I've heard that, in Las Vegas, if you put yourself on the government's "compulsive gambler" list, you can still walk into any casino, give them your money, and place a bet - the only difference being that, if you happen to win, the casino keeps your money as if you had lost.

I think it should work the other way around, making it the casino's responsibility to avoid accepting bets from self-proclaimed problem gamblers - if you're on the list and the casino doesn't stop you from betting, the casino has to give you back any money you lose.

It's also trivial to make a perpetual motion machine with Portal portals. Just have a portal in the floor that teleports you to the ceiling directly above it, then drop a ball into it. It'll fall forever, accelerating until it hits terminal velocity (at which point all the gravitational potential energy goes to heating the air it falls through).

If you don't want to just throw out conservation of energy, using a portal to "lift" things would have to take the same amount of energy as lifting it through normal space does.

Sometimes I remember having had the thought "this is a dream" while dreaming, but doing that doesn't really give me any extra "conscious" control over what happens - all it does is let me "decide" to wake up.

What about the other way around?

I have yet to be able to successfully make a Google search during a dream - what I "intend" to search for is never what appears in the box I'm trying to "type" the search query into.

Jacen Solo became an evil Sith because the people in charge of the Star Wars franchise at the time thought having the brother named Anakin Solo be the one to do it would be too ridiculous. The rest is writers trying to make the decisions of a Pointy-Haired Boss make sense.

I think I've probably spent the majority of my 42 years of life in a laziness death spiral. ☹️

In other words, aggressively run away from your goals, and reflect on how miserable it is to live that way. The reflection is crucial: if you’re self-forgetful / not mindful about it, you’ll risk staying in that state. Do it for a week or two, reflect on how much it sucks, and in doing so you’ll condition your mind to view the goal as a valuable opportunity to escape that misery (which it is).

When I do this kind of thing, it tends to be called "depressive rumination". Rather than decide "not doing the thing sucks, therefore I should go do the thing", some part of me assumes that "doing the thing" isn't actually an option (because otherwise I would have done it already) and I just stay miserable. On a more general note, I also somehow managed to live for 42 years without gaining the capacity to do something at a time I don't "feel like" doing it, even though a lot of other people tried very hard to instill that capacity in me through force and threats.

In a different context, I once gave a deliberately exaggerated example of one way my motivational system actually works in practice:

Guy with a gun: I'm going to shoot you if you haven't changed the sheets on your bed by tomorrow.

Me: AAH I'M GOING TO DIE IT'S NO GOOD I MIGHT AS WELL SPEND THE DAY LYING IN BED PLAYING VIDEO GAMES BECAUSE I'M GOING TO GET SHOT TOMORROW SOMEONE CALL THE FUNERAL HOME AND MAKE PLANS TELL MY FAMILY I LOVE THEM

Guy with a gun: You know, you could always just... change the sheets?

ME: THE THOUGHT HAS OCCURRED TO ME BUT I'M TOO UPSET RIGHT NOW ABOUT THE FACT THAT I'M GOING TO DIE TOMORROW BECAUSE THE SHEETS WEREN'T CHANGED TO ACTUALLY GO AND CHANGE THEM

The other problem I have is the same one I've had for much of my adult life - I don't know what to do wity my life other than live in a laziness death spiral, because a lot of the common alternatives also seem terrible and I do not know what I want.

You see, 10-year-old me was a hedonist, and probably had a relatively sophisticated philosophy of hedonism for a 10-year-old. He divided the world into "fun", defined as "pleasurable things I do because I choose to, such as play video games", and "work", defined as "anything I'm being forced to do, such as schoolwork or laundry," and his goal in life was to maximize "fun" and minimize "work". He resented school for keeping him away from his video games and thought that having a 40-hour a week job, the way most adults did, must be an even worse fate than being a child in school, because you were still doing "work" on behalf of other people instead of doing the thing that's the most pleasurable, and it takes up even more of your time than school does.

