Not really an experienced player of the relevant games, but I personally have turned down an obvious sex invitation with someone who I was otherwise interested in because too little conversation (and don’t regret this choice). I am not very interested in sex with someone who I can’t have a good conversation with. I feel like a lot of the intrigue of an intimate encounter is conversational intimacy. I’ve never experienced the chat at party → sex pipeline, however. Only [chat online for multiple months]->sex.
abramdemski
Karma: 21,043
Evolution & Freedom
I also don’t believe that insider trading is immoral. Insider trading increases the accuracy of the stock prices available to the public, which is the public good that equity trading provides. For this reason, prediction markets love insider trading. The reason it’s illegal is to protect retail investors, but why do they get privileged over everyone else? Another reason insider trading is immoral is that it robs the company of proprietary information (if you weren’t a limb of The Company, you wouldn’t know the merger is happening). That’s fair, but in that case doing it officially for The Company should be allowed, and it’s not. In this example ChatGPT arguably helped steal information from LING, but did so in service of the other company, so I guess it’s kind of an immoral case—but would be moral if LING is also insider-trading on it.
The problem with insider trading, in my view, is that someone with an important role in the company can short the stock and then do something really bad that tanks the value of the company. The equilibrium in a market that allows insider trading involves draconian measures within the companies themselves to prevent this sort of behavior (or else, no multi-person ventures that can be publicly traded).
This is an instance of the more general misalignment of prediction markets: whenever there’s something on a prediction market that is quite improbable in ordinary circumstances but could be caused to happen by a single actor or a small number of people, there’s profit to be made by sewing chaos.
Market Truth
all the relationships between components, etc, I made “explicit”
Is there a typo here? “are made explicit” perhaps?
or that there is some set of rules such that following those rules (/modifying the expression according to those rules) is guaranteed to preserve (something like) the expression’s “truth value”?
That’s correct. More generally (since the concept also applies to noun phrases) guaranteed to preserve its “value” whatever type that may be. This “value” is something like what-it-points-at, semantic reference.
Informality
Market Logic II
Yep, will fix.
Market Logic I
(Also it’s kinda iffy that weak disjunction is a stronger statement than strong disjunction...)
Yeah! I’m just going with what Wikipedia said there (unless I’ve made an error), but I had the same thought.
Fixed!
Not sure exactly what you’re getting at? I suppose you’re imagining extending the sequence to ordinal values? We can do this, sure, and still can have the same issue with sup/inf not being well-defined.
Fixed!
I think for Yablo’s Paradox, real truth values are adequate; you just assign 1⁄2 to everything.
Infinitesimally False
Sahil’s version of FGF makes many empirical predictions. In the spring of this year, we’re going to focus on listing them, so there’ll be a better answer to your question. In the context of the OP, one such prediction is that sim-Abram will have difficulty engaging in the outside world, even with some contact with real-Abram (but obviously this prediction isn’t very near-term).
With respect to your specific concern, I have a similar worry that Sahil’s FGF won’t be readily falsified by practical autonomy experiments. Full FOOM-level autonomy requires AI to replace the whole global economy; anything less will still involve “dependence on humans”.
However, it also seems plausible to me that Sahil’s FGF would make some falsifiable prediction about near-term performance on Vending-Bench 2.
Thanks, fixed!
No disagreement with the broad statements, but I note that your words do not particularly register the point that good conversation itself might be a turnon and lack thereof a turnoff? IE your post presents a puzzle: what’s with the banter → sex thing? I’m suggesting that many people might want to talk first as an inherent preference. Sure, there might be ways around that, but you weren’t asking for something with no loopholes, you were asking about the banter → sex thing.