The availability of emotionally-charged information is exactly what causes the issue. It’s easier to avoid temptations by setting rules for yourself ahead of time than by relying on your ability to resist them when they are right in front of you.
Anon User
Karma: 236
Nope, it’s now on you, not on them. Do not let shady people route their money through you; if you do, now people get to blame you. (Not saying it’s necessary a good thing, just what it is).
Make adjustments based on (1)
You cannot trust the hardware not to skew this adjustment in all kinds of self-srving ways. The point is that the hardware will mess up any attempt to compute this on object level, all you can do it compute at the meta-level (where the HW corruption is less pronounced), come with firm rules, and then just stick to them on object level.
The specific object-level algorithms do not matter—the corrupted HW starts with the answer it wants the computation to produce, and then backpropages it to skew the computation towards the desired answer.
So, a shady character approaches you and offers a deal that would make you $1K richer. You know that worst case scenario if you accept and they get caught is that you will just have to return the $1K, so you have no incentive to refuse to deal with them. No, you need something like 3x damages to properly disincentivise people from turning a blind eye.
Insufficiently tested, not ready to be placed in production. Test in a sandbox (city, or a small state) first.
For your last question—I think there are very few, if any, implications. Humans arguably occupy an extremely tiny region in the space of possible intelligent agent designs, while the orthogonality thesis applies to the space as a whole. If it was the case that goals and intelligence were correlated in humans, I’d expect it would be more reflective of how humans happen to be distributed in that space of possible designs, and not telling us much about the properties of the space itself.
Yes, unfortunately you have to figure out how to do all that when there are politicians they consider to be of their side screaming “look, zombies, zombies!!!” and the people you are trying to claim down suspect that you might also be a secret zombie...
As for our own world, I predict that as people see just how possible it is to find common ground and build on it, they will lose their susceptibility to the polarization efforts of politicians.
But to what extent the divisions are driven by genuine desire to address the issue(s) vs just a raw “us vs them” drives (think—divisions between fandoms of rival sports teams) where the actual issues are just an excuse to think “we are better then them”?
Think of a spectrum between a world with overabundant resources where trying to hoard them is stupid and “learn to be friends with everybody” is the right strategy vs a literal zombie apocalypse scenario where anybody even thinking of being friendly to the zombies endangers not only themselves, but their whole community, and hoarding is essential to survival. The reality of this world is that for quite a while resources tended to indeed become more abundant, resulting in “we are all in this together” mentality tending to win over “us vs them” one more often than not, but if somebody is truly in zombie apocalypse survival mode, there is fairly little you can do to convince them to embrace “zombies”.
You do not seem to be addressing the misaligned incentives—such as politicians often being incentivised to exaggerate and perpetuate divisions, rather than address them. Observe how in controversial areas (e.g. gun rights vs gun control) common sense reforms that have broad public support still tend to not happen.
Yes, in updating my family on today’s news I told them that P(WW3) increased in non-trivial ways today—based on mostly similar observations.
There is also a bit more to your point #2 - not only the West does not consider this annexation legitimate, but it also makes any scenario where the fighting stops with Russia maintaining control over these territories less acceptable to the West (and Ukraine), so the path to any pieceful resolution of the conflict just became that much narrower. And that in turn leaves more avenues open for things to escalate.
5b—yes, 2020 amendments to the constitution of Russian Federation included adding the following paragraph to article 67:
2.1. Российская Федерация обеспечивает защиту своего суверенитета и территориальной целостности. Действия (за исключением делимитации, демаркации, редемаркации государственной границы Российской Федерации с сопредельными государствами), направленные на отчуждение части территории Российской Федерации, а также призывы к таким действиям не допускаются.
Rough translation (I am a native Russian speaker born in Moscow leaving in US): 2.1. Russian Federation unsures the protection of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Actions (excluding delimitation and demarcation of the national border of Russian Federation with the neighboring states) aimed at alienation of a part of the territory of Russian Federation, or appeals for such actions are prohibited.
