Posts
Comments
Also, what the heck are you talking about?
Wireheading. The term is not a metaphor, and it's not a hypothetical. You can literally stick a wire into someone's pleasure centers and activate them, using only non-groundbreaking neuroscience.
It's been tested on humans, but AFAIK no-one has ever felt compelled to go any further.
(Yeah, seems like it might be evidence. But then, maybe akrasia...)
So if we have a heresy, then exposing it as actually true would be good, because we want to know the truth - hang on.
... can't we rewire brains right now? We just ... don't.
I think he meant "jesus myth" proponents, who IIRC are ... dubious.
I asked about this a while ago, and apparently the software doesn't support it :/
You're supposed to roleplay a Gatekeeper. There is more than money on the line.
Signalling is useful.
Historical Flammel also has an official grave site in France (Paris, if I remember correctly); I want to think he lived to his eighties, but it's been a few months since I last read about him.
I recall hearing that "grave" does not contain a body, although I'm not sure how the person who told me that knew. (They were suggesting using him in fiction, much as HPMOR did.)
Isn't "Dark Side" approximately "effective, but dangerous"?
Well ... isn't it? What others are you thinking of? None spring to my mind.
He never said they were "rejected" or "ruled out". Just weaker than the conversation - which I assume is because the average person is much worse than you, as cultured political disputant, experience.
Probably not true, still, unless you have the raw mind power to deduce all the flaws of the human mind from that mere conversation. And even then, only maybe.
Taking it as Bayesian evidence: arguably rational, although it's so small your brain might round it up just to keep track of it, so it's risky; and it may actually be negative (because psychopaths might be less likely to tell you something that might give them away.)
Worrying about said evidence: definitely irrational. Understandable, of course, with the low sanity waterline and all...
Upvoted for mention of "applause lights".
Weirded out at the oversharing, obviously.
Assuming the context was one where sharing this somehow fit ... somewhat squicked, but I would probably be squicked by some of their fantasies. That's fantasies.
Oh, and some of the less rational ones might worry that this was an indicator that I was a dangerous psychopath. Probably the same ones who equate "pedophile" with "pedophile who fantasises about kidnap, rape, torture and murder" ,':-. I dunno.
I think that "human pleasure" is such a complicated idea that trying to program it in formally is asking for disaster. That's one of the things that you should definitely let the AI figure out for itself.
[...]
Eliezer is aware of this problem, but hopes to avoid disaster by being especially smart and careful. That approach has what I think is a bad expected value of outcome.
Huh I thought he wanted to use CEV?
Sorry I thought you were pointing out something Orphan had acknowledged already - that's a different point. Retracted & upvoted.
2nd try replying to this, since people worried first was hard to parse:
I think that sexism is mostly folk psychology - false when tested, but not untestable given smart experimenters. Thus, feminism predicts that sexist hypotheses are not the way the world actually is, and that's empirical.
But, there are a lot of people rallying under flags with "feminism" on them, and they vary widely. So many of them probably just assume the current facts as we know them (good) and so merely claim that under those facts certain things may be wrong, ethically. And you have others who actually believe sexist claims but still want to be called feminist. So maybe tabooing is needed.
Ah yeah successful should maybe have been accepted, or universal, or maybe claims should have been arguments. Thanks!
I'd also say: being downvoted by one person is not particularly strong evidence of anything; don't get upset about it.
My first attempt to clarify was downvoted too :(
the obvious diagnosis is that you and Argency disagree about what "feminism" means
... oh. It is a very vague word ... I figured they were just underestimating the coherence of opposing arguments, since it's easy to when the position in question is quite discredited so you don't encounter them... I'll try asking them what they meant, good idea.
ಠ_ಠ
Each community could have its own standards and this wouldn't pose too much of an issue, and this is more or less the way things worked.
The reply:
I think you are overestimating pre-internet uniformity here [...] Each group has different ideas of what would constitute provocative clothing.
That's why only "in an ideal world", methinks.
I think that's actually the common model that sex is something women have and men want. So, which of the two simply depends on whether you're inclined to grant it or not, and on the side you view it from. This may be an unrelated phenomenon to dom/sub (or, alternately, the source of a dom/sub effect.)
OK I'm downvoted so I must have missed something. Help guys?