I still have a view of paid employment that equates it with misery and coercion. I don't know how much I can blame my father in particular for this, and I also tried my hardest to avoid internalizing a value system that said that someone who was capable of working for money but preferred not to was a worthless person, but I also spent a long time living under clouds of sentiments like "your parents aren't going to be around to support you forever" and "people who don't work end up homeless and starving" and "people won't respect you for being good at things that don't make money." Instead of working, I spent most of the past 20-ish years as an unpaid family caregiver for sick relatives. I didn't have any close friends I saw in person on a regular basis, and I didn't think Hello, my name is ----, I'm unemployed and live with my parents would actually work on a dating site profile, so I spent a lot of time lonely and feeling bad about myself.

Perhaps ironically, the thing that actually did help me - besides the antidepressant medication I've been on since high school - was when a woman reached out to me online after a brief encounter and ended up becoming my first girlfriend ever and, later, my wife. That was about ten years ago. I couldn't motivate myself on my own behalf, but I could do it for her, and that was enough. Was, because she died last March and I once again am left drifting without a purpose in life. Sigh...

I have no idea!

Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.

-- John Harrington

The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

-- Arthur C. Clarke

The quote is from an appendix that consists entirely of epigrams that are attributed to one of the characters in the play - it's not actually part of the play as performed. (Shaw was tired of "smart" characters in plays that don't actually do anything to show that they're smart so he wrote it to justify the character's asserted intelligence.)

(The joke here is that, given the other axioms of ZF set theory, each of these three things can be used to prove the other two - they're either all true or all false, regardless of how plausible or implausible they might seem on their own.)

If things go wrong[1] then our neural net will conclude that it has high status despite all evidence to the contrary. We have programmed schizophrenia.

No, you've programmed grandiose delusions - a lot more goes wrong with schizophrenia than just that.

I wrote a two paragraph argument for AI risk a while back. Does it work?

There's an old joke...

An engineer, a physicist, a mathematician, and an AI researcher were asked to name the greatest invention of all time.

The engineer chose fire, which gave humanity power over matter. The physicist chose the wheel, which gave humanity the power over space. The mathematician chose the alphabet, which gave humanity power over symbols. The AI researcher chose the thermos bottle.

"Why a thermos bottle?" the others asked. "Because the thermos keeps hot liquids hot in winter and cold liquids cold in summer.", said the AI researcher. "Yes - so what?" "Think about it.", intoned the researcher reverently. "That little bottle - how does it know?"

Don't forget Baumol's cost disease: if one part of the economy gets a lot more productive per labor-hour, then wages in other parts will go up to compensate. I don't think that the number of employees per patient in a hospital or the number of employees per student in a university is lower today than it was in the 1980s, even if hospitals and universities have improved in other ways.

In terms of food prices in particular, what I've heard is that prices at the grocery store and in restaurants depend much more on the cost of labor than on anything else. Grocery stores themselves operate on razor-thin margins, and changes in the price of wheat and other "raw materials" have only tiny effects on grocery store prices. Most of the actual expense of putting food on grocery store shelves comes from the cost of food processing (turning wheat into bread, cutting up dead animals into cuts of meat, etc.), which is a fairly labor-intensive industry.

I can't speak for humanities degrees, but if you're going to an engineering school, you're almost certainly going to need at least some of what you learn in college in order to work as an engineer. (To paraphase a saying, half of what you learn as an engineering student might never get used in a real job, but you can't predict which half!) Furthermore, programming is unusually easy to self-study compared to most STEM disciplines (no need to learn differential equations!), and it's a lot easier to show you can work as a programmer by writing and demonstrating your own computer program than it is to demonstrate that you can work as an aerospace engineer by building and demonstrating your own airplane.

I imagine the same thing is true of other professional degrees: you're not going to become a physician or nurse without first attending the appropriate institutions.

