up to a linear transformation
shouldn’t it be positive linear transformation
up to a linear transformation
shouldn’t it be positive linear transformation
I don’t have much in terms of advise, I never felt the need to research this—I just assumed there must be something. I have a mild nightmare maybe once every couple of months and almost never something more serious.
I have anecdotal evidence that things which disturb your sleep (e.g. coffee or too much salt affecting blood pressure, uncomfortable pillow) cause nightmares. There are also obvious things like not watching horror movies, etc.
Have you tried other techniques to deal with nightmares?
I’ve had lucid dreams by accident (never tried to induce one). Upon waking up, my head hurts. Do others have the same experience? What are common negative effects of lucid dreams?
Also, can you control when you wake up?
I may have misunderstood something about Bohmian mechanics not being compatible with special relativity (I’m not a physicist). ChatGPT says extending Bohmian mechanics to QFT faces challenges, such as:
Defining particle positions in relativistic contexts.
Handling particle creation and annihilation in quantum field interactions.
Isn’t it the case that special relativity experiments separate the two hypotheses?
There was a Yudkowski post that “I don’t know” is sometimes not an option. In some contexts we need to guide our decisions based on the interpretation of QM.
I would add that questions such as “then why am I this version of me?” only show we’re generally confused about anthropics. This is not something specific about many worlds and cannot be an argument against it.
The health and education categories would be quite different in most european countries
Any idea how to get Trentinoin in countries other than the US (e.g. france)?
It should be pretty simple to prevent this
I’m a little skeptical of claims that securing access to a system is simple. I (not a superintelligence) can imagine the LLM generating code for tasks like these:
making or stealing some money
paying for a 0-day
using the 0-day to access the system
This doesn’t need to be done at the same time—e.g. I could set up an email on which to receive the 0-day and then write the code to use it.. This is very hard (it takes time) but doesn’t seem impossible for a human to do and we’re supposedly trying to secure something smarter.
whatever brain algorithms motivate prosociality are not significantly altered by increases in general intelligence
I tend to think that to an extent each human is kept in check by other humans so that being prosocial is game-theoretically optimal. The saying “power corrupts” suggests that individual humans are not intrinsically prosocial. Biases make people think they know better than others.
Human variability in intelligence is minuscule and is only weak evidence as to what happens when capabilities increase.
I don’t hold this belief strongly, but I remain unconvinced.
You can say that probability comes from being calibrated—after many experiments where an event happens with probability 1⁄2 (e.g. spin up for a particle in state 1/√2 |up> + 1/√2 |down>), you’d probably have that event happen half the time. The important word here is “probably”, which is what we are trying to understand in the first place. I don’t know how to get around this circular definition.
I’m imagining the branch where a very unlikely outcome consistently happens (think winning a quantum lottery). Intelligent life in this branch would observe what seems like different physical laws. I just find this unsettling.
The worlds space is presumably infinite-dimensional, and also expands over time
If we take quantum mechanics, we have a quantum wavefunction in an infinite-dimensional hilbert space which is the tensor product of the hilbert space describing each particle. I’m not sure what you mean by “expands”, we just get decoherence over time. I don’t really know quantum field theory so I cannot say how this fits with special relativity. Nobody knows how to reconcile it with general relativity.
This post clarified some concepts for me but also created some confusion:
For smoking lesion, I don’t understand the point about the player’s source code being partially written.
I don’t see how sleeping beauty calculates 1⁄3 probability (there are some formatting errors btw)
Superhumwn chess AI did not remove people’s pleasure from learning/playing chess. I think people are adaptible and can find meaning. Surely, the world will not feel the same but I think there is significant potential for something much better. I wrote about tfhis a little on my blog:
https://martinkunev.wordpress.com/2024/05/04/living-with-ai/
this assumes concepts like “shutdown button” are in the ontology of the AI. I’m not sure how much we understand about what ontology AIs likely end up with
different ways to get to the same endpoint—…as far as anyone can measure it
I would say the territory has no cycles but any map of it does. You can have a butterfly effect where a small nudge is amplified to some measurable difference but you cannot predict the result of that measurement. So the agent’s revealed preferences can only be modeled as a graph where some states are reachable through multiple paths.
what’s wrong with calling the “short-term utility function” a “reward function”?
Maybe a newbie question but how can we talk about “phase space volume” if the phase space is continuous and the system develops into a non-measurable set (e.g. fractal)?
Can you elaborate on this? How do we talk about independence without probability?