Posts
Comments
This applies to me, my work ethic went down after 2020 partly because of timing. I turned 30 in 2020 and before then mostly just did what was expected of me without putting too much thought into what I wanted. I'm still hardworking but much more choosy about what I'll put time into and I try not to let social pressure affect my decisions.
My primary motivation for delving into WBE stems from a personal desire to upload my own mind.
This scares the hell out of me, even a very low chance of mind theft and eternal torture are just too risky in my opinion.
A repairer wants your stuff to break down,
A doctor wants you to get ill,
A lawyer wants you to get in conflicts,
A farmer wants you to be hungry,
A teacher wants you to be knowledge-less,
But there is only a thief who wants you to be rich.
I'm not sure how to interpret this. Repairers, doctors, lawyers and farmers are market inventions based on demand so technically they all want you to be rich. Teachers (at least in state schools) are more like a type of clergy with a sacred duty to their 'parish'. So a more appropriate description could be: A teacher wants more teachers.
I would take this movement seriously and endorse it if there was a detailed plan for the future of the movement when the human race is still around in 2051 and I'm homeless and buried in debt.
we find that almost all the branches which provide definitions involving anything specific are of a sexual/procreative nature, with a few relating to status thrown in.
Procreation and status are arguably what humans spend most of our time and energy on. And we often mask our language as a means to an end. (That end is usually related to procreation or status). Could it simply be predicting or imitating typical human responses in a way that cuts through the bullshit?
Emerge, survive and proliferate?
This is fascinating and I have so many questions about the dynamics of such a game, especially if you could compile a lot of data over many iterations. What patterns would emerge and what would those patterns reveal about human psychology? For example, is there a common strategy or set of strategies people would eventually converge on or arrive at after enough time? Or what if it was played with groups? Such data could be an info hazard but it's fun to think about. I'd love to play as gatekeeper if anyone is interested. I'm not very technical minded, I don't know if that'd be a handicap or advantage.
There are a lot of solutions but they’re often too boring and not sensational enough for serious consideration. Solutions must be exciting and make the adopter look good, efficacy is secondary.
I would argue if skipping grades was normalized physical differences wouldn't have a large impact on socialization (making friends, dating, etc.)
For essays:
- Write a short outline and then do lots of research.
- Using the outline and your research have a long conversation about the topic with a person that you're used to having long conversations with. If it helps you can record the conversation or take notes.
- Write the essay the morning or night after the conversation. With essays I find it's better to work in small bursts (20-60 minutes) and go back to it periodically but that may just be a personal preference.
- Have someone read it.
- Edit.
For narratives:
- Write it either in bursts or one sitting and don't think about it too much. You can do it by hand or typed but don't be afraid to jump around, write in the margins or write footnotes to use later or articulate what you're trying to say or effect you want to achieve without including in the actual narrative. Just keep going until you feel satisfied or feel like you're not making progress.
- Put it away and don't look at it or think about it for a period of time (2 weeks to 6 months).
- Reread and edit.
- Have someone read it.
- Edit.
User friendly financial software that can help with saving and budgeting. And some sort of software that can optimize career potential.
Not being liked, being thought of as other or outside someone’s social purview.
I don't think the main takeaway was to focus only on what matters, I understood it as advice to spend more time thinking about what is worth different levels of focus and why.
This was a good read. The problem with using dating apps to gauge success is that their methods and marketing are arguably incentivized to attract users who never form long term matches and still continue to use the app.
One possible explanation for lack of success that is touched upon through other explanations but never explicitly stated is the mismatch of expectations in our current always-internet-connected world. Depending on what you’ve been exposed to your expectations might be very specific/different from the rest of the dating market.
Yes. The more the merrier.
When you’re hungry and finally eat a satisfying meal which sensation is most comparable?
a. Helping a stranger b. Reaching orgasm c. Winning an award d. Scratching an itch
the next 0 to 5 years, which is about how long we have
Can you do a full post on how you see the next 5 years unfolding if it does take that long? I read takeoff speeds on your blog, can you assign best guess timeframes for your model?
The older a transhumanist gets the less you should trust them to accurately judge AGI risk.
This has some interesting implications. Reminds me of psychics who make confident predictions 100 years in the future but will refuse or be offended if you challenge them to make confirmable predictions within their lifetimes or the next week/month/year.
