Posts
Comments
It looks childish to me. its looks the same as x-treme.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XMakesAnythingCool
I guess its just me, and its of no real consequence. But it seems to trivialize such a serious subject as existential risk.
I cringe at the term x-risk.
I'm curious, how did you use rationality to develop fashion sense?
What do we get if we Taboo socialism?
Funny, this quote is almost exactly similar to one in "The Praise of Folly" by Erasmus. That whole book is an argument against rationality.
It helped me very much to follow utility "have (and enjoy) a date" instead of "find a relationship".
In my experience bicycling is much safer. I have been cycling more or less everyday since I was at least since I was 8. and have never been in a life-threatening accident. however, while traveling by car, I have been in 2 or 3 potential life threatening crashes. But this will be very dependent of location culture and personal variables.
If a FAI would have a utility function like "Maximise X while remaining Friendly", And the UFAI would just have "Maximise X". Then, If the FAI and a UFAI would be initiated simultaneously, I would expect them both to develop exponentially, but the UFAI would have more options available, thus have a steeper learning curve. So I'd expect that in this situation that the UFAI would go FOOM slightly sooner, and be able to disable the FAI.
Carrots have no measurable positive effect on eyesight. Otherwise, good quote.
That's where your little brother comes in.
Unless you have plot armor.
As a side note, never take pills from strange people in empty werehouses who found you on the internet.
Being able to design stupid things is an important skill for any designer. Steering away from it tends to reduce your process to cached thoughts.
spoilers man..
This is interesting. When I first discovered LW, I was reading The Praise of Folly by Erasmus. He argues, among other things, that all emotions and feelings that make life worthwhile are inherently imbedded in stupidity. Love, friendship optimism and happiness require foolishness to work. Now is it very hard to compare a sixteenth century satirical piece with a current rational argument, but I have observed that intelligence and stupidity don't seem to be mutually exclusive. From where comes your assumption that intelligent, rational people can't be stupid? Emotions don't tend to be rational, and in the force of a strong one like love even the most intelligent and rational person can turn into an optimistic fool, sure that their loved one is infinitely more trustworthy than the average human, and statistics on adultery don't apply in this case. Should you try to overcome the bias of strong emotions? Can you overcome it at all? I have never seen someone immune to it. So maybe the happiness of stupidity is still available to all of us.
That is an awfull fate. RIP mana burn deck..
I don't understand why you assign a lower probability to the possibility of an infinite regress of causality, than to the possibility of a non casual event or casual loop.
So you are saying that, to change your mode of behavior, all one has to do is create a judging context? That would actually make you very easy to manipulate..
Or, that because most of time travel in popular media make no sense whatsoever, people assume it must be very difficult.
Well, maybe you fell asleep halfway that thought, and thought the last half after you woke, without noticing you slept.
Elezier, do you believe that someday humans could create an AI and put that AI in a simulated enviroment that accurately simulated all the observations humanity made until now?
If you do, what further observations would that AI have to make to arrive at the belief that they were created by an intelligent entity?
Do those studies have a placebo group?