Posts

Comments

Comment by akvadrako on The Critical Rationalist View on Artificial Intelligence · 2018-01-21T10:48:29.752Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

In any case, are you making the claim that if a neural net were able to figure out the rules of the game by examining a few million games, you would accept that it's a universal knowledge creator?

If it could figure out the rules of any game that would be remarkable. That logic would also really help to find bugs in programs or beat the stock market.

Comment by akvadrako on Prediction should be a sport · 2017-08-12T17:55:26.784Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Not true. Most financial markets are prediction markets. They seem to be popular.

That may be technically true, but only in a superficial sense. Stocks prices have a very complicated relationship to real world events, except in the very long term. That's very different from markets like https://www.predictit.org which have clear connections to things like who will win elections and objective criteria.

Comment by akvadrako on Open thread, July 10 - July 16, 2017 · 2017-07-15T19:23:51.706Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

You should add a "None of the above" option. If I saw an app with these names, I'd be hard pressed to give it a chance.

You might want to try https://www.namingforce.com ; crowd sourced names; pay the winner $100.

Comment by akvadrako on We need a better theory of happiness and suffering · 2017-07-07T14:26:41.156Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Also like username2, I'm happy to hear of others with a view along this direction. A couple years ago I made a brief attempt at starting a modern religion called noendism, with the sole moral of survival. Not necessarily individual survival; on that we may differ.

However since then my core beliefs have evolved a bit and it's not so simple anymore. For one, after extensive research I've convinced myself that personal immortality is practically guaranteed. For another, one of my biggest worries is surviving, but imprisoned in a powerless situation.

Anyway, those details aren't practically relevant for my day to day life; these similar goals all head in the same direction.

Comment by akvadrako on We need a better theory of happiness and suffering · 2017-07-06T20:04:50.939Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

+1

Comment by akvadrako on Open thread, Jan. 09 - Jan. 15, 2017 · 2017-01-17T16:30:47.768Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Sorry, but the idea that Esperanto is somehow only easy for French speakers is plainly wrong. I don't think you'll find anyone who has learned it and another language who'll disagree.

Actually Esperanto is in the same language family as many Asian ones:

http://claudepiron.free.fr/articlesenanglais/europeanorasiatic.htm

Comment by akvadrako on Open thread, Jan. 09 - Jan. 15, 2017 · 2017-01-16T20:44:09.254Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

You should better look at the wikipedia page I linked:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaedeutic_value_of_Esperanto

Also it's not about being similar to French and I don't know why you think that. I've learned Esperanto and French and didn't notice any similarities. Actually the Chinese were one of the biggest supporters, though that may be trending down.

It would be easy to grow Esperanto quickly. It would require some concerted effort, but there is a solid though small base around the world and there only needs to be some push to make it happen. Becoming the official language of the EU is one plausible avenue, but another one might crop up in the next few centuries.

Comment by akvadrako on Open thread, Jan. 09 - Jan. 15, 2017 · 2017-01-16T13:19:11.088Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I think you're being too pessimistic about Esperanto:

  • There are about 2 million speakers worldwide [4]. For a language only 100 years old.
  • It was recently added to Duolingo [5], a great resource for learning.
  • The Esperanto wikipedia is ranked #32 in terms of number of articles. [1]
  • It's taught in 69 universities in 24 countries, several offering bachelors or PhD degrees. [7]
  • Prominent people are fluent in Esperanto, like the president of Austria [8]
  • After Britain leaves, only Ireland will speak English in the EU, giving Esperanto an opening. [11]
  • Esperanto is so easy to learn:
  • -> 2000 hours studying German = 1500 English = 1000 Italian = 150 Esperanto [6]
  • -> you can get it for free if you learn it along the way of learning English [9][2][10]

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Wikipedias
[2] http://www.aaie.us/wordpress/?page\_id=42
[4] http://www.esperanto.net/veb/faq-5.html
[5] https://www.duolingo.com/course/eo/en/Learn-Esperanto-Online
[6] http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/rapports-publics/054000678/index.shtml
[7] https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto\_en\_universitatoj
[8] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/30/AR2007033000824.html
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaedeutic\_value\_of\_Esperanto
[10] 'A language teaching experiment', Canadian Modern Language Review 22.1: 26–28
[11] http://e-d-e.org

Comment by akvadrako on Yudkowsky vs Trump: the nuclear showdown. · 2016-11-26T14:11:45.061Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I think you are missing the point. If I have a random variable between 0 and 10, than "random" changes will cause a regression to the mean. Thus, if the current state is bad, say 1, a many "random" changes are likely to be an improvement.

More simply, if our state is bad, we should take more risks.

Comment by akvadrako on Yudkowsky vs Trump: the nuclear showdown. · 2016-11-12T13:02:56.223Z · score: 0 (2 votes) · LW · GW

The argument rests on that assumption, mostly clearly shown in the quote:

"People who voted for Trump are unrealistically optimists, thinking that civilization is robust, the current state is bad, ..."

If we are stuck in a locally optimal valley, then a high-variance candidate is more likely to push us out of it and into another valley. Whether that's a good idea depends on if our current state is overall good or bad.

