I’m an aspiring Friendliness theorist, currently based at the Australian National University—home to Marcus Hutter, Rachael Briggs and David Chalmers, amongst others—where I study formal epistemology through the Ph.B. (Hons) program.
I wasn’t always in such a stimulating environment—indeed I grew up in what can only be deemed intellectual deprivation, from which I narrowly escaped—and, as a result of my disregard for authority and despise for traditional classroom learning, I am largely self-taught. Unlike most autodidacts, though, I never was a voracious reader, on the contrary I barely opened books at all, instead preferring to think things over in my head; this has left me an ignorant person—something I’m constantly striving to improve on—but has also protected me from many diseased ideas and even allowed me to better appreciate certain notions by having to rediscover them myself. (case in fact, throughout my adolescence I took great satisfaction in analysing my mental mechanisms and correcting for what I now know to be biases, yet I never came across the relevant literature, essentially missing out on a wealth of knowledge)
For a long time I’ve aspired to join a cultural movement modelled on the principles of the Enlightenment and, to my eyes, LW, MIRI, CFAR, FHI and CSER are exactly the kind of community that can impact society through the use of reason. Alas, I was long unaware of their existence and when I first heard about the ‘Singularity’ I immediately dismissed it as the science fiction it sounds like, but thankfully this is no longer the case and I can now start making my modest contributions to reducing existential risk.
Lastly, I’ve never had my IQ measured properly—passing the Mensa admission test places me at least two SDs above the norm, but that’s hardly impressive by LW standards—and, as much as I value such an indicator, I’m too emotionally invested in my intelligence to dare undergo psychometric testing. (for what it’s worth, as a child my development was precocious—e.g. the development of my motor skills was superior to that of the subjects taking part in this well-known longitudinal study)
I’ve opened up a lot to you, LWers; I hope my only regret will be not having discovered you earlier...
Too soon to say, as I discovered FAI a mere two months ago—this, incidentally, could mean that it’s a fleeting passion—but CEV has definitely caught my attention, while the concept of a reflective decision theory I find really fascinating. The latter is something I’ve been curious about for quite some time, as plenty of moral precepts seem to break down once an agent—even a mere homo sapiens—reaches certain levels of self-awareness and, thus, is able to alter their decision mechanisms.
Lastly, I’ve never had my IQ measured properly—passing the Mensa admission test places me at least two SDs above the norm
Isn’t that a proper IQ test? At least it is where I live. Funny how we like to talk about things we’re good at. The real test is “time from passing test to time you leave to save the yearly fee.”
I’m an aspiring Friendliness theorist, currently based at the Australian National University—home to Marcus Hutter, Rachael Briggs and David Chalmers, amongst others—where I study formal epistemology through the Ph.B. (Hons) program.
That’s awesome. Don’t miss Marcus’ lectures, such a sharp mind. Also, midi—Imperial March (used to be?) playing on his home page.
(...) has a lowish ceiling and they don’t reveal your exact result.
Is your info Aussie-specific? (EDIT: We’re not quite antipodes, but not far off, either) They did when I took it, ceiling 145, was administered in a group setting.
For the record, you needn’t join in order to take their heavily subsidised admission test.
’Twas free even, in my case, some kind of promo action.
Is your info Aussie-specific? (EDIT: We’re not quite antipodes, but not far off, either) They did when I took it, ceiling 145, was administered in a group setting.
Yep I had Australia in mind, though it’s by no means the only country where it works that way. Also, various national Mensa chapters have stopped releasing scores—something to do with egalitarianism, go figure… -- and pardon my imprecise language, but by lowish I meant around 145 SD15. (didn’t mean it in a patronising manner, it’s just that plenty of tests have a ceiling of 160 SD15 and some, e.g. Stanford-Binet Form L-M, are employed even above that cutoff)
I do wonder if someone who’d score, say 155 on a 160 ceiling test would probably score 145 on a 145 ceiling test. You project an aura of knowledgeability on the subject, so I’ll just go ahead and ask you. Consider yourself asked.
I’m afraid I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable to answer that and I have no intention of becoming one of those self-proclaimed internet experts! (plus the rest of the internet, outside of LW, already does a good enough job at spreading misinformation)
“machine/emergent intelligence theorist” would not box you in as much. Friendliness is only one model, you know, no matter how convincing it may sound.