Maybe I'm not understanding it correctly, if I'm selfish about my own experiences I wouldn't get into the machine in the first place. If I have no choice in whether or not to get in the machine I'd refuse the lottery ticket even if it was free just to spite my future copied self who gets to exist because I was destroyed.
Could Alice befriend someone who is closer to building AGI than Bob? If so, perhaps they can protect Alice or at least offer some peace of mind.
My intuition is that housing prices will go down assuming that population doesn't change too dramatically and assuming that while AI is slowly taking off there are also sizeable takeoffs in energy production, transportation and automation of physical labor. I assume the price of land will be mostly evenly distributed as logistical costs of building and labor drop. The exception might be areas in the world that are especially sought after for AI infrastructure.
It does appear that the process to become a certified teacher is more rigorous than a university professor. The way k-12 schools track progress is also very different from colleges.
The main reason for Altman's firing was due to a scandal of a more personal nature mostly unrelated to the everyday or strategic operations of OpenAI.
For how fun and whimsical the story is, the ending is somewhat dark.
Of course and if it were up to me students would do so by studying the War of the Ring by reading and analyzing Tolkien but I don't think that would be as useful for their academic and professional careers as studying current events. The original question is who should make such decisions?
Thank you for your answer. I'm not so sure it is a divisive issue for the students, they seem to have little context or interest. If the purpose of AP courses is just to pass the AP test then there's already a lot of pointless materials and discussions, current events are not less relevant by comparison. Or maybe they are? I don't know who should make this decision (I've added this to the question).
Before I started teaching I would have thought that at the AP level students should, even briefly, learn to analyze conflicts and write about them in a nuanced and researched way. Now that I'm behind the curtain I see it's mostly up to individual teachers and a quick conversation in the teacher's lounge will often decide what is and isn't taught. It was somewhat alarming. Is it just me?
The rationality community will noticeably spill over into other parts of society in the next ten years. Examples: entertainment, politics, media, art, sports, education etc.
I think I understand, we're discussing with different scales in mind. I'm saying individually (or if your community is a small local group) nothing has to end but if your interests and identity are tied to sizeable institutions, technical communities etc. many will be disrupted by AI to the point where they could fade away completely. Maybe I'm just an unrealistic optimist, I don't believe collective or individual meaning has to fade away just because the most interesting and cutting edge work is done exclusively by machines.
Even if we don’t die, it still feels like everything is coming to an end.
Everything? I imagine there will be communities/nations/social groups that completely ban AI and those that are highly dependent on AI. There must be something between those two extremes.
This list is great. I especially resonate with 7, for a long time I didn't take responsibility because I felt I lacked the intellect/skill/certain something that others had who seemed so much more capable than me but it helps to keep in mind, as the post states, there are no adults.
I left notes throughout. The main issue is the structure which I usually map out descriptively by trying to answer: where do you want the characters to end up psychologically and how do you want the audience to feel? Figuring out these descriptive beats for each scene, episode and season will help refine the story and drive staging, dialogue etc. and of course nothing is set in stone so you can always change the structure to accommodate a scene or vice versa. I also recommended a companion series like a podcast or talkshow to discuss the ideas in each episode in more detail and in an accessible way for anyone that watches the show who is not familiar with AI related concepts. This way you wouldn't have to hold back with the writing or worry about anyone misunderstanding or misreading the story. I look forward to seeing the animation.
I don't fully understand the obsession with exploring the moral dimensions of the conflict, many from multiple sides, fronts, factions etc. have committed atrocities and I condemn them all regardless of affiliation. I've yet to find anyone on LW willing to seriously engage on solutions. It's like we've collectively given up on the possibility of peace and all that's left is to hash out the specific wording for the history books.
hiding your beliefs, in ways that predictably leads people to believe false things, is lying. This is the case regardless of your intentions, and regardless of how it feels.
I think people generally lie WAY more than we realize and most lies are lies of omission. I don't think deception is usually the immediate motivation but due to a kind of social convenience. Maintaining social equilibrium is valued over openness or honesty regarding relevant beliefs that may come up in everyday life.
Old fashioned lobbying might work. Could there be a political candidate in a relevant country that could build a strong platform on getting rid of malaria?
Could you perhaps share your to-do lists with other people who have a stake in your productivity? Would that give you more motivation to follow through with the items on the list?
Thank you for responding. I'm sorry for my ignorance, this is something that I've followed from afar since ~2004 so it's not just a grim fascination (although I guess it kind of is), I couldn't pass up the chance to ask questions of someone on the ground. I have a few more questions if that's ok..