Personally I think we should be taking more chances and trying to find a better equilibrium. That means occasionally rocking the boat, but if you never do it you're condemning yourself to stagnation.

Comment by akvadrako on Open Thread, Aug. 1 - Aug 7. 2016 · 2016-08-07T13:10:40.831Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

You could publish it as GPL3 or something more restrictive. If someone else has a plugin that has commercial potential, they'll need a more permissive license.

Comment by akvadrako on Open thread, Jul. 11 - Jul. 17, 2016 · 2016-08-07T13:05:33.031Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Just post it on github with no effort. If you start getting pull requests or issues logged, you'll have your answer.

Comment by akvadrako on Open Thread March 28 - April 3 , 2016 · 2016-03-31T21:22:55.669Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

It doesn't really matter if it's immediate according to empty individualism. Instead the chance of survival in the branches where you try to die must be much lower than the chance of choosing that world.

You can never make a perfect doomsday device, because all kinds of things could happen to make it fail at the moment or during preparation. Even if it operates immediately.

Comment by akvadrako on The Philosophical Implications of Quantum Information Theory · 2016-03-08T11:28:07.272Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I think we agree but I was trying to make a bigger point than your reply captures. I doubt that you will even experience the terminal illness assuming there are many more possible futures where you stay healthy and anti-aging science advances than ones where you are miraculously saved at the last minute, by aliens or luck.

That makes the roulette scenario relevant to our experience. Because if you have the conviction to pull the trigger if something doesn't go your way you have the three options I laid out. So most likely you don't even have to try - assuming you are sure you will.

Comment by akvadrako on The Philosophical Implications of Quantum Information Theory · 2016-03-08T09:56:55.368Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

In that case the only outcome the participant can expect to experience, and that they will experience with certainty, is that the gun didn't fire

Yes, that's the point. Every future version of you will of course call themselves "you".

Note that playing quantum roulette successfully depends crucially on the speed with which you can kill yourself. With this I agree, which is why I think the quantum Russian roulette or quantum suicide scenarios are mostly interesting as a thought experiment, as they're intended to be.

Although I don't want to advocate performing the roulette experiment, I do disagree. If it's a quantum certainty that all future branches of you die off, perhaps due to a conservation law, then only those versions of you which didn't go down that branch will be conscious.

Even if it isn't certain, because it seems like we are more likely to experience the branches that match our classical explanations in the following scenario after a few minutes I would expect to be version 3. Version 1 is of course impossible and only with a very short-sighted definition of self do I need to consider version 2.

  1. fire the gun and die (0%)
  2. fire the gun and be miraculously saved (1%)
  3. don't even attempt the experiment (99%)
Comment by akvadrako on The Philosophical Implications of Quantum Information Theory · 2016-03-07T21:20:11.888Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Hi lisper,

I found your paper easy to follow and maybe insightful (I'll have to read it more carefully the second time) but like qmotus, I don't understand your reasoning in this thread. I'm assuming MWI is just an interpretation of unitary QM, so makes all the same mathematical predictions as other non-collapse theories. And the roulette story is just one way of looking at it, from the perspective of what I consider my (classical) self and what I call the future.

Since you are not claiming that QIT makes different mathematical predictions than MWI, how can you claim they make different predictions at all?

Comment by akvadrako on Top 9+2 myths about AI risk · 2015-08-14T09:18:44.976Z · score: 1 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I am one of those proponents of stopping all AI research and I will explain why.

(1) Don't stand too close to the cliff. We don't know how AGI will emerge and by the time we are close enough to know, it's probably too late. Either human error or malfeasance will bring us over the edge.

(2) Friendly AGI might be impossible. Computer scientists cannot even predict the behavior of simple programs. The halting problem, a specific type of prediction, is provably impossible in non-trivial code. I doubt we'll even grasp why the first AGI we build works.

Neither of these statements seems controversial, so if we are determined to not produce unfriendly AGI, the only safe approach is to stop AI research well before it becomes dangerous. It's playing with fire in a straw cabin, our only shelter on a deserted island. Things would be different if someday we solve the friendliness problem, build a provably secure "box", or are well distributed across the galaxy.

Comment by akvadrako on European Community Weekend in Berlin · 2014-01-25T10:38:31.779Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

This sounds like an excellent idea if you can get good number of countries represented. Could you clarify a couple things?

  • Is that €70 per night or for the whole weekend (and with 2 breakfasts)?
  • How many participants can attend?
  • How many are signed up already?
Comment by akvadrako on Meetup : Utrecht · 2013-12-10T12:54:53.937Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I'm going to have to pass on this one, but I'd like be interested to see comments about how it went. Hopefully this becomes a regular thing in Amsterdam / Utrecht.

Comment by akvadrako on Meetup : Amsterdam · 2013-11-18T23:24:11.731Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Would this be the first Less Wrong meetup in Amsterdam? Sounds worth a try.

Comment by akvadrako on Prisoner's dilemma tournament results · 2013-07-09T08:03:38.739Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

First of all, thanks for running the contest Alex and congrats to the winners.

Random behaviour was obviously a good strategy, but I don't feel it teaches us much about making better bots. If I had suspected so much random behaviour, defecting whenever it's detected would have been a good additional test.