Posts
Comments
Such subliminal summanipulation is pretty natural for a probablist. Thinking of cumulative effects of all inputs that an individual we care of is exposed to comes natural to lovers, parents, and big brothers, however, only more resourced can reliably afford to produce the inputs and carry it out such attacks, rather than just observe and care about these cumulative effects.
Well, my main point was, that error can be of arbitrary type, one may be of the modeling of what is ("Map"), another of modeling what we want to be ("Territory"), and one can think of infinite number of various types of "errors", - logical, ethical, pragmatic, moral, ecological, cultural, situational, .. the list goes on and on. And, if each type of error we think of "suboptimality", then "less err" or "less wrong" would be etymologically equivalent to "optimize". So, we're a community for optimization. And that's actually equivalent to intelligence.
No matter, if we are seeking for truth or pragmatics, the methods of rationality remain largely the same -- it's the general mathematical methods of optimizing.
New terminology only makes sense when phenomena they describe have new qualities on top of the basic phenomena. Every process is an optimizer, because anything that changes states, optimizes towards something (say, new state). Thus, "maximizer," "intelligent agent" etc. may be said to be redundant.
I feel a bit confused reading this. The notion of an expected utility maximiser is standard in game theory and economics. Or maybe you find the concept unsatisfactory in some other way?
The latter. Optimization is more general than expected utility maximization. By applying expected utility theory, one is trying to minimize the expected distance to a set of conditions (goal), rather than distance to a set of conditions (state) in abstract general sense.
The original post (OP) is about refactoring the knowledge tree in order to make the discussions less biased and more accessible across disciplines. For example, the use of abbreviations like "OP" may make it less accessible across audiences. Similarly, using well-defined concepts like "agent" may make discussions less accessible to those who know just informal definitions (similar to how the mathematical abstractions of point and interval may be confusing to the un-initiated).
The concepts of "states" and "processes" may be less confusing, because they are generic, and don't seem to have other interpretations within similar domains in everyday life, unlike "environments", "agents", "intervals", "points" and "goals" do.
Yes, I do understand the phrase 'defining a process' so broadly as to not suggest temporality. Just like defining an order for a set in mathematics doesn't require the concept of time.
Indeed, just because we can show an example of how an illusion of time could be constructed in a system without time, would not seem to imply that our world is also such system.
So, yes, it doesn't makes sense, as long as you don't show that our perceived world is derived from a system with same properties. ( I'm referring to something like this: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/3ZdcQpJCPpE/Kwfh69V4Y24J ).
You can view everything as one thing.
How did you conclude with the 'in fact' ?
I made a thought experiment with a system that has no time, making it appear to have time. Take the sequence of natural numbers. It doesn't change, but it implies the existence of all positive rationals. This implication is instantaneous, but generating them requires defining a process. There is an eternity in an instance.
We know that time is an illusion. Is "illusion" not the same as "simulation"?
Is inability to travel back in time - evidence that we're a simulation? Btw., wording "simulation in which we live" would imply that we're somehow separate from the simulation. It could well be that we ourselves do not exist without the simulation, and are merely the properties of simulation, - simulated beings.
Great. I didn't read the book yet, but where I think we fail the most, is underestimating the investment into new technologies. It is often through new technologies that we can solve a problem at large, and often, to develop these new technologies may require much less than buying the existing technology solutions in bulk,... if we could be just a little more creative in our altruism. So, I would like to propose another term: Effectively Creative Altruism (ECA).
ECA would rely thinking how to solve a problem once and for all, and not in some isolated case. For example, an effectively creative thinker who is strongly upset about the harm that mosquitoes transmitting malaria do, would tend to come up with more general solutions, like genetically modified mosquitoes, that pass on deadly genes, and destroy them all.
An ECA thinker would, instead of seeing the simple numbers of how much investment saves how many lives according to current best statistics, would consider, what technology under development would save many more lives, if it received the little money it needs to get developed and scaled.
For example, how much do we need until we can mass-produce and introduce use the paper microscopes.
While a simple Effective Altruist relies on well-known statistics, an Effectively Creative Altruist would rely on as-of-yet unrejected hypotheses that follow from well-founded creative reasoning, and donating for such innovation, and that require that little bit of financial support and effort to verify.
My point is -- we should not reject great ideas, because they have no statistical evidence yet.
It is sufficient to define your self precisely and concisely, and preserve that definition.
- Domain name is not primary marketing channel.
- Our preferred target audience will understand.
- Domain name reflects our philosophy. It aims to emphasize:
. infinite love, .. long-term strategy, ... cultural neutrality.
infty is not an English word, it is just a sequence of latin symbols, which are used in mathematical (LaTeX) texts to write lemniscate, meaning infinity, which is a mathematical concept.