One can signal differently to make oneself more palatable to different audiences and, indeed, “machine/emergent intelligence theorist” is less confining, while “machine intelligence researcher” is more suitable for academia or industry; here at LW, however, I needn’t conceal my specific interests, which happen to be in AI safety and friendliness.
Greetings LWers,
I’m an aspiring Friendliness theorist, currently based at the Australian National University—home to Marcus Hutter, Rachael Briggs and David Chalmers, amongst others—where I study formal epistemology through the Ph.B. (Hons) program.
I wasn’t always in such a stimulating environment—indeed I grew up in what can only be deemed intellectual deprivation, from which I narrowly escaped—and, as a result of my disregard for authority and despise for traditional classroom learning, I am largely self-taught. Unlike most autodidacts, though, I never was a voracious reader, on the contrary I barely opened books at all, instead preferring to think things over in my head; this has left me an ignorant person—something I’m constantly striving to improve on—but has also protected me from many diseased ideas and even allowed me to better appreciate certain notions by having to rediscover them myself. (case in fact, throughout my adolescence I took great satisfaction in analysing my mental mechanisms and correcting for what I now know to be biases, yet I never came across the relevant literature, essentially missing out on a wealth of knowledge)
For a long time I’ve aspired to join a cultural movement modelled on the principles of the Enlightenment and, to my eyes, LW, MIRI, CFAR, FHI and CSER are exactly the kind of community that can impact society through the use of reason. Alas, I was long unaware of their existence and when I first heard about the ‘Singularity’ I immediately dismissed it as the science fiction it sounds like, but thankfully this is no longer the case and I can now start making my modest contributions to reducing existential risk.
Lastly, I’ve never had my IQ measured properly—passing the Mensa admission test places me at least two SDs above the norm, but that’s hardly impressive by LW standards—and, as much as I value such an indicator, I’m too emotionally invested in my intelligence to dare undergo psychometric testing. (for what it’s worth, as a child my development was precocious—e.g. the development of my motor skills was superior to that of the subjects taking part in this well-known longitudinal study)
I’ve opened up a lot to you, LWers; I hope my only regret will be not having discovered you earlier...
Nice! What part of FAI interests you?
Too soon to say, as I discovered FAI a mere two months ago—this, incidentally, could mean that it’s a fleeting passion—but CEV has definitely caught my attention, while the concept of a reflective decision theory I find really fascinating. The latter is something I’ve been curious about for quite some time, as plenty of moral precepts seem to break down once an agent—even a mere homo sapiens—reaches certain levels of self-awareness and, thus, is able to alter their decision mechanisms.
Isn’t that a proper IQ test? At least it is where I live. Funny how we like to talk about things we’re good at. The real test is “time from passing test to time you leave to save the yearly fee.”
That’s awesome. Don’t miss Marcus’ lectures, such a sharp mind. Also, midi—Imperial March (used to be?) playing on his home page.
Yes and no; it’s some version of the Cattell, but it’s not administered individually, has a lowish ceiling and they don’t reveal your exact result.
For the record, you needn’t join in order to take their heavily subsidised admission test.
Is your info Aussie-specific? (EDIT: We’re not quite antipodes, but not far off, either) They did when I took it, ceiling 145, was administered in a group setting.
’Twas free even, in my case, some kind of promo action.
Yep I had Australia in mind, though it’s by no means the only country where it works that way. Also, various national Mensa chapters have stopped releasing scores—something to do with egalitarianism, go figure… -- and pardon my imprecise language, but by lowish I meant around 145 SD15. (didn’t mean it in a patronising manner, it’s just that plenty of tests have a ceiling of 160 SD15 and some, e.g. Stanford-Binet Form L-M, are employed even above that cutoff)
I do wonder if someone who’d score, say 155 on a 160 ceiling test would probably score 145 on a 145 ceiling test. You project an aura of knowledgeability on the subject, so I’ll just go ahead and ask you. Consider yourself asked.
I’m afraid I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable to answer that and I have no intention of becoming one of those self-proclaimed internet experts! (plus the rest of the internet, outside of LW, already does a good enough job at spreading misinformation)
“machine/emergent intelligence theorist” would not box you in as much. Friendliness is only one model, you know, no matter how convincing it may sound.
“machine intelligence researcher” is also much more employable—which isn’t saying much.
One can signal differently to make oneself more palatable to different audiences and, indeed, “machine/emergent intelligence theorist” is less confining, while “machine intelligence researcher” is more suitable for academia or industry; here at LW, however, I needn’t conceal my specific interests, which happen to be in AI safety and friendliness.