Also, if you're like my brother and have "make a fuckton of money" as a major life goal, "be a smart person and attend a prestigious college" opens up a lot of doors to ridiculously high paying positions. He's not "unicorn startup founder" rich, but he is a multimillionaire who has been paid more money in a single year working at a hedge fund than my father, a retired professor of electrical engineering, made in his lifetime. (I wouldn't trade lives with him, incidentally - I don't want to have an 80 hour work week, and video games are cheap.)

Sometimes, you might as well solve the Rubix Cube by peeling the stickers off and sticking them back on.

TvTropes calls this Cutting the Knot, after the story of Alexander and the Gordian Knot.

Do things like major surgery or bomb defusal have those kinds of constraints?

Strong upvote because I really, really hate quackery.

I gave in and made an account on the X-parrot but I only use it to read things I'm linked to in other sources. (I have been pseudo-ideologically opposed to participating on that service since it first started.)

When my brother was trying to meet girls on social media sites about twenty years ago, after going through early PUA stuff and throwing out some of the nonsense, this was his the message decided to use as his cold opening:

Why did the apple like the banana?

Yeah, it's a dad joke; the punchline is "Because it has appeal!" It worked, though; there were enough girls that were curious enough about the punchline to respond to a message from a stranger in order to hear it.

These days, "a shortage of friends and loved ones" in general is not as uncommon as one might hope. :/

This sounds a lot like Ayn Randian selfishness but applied to the level of a friend group rather than an individual. "Potential obligations to friends and one's self are more important than the present suffering of strangers" is a consistent point of view that I rarely see eloquent arguments for, but it's certainly not one I agree with.

I disagree that it's easier and/or more effective to try to improve local conditions; diminishing marginal utility is a real thing.

I don't think people laugh at the "nuclear war = doomsday" people.

I wrote [a two paragraph explanation](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4ceKBbcpGuqqknCj9/the-two-paragraph-argument-for-ai-risk of AI doom not too long ago.

Not an expert here, but it seems to me that if you can make a virus that preferentially infects cancer cells you might as well make the virus kill the infected cancer cells directly.

Thank you!

H5N1 has spread to cows. Should I be worried?

I'd guess that you have to rely a lot more on persuasion and positive reinforcement - if you want them to do something, it's probably not going to happen unless they willingly agree to do it.

I wasn't really like this until I was about 12-13 years old, though; as a younger child I often went into violent rages instead of displaying submissive behavior. I eventually did grow out of hitting peopIe and now only rarely feel genuine anger (as opposed to anger-adjacent feelings such as frustration), but 15-year-old me was still willing to passively resist by laying in a limp ball and enduring the consequences for as long as I needed to!

My depression is currently well-controlled at the moment, and I actually have found various methods to help me get things done, since I don't respond well to the simplest versions of carrot-and-stick methods. The most pleasant is finding someone else to do it with me (or at least act involved while I do the actual work).

On the other hand, there have been times when procrastinating actually gives me a thrill, like I'm getting away with something. Mediocre video games become much more appealing when I have work to avoid.

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, known as the Father of Microbiology, made the first microscopes capable of seeing microorganisms and is credited as the person who discovered them. He kept his lensmaking techniques secret, however, and microscopes capable of the same magnification didn't become generally available until many, many years later.

Yeah, I did some Googling and packaged supermarket bread has all kinds of stuff added to it. (There's a reason the bagels from the bagel store nearby get moldy and the "Thomas's Bagels" from the supermarket last forever...)

Bread is ultra-processed? O_O

I have a bad history of not being responsive to the threat of punishment. When I have an aversive task, and the consequences for not doing that task suddenly get much worse, I start acting like the punishment is inevitable and am even less likely to actually do the task. In other words, I fail the "gun to the head test" quite dramatically.

Guy with a gun: I'm going to shoot you if you haven't changed the sheets on your bed by tomorrow.

