Open thread, Oct. 10 - Oct. 16, 2016

I would be very interested in this as well. In the meantime, there is a subreddit for the site that has a thread with best posts for a new reader, and a thread on people's favorite things from TLP.

This blog is so wordy and cultural that i (unfamiliar with the context) find it actually challenging to figure out what the premise, thesis, or content of the post is. Reminds me of my experience with discovering arcane 'neoreaction' blogs.

Save less because of the high probability that the AI will (a) kill us, (b) make everyone extremely rich, or (c) make the world weird enough so that money doesn't matter.

Get employed by Google.

Despair and dedicate your remaining lifespan to maximal hedonism.

First, this is not very unlikely.

Second, be faster than them.

I would wait to win my $1,000 from Eliezer.

Rejoice because the end is near.

Maybe buy Google stock?

Raid Google and shut them down immediately. Start a Manhattan project of AI safety research.

I suspect attempted telekinesis is relevant.

If it is severe enough that you are posting here about it making you feel bad, it is worth trying to replace it with a mental habit that works equally well to prevent future errors but feels better.

It is good to gain control over your mental habits in general, and this sounds like a good place to start.

If those statements appear true to you, no other analysis of this behavior is likely necessary.

Well, unless you're an outlier in rumination and related emotions, you might want to consider how the evolutionary ancestral environment compares to the modern one. It was healthy in the former.

Brain drain has been a concern of some for a long time.

In my view, segregating the world by values would actually be really good. People who have very different belief systems should not try or be forced to live in the same country.

And incidentally, how many people can you fit in Australia? I know its very big, but also has a lot of desert.

You can fit many people in California despite it being desert.

In Australia we currently produce enough food for 60 million people. This is without any intensive farming techniques at all. This could be scaled up by a factor of ten if it was really necessary, but quality of life per capita would suffer.

I think smaller nations are as a general rule governed much better, so I don't see any positives in increasing our population beyond the current 24 million people.

Nothing. I don't think facebook membership counts are a good measurement.

Link: http://www.vhemt.org/

It's very likely much bigger then 9800. It is also very balanced and laid back in its views and methods. I'd think that contributes.

The standard way to learn massage is through taking a course.

I would also recommend Betty Martin's 3-Minute game as a secular message like practice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auokDp_EA80

Final, eh?

Your argument seems to summarise to "knowledge is possible because automatic knowledge is possible". That works if knowledge is just one thing, but the sceptic has the ready reply that they are concerned about particular levels and types of knowledge, for instance certain knowledge and knowledge of ontological fundamentals. LessWrong rationalism has basically conceded the point about certainty to the sceptic. And the appeal automatic knowledge is essentially an appeal to know -how, and therefore no answer to scepticism about fundamental ontological knowledge.

It might be possible to argue that know-how subsumes all other firms of knowledge , but you haven't. If it is the case that "The goal of human action is to achieve states of affairs which are satisfying. ", then it is still possible that what I find satisfying to be deep theoretical knowledge , not know how.

Deep theoretical knowledge is foxy, about a few things, not hedgehoggy, shallow knowledge about many things. For obvious reasons, manual reasoning cannot exhaustuve knowledge of every apparent entity, but that is not how philosophical scepticism is argued.

What makes you think that people can pattern-match sociopathy by looking at someone's face? Sociopathy usually doesn't lead to low charisma and people getting the sense not to interact with the person.

100%? Well, your future charitable donations will be markedly curtailed after you starve to death.

Some possible argument against charities. Personally I think that it is normal to donate around 1 per cent of income in form of charity support.

1. Some can't survive on less or have other obligations that looks like charity (child support)
2. We would have less initiative to earn more
3. It would hurt our economy, as it is consumer driven. We must buy Iphones
4. I do many useful things which intended on helping other people, but I need pleasures to recreate my commitments, so I spend money on myself.
5. I pay taxes and it is like charity.
6. I know better how to spent money on my needs.
7. Human psychology is about summing different values in one brain, so I could spent only part of my energy on charity.
8. If I buy goods, my money goes to working people, so it is like charity for them. If I stop buying goods, they will be jobless and will need charity money for survive. So the more I give for charity, the more people need it.
9. If you overdonate, you could flip-flop and start to hate the thing. Especially if you find that your money was not spent effectively.
10. Donating 100 per cent will make you look crazy in views of some, and their will to donate diminish.
11. If you spent more on yourself, you could ask higher salary and as result earn more and donate more. Only a homeless and jobless person could donate 100 per cent.

"Don't wanna", shading into "Make Me" if they press. Anyone trying to tell you what to do isn't your Real Dad! (Unless they are, in which case maybe try and figure out what's going on.)

I mean, Laffer Curve-type reasons if nothing else.

A mother that followed that logic would push her own baby in front of a trolley to save five random strangers. Ask yourself if that is the moral framework you really want to follow.

100% doesn't work because then you starve. If I re-formulate your question to "is there any rebuttal to why we don't donate way more to charity than we currently do" then the answer depends on your belief system. If you are utilitarian, the answer is definitive no. You should spend way more on charity.

Could chewing gum serve as a suitable replacement for you?

It's socially acceptable to twirl and manipulate small objects in your hands, from pens to stress balls. If you need to get your mouth involved, it's mostly socially acceptable to chew on pens. Former smokers used to hold empty pipes in their mouths, just for comfort, but it's hard to pull off nowadays unless you're old or a fully-blown hipster.

How about a lollipop? It's almost the same thing, and since inspector Kojak it's become much more socially acceptable, even cool, if you pull it off well.
If you are a woman, though, you'll likely suffer some sexual objectification (what a news!).