If you come up with interesting truly culturally neutral name though, I'd love to know :)
"Unless you patent your patentable ideas I don't think this system can work."
If something won't work in the U.S., or E.U., because it is patented, it will work in China, or in bitspace...
Because there is a track record, like a blockchain in Bitcoin, and people will be able to figure out eventually, to whom the credit is due. Eventually, we will not need hidden intellectual property to retain credit to whom the credit is due... Many people say that time is money, few say that information is money, but it is. The whole internet keeps a record of who came up with what idea. With the rise of things like Ethereum, and other advanced information technologies, it looks like there will be a day, when thinkers will get their proper credit, even for the ideas of the past.
culturally-neutral domain name
Ain't no such thing.
Well, I like the Ethereum ÐΞV, or ∀∃∞.
Btw., we aim for culturally-neutral domain name. Thing like oo.io would be great, but it is already taken.
Will add alias domain names, good advice, thanks! :)
A new comment pushes the topic back to the top of the list. So, whenever someone comments, -- someone notices it... We're working on it.
No worries. We've got another revenue model, but thanks - a good suggestion.:)
There are difficulties. Specifically:
- how to get people write projects
- how to get people fund projects
Improving trust and ease-of-use.
A mind is a puzzle to solve, too.
I see, [MattG]. True, and I know why the perceptions. Anyway, we have team members who did projects comparable in size and functionality with booking.com, and are very experienced in Python/Django development, toptal.com level. The [Villiam]'s estimate of $100 is laughable.
Who said that there exists the outside? :)
So you are very undefined. I know that I'm an 'infinitesimal' part of the observable universe, which wishes to understand: the Universe, and where and how does it originate; wishes that everything that anyone truly wishes could really exist; and, doesn't lose the hope to improve the whole Universe, because it knows that butterfly effect works... if used properly.
[Lumifer], what you are? Are you what you think you are? What kind of future do you want to have?
[Viliam], thanks for feedback. I've no time to refute half or so of your statements, which are stated without having proper information -- just guesses.
From what I understand, it's something that LW could get behind - a way to crowdsource ideas then crowdfund them, and get equity based on how much of the idea you helped to generate. That's not a bad idea with some refinement.
Good point.
I have some ideas on how to actually make sure this grows, if you're interested.
Definitely interested.
What point which you want to make requires me answering 'who supplies money to you?' question?
See, we are not talking about the modern world. We are talking about changing the world to create the world of abundance.
Is exciting! :) [To be rational, we must work for well-defined goals, not for money that lacks descriptive power.]
On the contrary, it is worrisome that some people treat others as merely workforce that can be bought, and lack any empathy whatsoever.
I did try to look. My browser said "Secure Connection Failed".
Ha:) Is that because we use self-signed SSL cert? Try again. We'll upgrade cert later.
So, all of hyper-equity can be controlled by 1,000 - 10,000 people?
No, as many people as there are problems (Goals). Potentially infinite.
All these words and only for a pyramid scheme....
If you look, currently the fraction of "hyper-equity" that a user can have, is very small (0.0001 to 0.001), and I believe we should use risk models to adjust it in the future, with everyone's help, and choose the appropriate maximum amount of it. The reason why we have so little of hyper-equity, is because it precisely because we would like to avoid an unreasonable pyramid scheme.
Many people can't go into long conversations about each other simply because answering requires more than one click. Even Google can't conceive of a better way of communication than Google Plus. I have to retype my answers to everyone around, whenever I get to meet a new person, I can't easily reuse my previous answers from an autosuggest list, and why not? Here is my idea, which I shared on halfbakery.com:
"Profiles should contain a 'magic FAQ.' Any vistor of your profile should be able to add a publicly invisible question to your magic FAQ; you would be notified, and have an option to answer it, both replying the questions and building your FAQ at the same time (one shot-two birds). The publicly invisible conversation could continue much like hierarchical comments, forming a hierarchy. The next time someone asks a similar question (i.e., adds a question to your FAQ), you could tell the system that it's just another way to ask the same thing, and reuse your previous answer with a click of a button. A different follow-up question? No problem -- the data structure like pHTN (probabilistic hierarchical task network, which is just hierarchically arranged lists with probabilities of each element in the lower level of the hierarchy) can handle this, and even learn to autosuggest you to reuse your most preferred answer (three birds?).
An expected result of this idea, is that even celebrities, who don't have enough time to chat with every fan, would suddenly have time to communicate personally, in this semi-automated manner."