Beck is a Mormon, and Mormons generally seem a lot friendlier to transhumanist-type ideas than standard Christians.
albeola
I see it as being like the Chuck Berry scene in Back to the Future.
Please crack down earlier, harder, and more often. Nobody is going to die from it. Higher average comment quality will attract better commenters in a virtuous circle. There’s no excuse for tolerating the endless nonsense that some commenters post, and those enabling them by responding to them should stop.
instead of covering pending legislation or the impact it could have on your life
If “impact on your life” is the relevant criterion, then it seems to me Wong should be focusing on the broader mistake of watching the news in the first place. If the average American spent ten minutes caring about e.g. the Trayvon Martin case, then by my calculations that represents roughly a hundred lifetimes lost.
It’s bs to die.
Some people might see the descriptions below as sappy or silly, and that’s a small loss that I’m happy to take; these songs (and emotions) have really improved my thinking and made me stronger, and if other people can more easily and powerfully achieve the same results by having this tool from the beginning, then I want to do what I can to make this tool available.
I appreciate your thinking here, but I’m worried that this is just going to turn into a thread where people list random songs they like. I mean, if “a cool love song” qualifies...
If emotional responses to songs are substantially personal in nature, it might be more interesting to discuss what mix of emotions most helps motivation, so everyone can solve their own optimization problem. For my brain, I don’t think it’s straightforwardly the case that making it emotionally appreciate the existence of good and bad things propels it to good actions. (At least on shorter time scales. On longer time scales, it gets really hard to tell what works and what doesn’t.)
Ironically, it appears the new algorithm is frequentist.
if you are seeking lowest complexity description of your input, your theory needs to also locate yourself within what ever stuff it generates somehow (hence appropriate discount for something really huge like MWI)
It seems to me that such a discount exists in all interpretations (at least those that don’t successfully predict measurement outcomes beyond predicting their QM probability distributions). In Copenhagen, locating yourself corresponds to specifying random outcomes for all collapse events. In hidden variables theories, locating yourself corresponds to picking arbitrary boundary conditions for the hidden variables. Since MWI doesn’t need to specify the mechanism for the collapse or hidden variables, it’s still strictly simpler.
(I may try emailing Jaan Tallinn to ask him myself, depending on how others react to this post).
It seems like that might carry some risk of making him feel like he was being bugged to give more money, or something like that. Maybe it would be better to post a draft of such an email to the site first, just in case?
There’s a difference between thinking as if dimensions are linked together, and thinking as if there’s “some cosmic niceness built into the universe that makes everything improve monotonically along every dimension at once” (emphasis mine). Switching between attacking moderate and extreme versions of the same claim is classic logical rudeness.
But there isn’t some cosmic niceness built into the universe that makes everything improve monotonically along every dimension at once.
Who believes this?
Is any of it transmissible? If not, is the reason why it isn’t transmissible transmissible? Do your reasons carry over to other people’s situations?
The “FAR” keeps pushing me into far mode and then the red color keeps pulling me back into near mode. It’s like a Stroop task!
such measures are very damaging
Why?
I was assuming you’d see both colors as the same. Then a zebra crossing would just look like an ordinary stretch of road. That wouldn’t kill you. What would kill you is to see an ordinary stretch of road as a zebra crossing. If that were to happen, though, it definitely wouldn’t be at the next zebra crossing.
Doesn’t feel the same to me. One is adjective noun, the other is noun noun. It affects the intonation. “I’m a blue CAR person” vs “I’m a CLOWN car person”.
Has this actually been working?
Apologies — I should have taken reinforcement into account and noted that the new algorithm is probably still a lot better than the previous one.
It may or may not be eloquent, but it sure as hell is not a formulation of Aumann’s Agreement Theorem.