Is that going to be harder that coming up with a mathematical expension of morality and preloading it?
Harder than saying it in English, that's all.
EY. It's his answer to friendliness.
No he wants to program the AI to deduce morality from us it is called CEV. He seems to be still working out how the heck to reduce that to math.
I would not dare to call that "Dark Arts".
Fortunately someone else already invented the term "Dark Arts" and that's what it means.
... seriously Eliezer?
Humans are made to do that by evolution AIs are not. So you have to figure what the heck evolution did, in ways specific enough to program into a computer.
Also, who mentioned giving AIs a priori knowledge of our preferences? It doesn't seem to be in what you replied to.
... the what.
Ahh I just finished that.
... that is not rationality that is a mild infohazard trying to hack you into taking actions that make people starve. It should be kept away from people and counteragents spread to defend against further outbreaks. Seriously why would you post that as a rationality quote.
This comment, while pointing out real and serious issues - I agree with it - contains way too much Dark Arts for a LessWrong comment.
Possibly I was placing the zero point between positive and negative higher than you. I don't see sadness as merely a low positive but a negative. But then I'm not using averages anyway, so I guess that may cover the difference between us.
But then you kill sad people to get "neutral happiness" ...
Could one not change the bidding to use "chore points" of somesuch? I mean, the system described is designed for spouses, but there's no reason it couldn't be adapted for you and your housemates.
For "successful" read "accepted". (Some are now accepted as historical facts.)
Considering timelessly, should it not also disprove helping the least happy, because they will always have been sad?
Presumably, only if they get born. Although that's tweakable.
Not abstract, to be fair, usually ...
But yes, even those without such skepticism (like myself) tend to notice that the quality is, in fact, low.
I think the empirical claims of feminism are now successful, but they did exist. Sexism, after all, has empirical claims.
But at the same time, the MRAs have a serious problem: in the same way that some people have extremely negative associations with feminism, many have similar issues with the MRAs. If someone were to want to seriously deal with gender inequality issues in custody disputes, I'd strongly advise them to keep themselves away from being associated with the MRAs.
I'm just wandering past your conversation, but I think many people are just offended by the concept of men demanding rights - y'know, because they have enough damn rights already, and so on.
That is, the very term "men's rights" has negative connotations even without negative associations (and probably contributed to those associations, via bias.)
Feel free to point me in the direction of choice-positive feminist blogs, incidentally. My list has gone from six down to one over the past few years. Those six were the best I could find and five of them -still- couldn't refrain from hostility, either towards women, or towards men.
No links in my pocket but I think I've encountered those. Maybe you were being to strict with the criteria? Few people could live up to that, I think.
But I also despise the position that women aren't -allowed- to be like this
Nobody actively believes this, mind. They just haven't thought about it.
Funny thing, I had the exact same
perfect woman? ,':-.
thought, even though I don't find a lot of those things attractive, come to think. Cultural conditioning? Subliminal messages?
That's...damn... that's like the whole bloody point of why we hold empathy for genuinely different/strange/foreign people to be so rare and valuable!
And thus, the quoted piece is ... self-evidently true? One of us is misunderstanding the person the quoted.
Once you specify where I am, who I am with, what kind of body language the man is using, how big he is, and what he is wearing, further specifying what race he is wouldn't matter that much.
Is that true? Depending on the "where I am" part?
There's only so much you can tell about someone from "what kind of body language the man is using, how big he is, and what he is wearing", after all. In the right racially-segregated society, could it provide valuable additional data?
What had the comment been saying before deletion?
Most third graders are probably still in the process of developing the foundational skills that they'll eventually need in order to effectively learn complex topics without guessing the teacher's password.
But then they don't, so we need to try another method, yes?
On the other hand, if you don't tell them, most of them will come to that conclusion anyway. Then they will feel just as depressed, but also alienated from the oppressive adult caste.
I find most avoid considering the question.
Children are often visibly treated more like pets than people, at least in north american society.
Upvoted for quote, though unsure on conclusion. Has this been tried, that you've seen?
I had a 5th grade science teacher who was an idiot, but when I argued with him over his stupidities, he didn't shut me down, he argued back.
This seems lucky, from what I've seen the standard is lower.
Story ... too awesome ... not to upvote ...
not sure why its rational, though.
If you think FAI is not possible, why make an AI anyway?