's no degrees of freedom left for political opinions.

comment by niplav · 2020-09-05T14:10:53.603Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Actually not true. If "ethics" is a complete & transitive preference over universe trajectories, then yes, otherwise not necessarily.

comment by niplav · 2020-08-12T23:20:32.625Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I feel like this meme is related to the troll bridge problem [LW · GW], but I can't explain how exactly.

comment by MikkW (mikkel-wilson) · 2020-08-13T01:10:56.075Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

In both cases, the reasoner has poor reasoning (in the meme, due to being bad at math; in the bridge problem, due to unexpected paradoxes in standard mathematical formulations). Where they diverge is that in the meme, poor logic maximizes (presumably) the decider's benefit, whereas in the bridge problem, the poor logic minimizes the benefit the agent gets. But in both cases, the poor logic is somewhat self-reinforcing (though even moreso in the bridge problem than the meme)

comment by niplav · 2020-09-18T20:25:32.152Z · score: 0 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

If we don't program philosophical reasoning into AI systems, they won't be able to reason philosophically.

comment by G Gordon Worley III (gworley) · 2020-09-19T00:39:55.125Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

This is an idea that's been talked about here before, but it's not even exactly clear what philosophical reasoning is or how to train for it, let alone if it's a good idea to teach an AI to do that.