Posts
Comments
So unbundle it?
There is a beautiful thing called unilateral action.
I believe most employers mostly don't care about conformity as such.
The inner circle stuff is only true of elite schools AFAIK. You can outcompete the rest of the universities
University education can be made free pretty cheaply.
The cost at scale is in the credentials- you need to make tests, test students, and check those tests.
The classes can be filmed once, and updated every few years if necessary. Each course can have a forum board for discussion and meeting up for studying in groups.
See course credentials for things like AWS.
This implies that we should stop life from developing independently, and that if contact is made with aliens then the human making contact and any environment that's been in chain of proximity should be spaced
Start small, once you have an attractive umbrella working for a few projects you can take in the rest of the US, the the world
In my work I aggregate multiple other systems' work as well as doing my own.
I think a similar approach may be useful. Create standardized outputs each project has to send to the overarching org, allow each to develop their own capabilities and to a degree how what is required to make those outputs meaningfully reflect on the capabilities and R&D of the project.
This will lay the ground to self-regulate, keeps most of the power with the org (assuming it is itself good at actual research and creation) conditional on the org playing nice and being upstanding with the contributing members, and without limiting any project before it is necessary.
DOGE.
This is an opportunity to work with the levers of real power. If there are 5 people here who work on this for two years, that's an in with Senators, Congressman, bureaucrats and possibly Musk.
Just showing up and making connections while doing hard work is the most efficient way to get power right now, in the time before AI gets dangerous and power will be very relevant.
I do not believe that this should be taken as an opportunity to evangelize. People, not ideology.
This seems like something worth funding if someone would like to but can't afford it.
The first issue seems minor - even if true, a 40 year old man could have a new arm by 60
What happened to regrowing limbs? From what little I understand, with pluripotent stem cells we could do a lot, except cancer.
Why don't we use stem cells instead of drilling for cavities? While there are a few types of tissue, tumors are fairly rare in teeth, likely due to minimal blood flow.
Why aren't research companies made in Africa/Middle East/China for human research- cut out most of the bureaucracy and find out fast if something works, if it does set up a company in a 1st world country to go through the steps?
Something like iterative/cliff, with fast and slow expressing time scales
Can you sort the poll options by popularity?
Iterative/Sudden
I can only describe the Product, not the tech. The idea would be to plug in a bigger working memory in the area of the brain currently holding working memory. This is the piece I think matters most
On reflection something like wolfram alpha should be enough for calculations, and a well indexed reservoir of knowledge with an LLM pulling up relevant links with summaries should be good enough for the rest
Inside the super organism you are correct, but the genome is influenced by outside forces as whole over the ages - and any place where this breaks down for long enough you eventually get two species instead of one.
Therefore outside groups can treat the species as a super organism in general, the individual members must be dealt with individually when there is previous loyalty to another member of the other species.
For example, an Englishman and his dog vs an eskimo and his dog. The two humans may be against each other, the dogs may be against each other, but the opposite human/dog interactions would be standard if they weren't already attached to other in-species members.
This gives the bones of a proper theoretical foundation on the moral duties between members of different species.
For example, this would back the intuition of eating dog to be worse than eating a bear or octupus, regardless of intelligence, and of killing rats out of hand
They'd not identical. First, they have a different status, much the same as citizens and aliens have different rights. Second, different species of animals have different relationships with humanity: Dogs are bred to be symbiotic companions Cats are parasites if allowed, pest control if tolerated Rats are disease vector scavengers Chickens are livestock - they lay infertile eggs for human consumption!
I'm not sure how well curated and indexed most information is.
Working memory allows for looking at the whole picture at once better with the full might of human intelligence (which is better at many things than LLMs), while removing frictions that come from delays and effort expended in search for data and making calculations.
Of course we have smart people together now, but getting multiple 7+SD people together would have many further benefits beyond having them work solo.
We probably have at least a generation (we're probably going to slow down before we hit SAGI due to the data wall, limited production of new compute, and regulation).
The focus should be on moving quickly to get a group ecliping current human capabilities ASAP, not on going much further
The idea of inertia is excellent, extending the idea of momentum far further (and naturally inspiring thoughts on mass, velocity, etc)
Devops Mentality is correct:
Friction is a big deal.
Being able to change code and deploy immediately (or in a few minutes) matters immensely.
This might just be feedback loops at an extreme, but I believe it's something more.
The benefit of going from 20wpm to 40wpm was not ×2 to my writing and experience, it was more like ×8. I fully intend to reach 60wpm.
It was closer to a ×2 to my developing experience, which is interesting as most of software development isn't the actual typing. Another anecdote is that the best programmers I know all have 60+wpm (there was one react front end guy who was good, but mostly at design).
Reducing friction is underrated, even if friction is only 10% of a job (typing during coding), improving that friction substantially matters more than 10%.
This may have to do with flow, concentration or enjoyment
On human-computer interfaces: Working memory, knowledge reservoirs and raw calculation power seem like the easiest pieces, while fundamentally making people better at critical thinking, philosophy or speeding up actual comprehension would be much for difficult.
The difference being upgrading the core vs plug-ins.
Curated reservoirs of practical and theoretical information, well indexed, would be very useful to super geniuses.
On human-human: You don't actually need to hook them up physically. Having multiple people working on different parts of a problem lets them all bounce ideas off each other.
Overall: The goal should be to create a number of these people, then let them plan out the next round if their intelligence doesn't do it.
If humanity can make 100 7+SD humans hooked up with large amounts of computing power, curated knowledge + tons of raw data, and massive working memories, they'll be able to figure out any further steps much better than we can.
The virus example doesn't seem right to me.