Me: AAH I'M GOING TO DIE I'TS NO GOOD I MIGHT AS WELL SPEND THE DAY LYING IN BED PLAYING VIDEO GAMES BECAUSE I'M GOING TO GET SHOT TOMORROW SOMEONE CALL THE FUNERAL HOME AND MAKE PLANS TELL MY FAMILY I LOVE THEM

Guy with a gun: You know, you could always just... change the sheets?

ME: THE THOUGHT HAS OCCURRED TO ME BUT I'M TOO UPSET RIGHT NOW ABOUT THE FACT THAT I'M GOING TO DIE TOMORROW BECAUSE THE SHEETS WEREN'T CHANGED TO ACTUALLY GO AND CHANGE THEM

Also I have a bad history with this kind of thing in general - one thing that I was always bothered by when I was in school and college was that the only motivation I really had for doing my work was to avoid bad consequences - I was so sick of spending my life making myself miserable in order to avoid things that ought to be even worse. I also have a hard time being motivated by money: bad consequences for having insufficient money have the problem I've already described, and, well, video games are cheap.

(In case you're wondering, no, I don't work, and my parents still support me financially.)

So when I think of commitment apps, I tend to react to them as entirely downside: I don't expect my behavior to change very much, and I do expect to predictably lose money. :(

What he said. Analyzing politically volatile data and determining that it's clearly made up feels on-brand for LessWrong regardless of what one thinks about the underlying issues...

Writing correct code given a specification is the relatively easy part of software engineering. The hard part is deciding what you need that code to actually do. In other words, "requirements" - your dumbass customer has only the vaguest idea what they want and contradicts themselves half the time, but they still expect you to read their mind and give them something they're going to be happy with.

Possibly one of the only viable responses to a hostile AI breakout onto the general Internet would be to detonate several nuclear weapons in space, causing huge EMP blasts that would fry most of the world's power grid and electronic infrastructure, taking the world back to the 1850s until it can be repaired. (Possible AI control measure: make sure that "critical" computing and power infrastructure is not hardened against EMP attack, just in case humanity ever does find itself needing to "pull the plug" on the entire goddamn world.)

Hopefully whichever of Russia, China, and the United States didn't launch the nukes would be understanding. It might make sense for the diplomats to get this kind of thing straightened out before we get closer to the point where someone might actually have to do it.

Mrs. Davis?

(This is because eventually they do lose an election, and then they do fight a civil war. For example, the American South fought a civil war rather than allow Lincoln to become their President.)

I brought it up with him again, and my father backpedaled and said he was mostly making educated guesses on limited information, that he knows that he really doesn't know very much about current AI, and isn't interested enough to talk to strangers online - he's in his 70s and figures that if AI does eventually destroy the world it probably won't be in his own lifetime. :/

Representative democracy can only last so long as people prefer losing an election to fighting a civil war.

He might also argue "even if you can match a human brain with a billion dollar supercomputer, it still takes a billion dollar supercomputer to run your AI, and you can make, train, and hire an awful lot of humans for a billion dollars."

Because there were enough people selling for prices lower than $40 to satisfy the demand for greater fools?

Also, stocks can be sold short if the price goes too high.

Yes, I know.

My father thinks that ASI is going to be impractical to achieve with silicon CMOS chips because Moore's law is eventually going to hit fundamental limits - such as the thickness of individual atoms - and the hardware required to create it would end up "requiring a supercomputer the size of the Empire State Building and consume as much electricity as all of New York City".

Needless to say, he has very long timelines for generally superhuman AGI. He doesn't rule out that another computing technology could replace silicon CMOS, he just doesn't think it would be practical unless that happens.

My father is usually a very smart and rational person (he is a retired professor of electrical engineering) and he loves arguing, and I suspect that he is seriously overestimating the computing hardware it would take to match a human brain. Would anyone here be interested in talking to him about it? Let me know and I'll put you in touch.

Update: My father later backpedaled and said he was mostly making educated guesses on limited information, that he knows that he really doesn't know very much about current AI, and isn't interested enough to talk to strangers online - he's in his 70s and if AI does eventually destroy the world it probably won't be in his own lifetime. :/