Note the “appeals” part in the end—it would make it nearly impossible for any Russian officials to even discuss the possibility of reversing the annexations...
P.S. and it’s ironic given the title of your post—seems you truly do not know the difference between noise and information, as you insist on discussing the noise, rather than trying to filter it out in pursuit of information.
If you plan to waste people’s time by insisting on pedantically addressing each disagreement, no matter how insignificant, to death, in chronological order, rather then following the more LW standard convention of making an effort to quickly arrive at the crux of any disagreement, announce it first in your post before people spend time engaging with your posts.
Sorry, I do not believe continuing this “conversation” is a productive use of my time.
I keep saying that your question does not make sense to me, and never claim that my interpretation must be universal, keep asking you to clarify your question, yet you do not.
So by “pattern matching” you mean simply task of finding the most closely matching pattern, not the methodology/class of algorithms of first finding the closest matching pattern, then doing the next step based on what that pattern is? If so, what does that even have to do with the minimization of prediction error?
I also do not understand why you insist on discussing the instrumental terminology disagreement, rather than addressing my bigger point that minimization of prediction errors could be done via models (implicit or explicit). As an example, babies learn to segment reality into objects and understand object permanence at a very young age, and many animals understand object permanence too. This is relevant because object permanence is a form of predictive rule that helps reduce prediction error. Over time, humans form more complex models of the world, some implicit, and some explicitly reasoned with, which help predict future sensory inputs.
“algorithms that minimize prediction error” = algorithms that perform the task of minimizing the prediction error.
Anyway, if you disagree on categorization, the point that there are indeed plenty of algorithms for minimization prediction error task, and many of them have nothing to do with pattern matching still suggests to me that your original question was a weird question to ask.
Two issues:
How good people’s lives under CCP today is not necessarily a good proxy for how good they would be in case CCP had assured worldwhile rule. Today, the possibility of loosing power and the example of liberal democracies is surely a moderating influence.
“Are there incentives for the CPP to do things that would make people’s lives unpleasant?” is not the right question because CCP is not a single entity subject to incentives—it is a group of individuals operating on their individual incentives that are never perfectly aligned with the organization. In fact, that’s pretty much the issue—the CCP form of government has a potential to suffer from significant internal misalignment of incentives that could result in highly undesirable outcomes in the future.
I used `` “instance” = category ″ notation, which I admit is not necessarily clear. Ok, let me restate to be more clear. “Isn’t minimizing prediction error a form of pattern matching?” Is in my opinion an ill-formed question due to a category (type) mismatch. “Minimizing prediction error” is a particular task, and “pattern matching” is a particular type of algorithms—that is, particular methods one can choose to use to accomplish a task, and “Isn’t [a particular task] a form of [methods for accomplishing the task]” are ill-formed because tasks and methods do not have the “a form of” relationship. The relationship they do have is that methods can be suitable (or not suitable) for a particular task, and, depending on a task, multiple different methods might be suitable—as it is indeed the case for the “minimizing prediction error” task.
Chances are, there are also good cat food ones, it’s just without being an expert yourself, it probably close to impossible to pick them out of the sea of bad ones. What do you think is preventing those good medical advice ones from being drowned in the sea of terrible ones? Presumably, bigger market provides about the same extra insentives for creation of misleading advice as it does for creation of good advice?
Suing somebody requires that they are still around, can be found, and have money. Nothing in your proposal would prevent unscrupulous people selling all kinds of miracle cures to desperate people. By the time somebody can get around to suing, the website is gone, the money is gone, and good luck finding whom to sue and recovering any money.
I am actually agreeing—but I am saying that the way we’d actually accomplish it is by relying on the meta-level as much as possible. E.g. by catching that the object-level conclusion does not reconsider with our meta-level principles, or noticing that it’s incongruent in some way.