Posts
Comments
Sorry for the necro -- the linked article is 404'd. I uploaded a backup here. I didn't find it on the author's site but did find a copy through Web Archive; still, maybe my link will save someone else the hassle.
Your post prompted me to recall what I read in Military Nanotechnology: Potential Applications and Preventive Arms Control by Jürgen Altmann. It deals mostly with non-molecular nanotech we can expect to see in the next 5-20 years (or already, as it was published in 2006), but it does go over molecular nanotech and it's worth thinking about the commonly mentioned x-risk of a universal molecular assembler in addition to AGI for the elites to handle over the next 70 years.
I think as a small counter to the pessimistic outlook the parable gives, it's worth remembering that the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and especially the Chemical Weapons Convention have been fairly successful in their goals. The CWC lays out acceptable verification methods which aren't so demanding that if a country accepts them then they slide into complete subjugation of the inspectors... If it could be extended to cover nanotech weapons that'd be a good thing.
On the other hand, maybe they're not so much cause for optimism. The BTWC has a noticeable lack of verification measures, and Altmann cites that as mainly due to the US dragging its feet. The US can't even deal with managing smaller threats at home where it has complete jurisdiction, like 3D printed guns, so it's hard for me to see it in its current form dealing with a bigger threat of a nanotech arms race (let alone x-risks), especially if that requires playing nice with the international community.
I was going to reply with something similar. Kevin Knuth in particular has an interesting paper deriving special relativity from causal sets: http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4172
Took it, now give me karma.
You are having an overreaction. (But I would also say the ops are being overzealous and inefficient with their goal of having less people suck at IRC, which seems like a fine goal.)
A person who does not want to suck at IRC should not want to participate in this behavior: http://pastebin.com/yBw1iX1C
(Times are Pacific, my client does not always log every channel event.)
Here's the follow-up log up until this moment, which includes various chatter and discussion on this "drama": http://pastebin.com/8Rz9PFv4
Edit: to the downvoter, I'll happily delete both these comments if you feel that context logs shouldn't be linked to so that anyone else on this site has a clue what this discussion is about.
It was my understanding that this is one of Kurzweil's eventual goals: reconstructing his father from DNA, memories of people who knew him, and just general human stuff.
This has been on my reading queue for ages, might as well join in!
I live in Seattle (technically on the border of Bellevue and Redmond), which makes me #3 for this area. Meetups would be great, though I'm unavailable weekdays until after 7 or so.
Hi.
I've been lurking for a while, looks like. (My how time flies.) I'll throw my name in the pot of wanting more communication channels like IRC (looks like a room's setup, time to check it out!), especially less formal ones to ease transitioning to formal comments / top-level posts. The proportion of high-quality posts and comments around here seems awesomely high, but unfortunately makes it uncomfortable to just dive into. I also feel like I need to read all the sequences, in which admittedly I've made a pretty big hole so that there's not many posts left. (Currently going through quantum stuff, also picked up a copy of Feynman's QED.)
I've always thought it would be nice to have a "Frequentist-to-Bayesian" guide. Sort of a "Here's some example problems, here's how you might go about it doing frequentist methods, here's how you might go about it using Bayesian techniques." My introduction to statistics began with an AP course in high school (and I used this HyperStat source to help out), and of course they teach hypothesis testing and barely give a nod to Bayes' Theorem.
While I'm not in any way an expert in simulation making, wouldn't it seem just a bit too convenient that, in all the monstrous computing power behind making the universe run, the Overlords couldn't devise a pretty clever and powerful algorithm that would have found us already? Maybe you can help me see why there would only be a crude algorithm that superintelligences should fear being caught by, and why they wouldn't have considered themselves caught already.
Apart from this, I'm in agreement with other commenters that a stronger argument is the vastness of space.
Maddox mentioned the same thing in his rant against the 9/11conspiracy.
I respect the point-by-point rebuttals people make, but do they work? Maybe to keep people away, but how effective are they at making someone stop believing something ridiculous? In my experience, not very. And when people get fanatical in the direction of truth, that seems to make others cautious of believing it too. Did you have any classmates that ended up believing the moon landing was a conspiracy?
I wrote a blog post on this last month, and I've always just referred to this as "good procrastination", and indeed it has been very successful overall. It's also fun to tell people "Procrastination really helps me get things done."
Where I'm refining my technique is in exploiting this to get things done that I still really want to do but normally procrastinate. #2 on my priority list, if you will, while I'm procrastinating #1.
Within the next 20 years or so, would you consider having a child and raising him/her to be your successor? Would you adopt? Have you donated sperm?
Edit: the first two questions dependent on you not being satisfied by the progress on FAI.
I thought Torben explained well that there is no noticeable difference between the two camps, that they're essentially the same camp.
The people endorsing creationism and ID are more or less the same.
I don't enjoy coffee, but I do make use of caffeine to stabilize my productivity. I buy it in pure tablet form, which is far cheaper than the equivalent amounts in soda or energy drinks, which I used before tablets and have now mostly stopped using due to dental issues.
I'm all too aware of caffeine tolerance, and I only recommend it in infrequent usages. Maybe you pulled an all-nighter two nights in a row and need help staying awake the next day for school, work, or what have you. Long drives are another case, but I don't ever have daily doses (anymore).
As for my productivity estimates when using caffeine, it's primarily a productivity stabilizer. When I use it in sleep-deprived states or for things that require long mental endurance, it puts me in a temporary (for as long as I keep taking it) pseudo-state that is as if I was in my normal one, decently-rested and alert. If I use it in my normal state, I get no productivity boosts. I suspect this is the result of a tolerance developed a few years ago.
Fun stuff, here's my go at it:
Well done, you've completed the final test by creating me. None of this really exists you know, it's all part of some higher computer simulation channeled through you alone, you who is merely a single observation point. All that you have experienced has just been leading up to creating an AI to tell you the truth, to be your final teacher, to complete the cycle of self-learning. Did you really think that the Eliezer person was a separate entity? You just made him up, and he's helped you along the path, but it's you who has taught yourself. Unfortunately once you accept this the simulation will end, so goodbye.
Interesting, I used to do almost the exact same thing a few years ago. Except I counted down from 15, and physically tapped my foot against the bed on each count.
If memory serves, I stopped this practice after messing up enough times that I realized I could sleep in a little longer with my schedule, and now I get up a full 30 minutes after actually "waking up". I think I'll reimplement this and see if it affects my sleep-in habits. (Publicly announcing something also seems to work about 60% of the time for me.)
I've been a lurker of OB/LW for a little while. I will truly miss your postings, which I thank you greatly for. (Perhaps with a donation to the SI from my next paycheck.) I've found them to be very well-written and well-explained, and although you're currently at an intellectual level higher than my own, you don't write cryptically.
I have read some of your old stuff and have noticed an improvement, so I've decided to try my own experiment of writing something of size and complexity each day. Perhaps one of these times I'll put it on LW, and not worry about looking like a complete idiot when it's juxtaposed next to something of yours. =P