- The claim doesn't seem necessarily true. Why would a more transmissible virus be more deadly? (aside from general virulence I suppose..). It isn't hard to think of some very contagious viruses that don't seem all that deadly (herpes, cold, flu) and some much less transmissible viruses that are quite deadly (AIDS).
I suppose more deadly viruses generally require more transmissibility to survive than less deadly ones do, but A -> B does not mean B -> A.
- Viruses are generally horizontal, I don't see why one horizontal thing would a priori be more negative than another horizontal thing, just based on a vertical vs horizontal idea
Well now I need to read your simalcrum posts, this is brilliant
Assumption 3: People connect with others of similar connectivity.
This seems obviously wrong to me, at least in part.
There are a few factors I can think of that influence connectivity.
Job. (Cashier, Barista, teacher>normal desk job)
number of social circles.
Size of social circle
How much of a given circle an individual actually interacts with.
I'm sure there are more. Aside from size of social circle, most humans are more likely to be connected to a random [very connected person] than a random [not very connected person].
(Differences existing in exposure, connectivity etc.. are obvious imo)
"Allowing mobs influence..." If the nyt had decided to publish an article advocating killing blacks for talking in public, I doubt anyone would have an issue with an online mob pressuring the nyt to retract the article.
Certainly Callard would not be questioning whether the article was worse or allowing mobs to influence the nyt to take the article down was worse.
Not all 'mobs' are created equal. Neither are all attempts at influence. The influence being exerted here is purely benign - this is not an attempt to influence the culture war or get soneone fired, all that is asked is that someone be allowed keep his pseudonymity, with good reason.
Edit: After reading the full text of Callard's OP I don't think what I wrote above addresses their full position.
As others have noted, this is not an instance of philosphers taking off the philosophy hat when dealing with other philosphers. The NYT isn't a group of philosphers, it is a business.
This business is acting in a harmful way, either because it is acting as a bureaucracy (reasoning will not make red tape go away),or in hostile fashion (or a higher up decided on this action just because I suppose).
None of these possibilities lend themselves to looking at this as a simple mistake of ethics (unless you frame it as a mistake of normative ethics/bottom line ethics, in which case a petition is an actual argument), where you can discuss and reach a conclusion.
In regards to philosophy needing to come into play in real life too - philosophy needs to recognize that conflict exists in real life.
If a man is coming to kill someone you know, the proper response should be reached through mistake theory internally, but stopping the aggressor physically should not be out of bounds when deciding on a response. Mistake theory needs to be aware of conflict theory. (Of course, if the man is a mistake theorist in regards to the one who woud stop him and would like to discuss before either takes action, one would be remiss not to)
In Israel schools were recently reopened, 31(last I checked) schools have had cases over the last couple weeks. A notable school reportedly had over 100.
Before the country reopened the rate was around 20 infections a day. Currently in the 50-60 infections per day (on most days) area. This seems to support schools being important
People are looking at numbers of infected and dead, the bigger the numbers the scarier it is. When the numbers are down a lot, they believe it's over.
I don't think having a particularly accurate understanding is necessary for this back and forth.
How often are the kingdom's really used in a lab or with detailed research? I'm guessing not often (I've only done intro to bio myself though I've talked to researchers about there work and the kingdom's never came up).
They might be useful for giving people learning biology a general grasp of the various organisms and some differences, put into large categories.
There might be some times it's useful, maybe as a starting place in comparing different organisms, but it isn't an abstraction that is the base of how the actual field does research.
(As opposed to PLs, where the abstraction is the main tool of the craft)
When you use abstractions to actually do work, the effeciency matters a lot. Hence programming languages.
When you use them to mentally sort things for general knowledge of what's out there and memory storage like in biology, if it works it works. Kingdoms seem to work for this.
What about telomere shortening? Are there other things that slowly break apart as they're used (and not rejuvenated constantly) that could explain aging beyond a few slow changing cells?
The Wikipedia for naked mole rats claims a maximum age of 30 (32?), why is that if they can live forever?
When resources are scarce, strongly controlling them seems justified. This includes men taking control of resources and acting unequally, as well as the poor fighting for a bigger slice of the pie.
When there's already plenty to go around then power grabs (or unequal opportunities between men and women because men need it) are just for their own sake and less justified.
So in general power that already exists (wealth, social classes, political power) will be harder to change through negotiation and anything that needs to keep being stimulated (rich kids getting educations for example (on finances, hard sciences or whatever)) will disappear as scarcity disappears.
What is the measure theoretic definition?
This doesn't even require both use the same randomization, just that both randomize without putting higher frequency on the same options (for example e being the most common letter, random letter in a book will push towards e/5)
Added: favorite number seems like it would be weighted to specific numbers. Unless you have a very distinctive, unique reason for that number it seems like a bad idea.
Or actually randomize I suppose. Number all options 1-N, multiply random numbers in your head until you get stuck (eg 2×6×9×95×34 in order, then when you miltiply that by 37 you get stuck. Use the last number,) though obviously getting it wrong is fine. Modulo N, +1. Walla, your choice, randomized.
The taller/bigger person should pick the bigger number.
You and your ex should a) actually coordinate b)not go to each other's favorite place or places very close to their home.
Anything simple, not reversible, obvious. The big guy gets a big number.
The closer person goes to the bar.
I think I know why my conversations are different from most people's now.
Hi, I'm new here Read a bunch of the sequences a few years ago (not sure how I got there).
Started reading Scott's and Zvi's posts on here recently after reading on their blogs for a while.
How sure of a thing are yoy looking for? I usually try a bunch of things for any issue I have, not usual that sure what exactly fixed the issue
Skincare - not using product.
Giving up facial soap and making sure shampoo didn't get on my face did what no cleaning regiment did.
I tried this as a teen with moderate - severe acne, and to this day my skin is even better than most people's