How often are comprehensive plans to achieve peace reported in the media or made available to the public? Is there anything like ongoing discourse between Jewish Israelis, Palestinians who have Israeli citizenship and Palestinians in Gaza who are all of a similar mind?
My questions here have to do with wanting to understand why the conflict continues. Is it, for example, because of
- A relatively small number of people on each side who keep the conflict going
- Ingrained ideologies in the majority of both sides
- Lack of detailed options/language to discuss solutions
- Outside influence/funding
- Something else
- All or none of the above
Is there an overall solution or movement towards a solution that you think is underreported?
In this incident something was true because the “experts” decided it must be true. That’s humanities in (almost?) every incident.
Keeping a work diary helps. A work diary can be just quick notes, comments or ideas that you don't mind looking back on later. After long enough you'll find that you want to be more ambitious regarding time spent and the quality of the work you're doing and plans you may have for the future.
I would guess that the percentage of gay men who watch live music is roughly the same as gay men who watch live sports (or pretty much any leisure activity in society) but openly gay men are historically more common at concerts. Gays were considered dangerous deviants for a long time, maybe classical music/opera became a go to for 'openness' because it's mostly adults that attend so you could be openly gay without being harassed or accused of ulterior motives. My main belief: the stereotype is just because of association, not because of anything intrinsic.
Historically there are few public places you could be openly gay and not be harassed, concerts are one of those places.
I can’t help but read this simply as a politician who worries about their future hold on power. (I’d be curious to know how leaders discuss AI behind closed doors)
I mostly agree with the last part of your post about some experts never agreeing whether others (animal, artificial, etc) are conscious or not. A possible solution would be to come up with new language or nomenclature to describe the different possible spectrums and different dimensions they fall under. So many disagreements regarding this topic seem to derive from different parties having different definitions for AGI or ASI.
Here's how I tried (I haven't 100% succeeded): I decided that what goes on in my head wasn't enough. For a long time it was enough, I'd think about the things that interested me and maybe discuss them with some people and then move on to the next thing. This went on for years and some time was spent thinking about how I might put all that mental discourse to use but I never did. I worked at day jobs producing things I didn't care about and spent my free time exploring. Eventually I quit my day job, I spent more energy on personal pursuits anyway, and found ways to apply all my meta-practice on object level work. Eventually I landed in teaching and still get stuck in meta-land but find it useful to differentiate between understanding and intuition: Meta-level exploration is useful for improving understanding and object level practice improves intuition. I decided that understanding wasn't enough.
With their sharper senses I'd imagine that dogs experience the world in a much richer way than humans. Then, depending on your definition, you could say it makes dogs more 'conscious'. This opens the door for many other animals with bigger brains and more complex sensory organs than humans. Are they also more conscious?
I really love movies. This year I’ve gone to more re-releases and anniversary showings than new releases. I chalk that up to formulaic thinking behind newer movies. So we’re not running out of art but rather existing niches are being filled faster and in more clever ways and arguably faster than new niches emerge.
It could also have to do with the nature of film production. If a movie takes five years to make the design and production team is predicting what viewers will want 5 years in the future. The result can be stale overly commercialized type movies.
That’s a rather extreme idea, even if humanity was on the brink of extinction deceit is hard to justify.
We haven’t even scratched the surface of possible practical solutions, once those are exhausted there are many more possible paths.
Perhaps standards and practices for who can and should teach AI safety (or new related fields) should be better defined.
There are many atoms out there and many planets to strip mine and a superintelligence has infinite time. Inter species competition makes sense depending on where you place the intelligence dial. I assume that any intelligence that’s 1,000,000 times more capable than the next one down the ladder will ignore their ‘competitors’ (again, there could be collateral damage but likely not large scale extinction). If you place the dial at lower orders of magnitude then humans are a greater threat to AI, AI reasoning will be closer to human reasoning and we should probably take greater precautions.
To address the first part of your comment: I agree that we’d be largely insignificant and I think it’d be more inconvenient to wipe us out vs just going somewhere else or waiting a million years for us to die off, for example. The closer a superintelligence is to human intelligence the more likely it’ll act like a human (such as deciding to wipe out the competition). The more alien the intelligence the more likely it is to leave us to our own devices. I’ll think more on where the cutoff may be between dangerous AI and largely oblivious AI.