I had another thing planned for this week, but turned out I’d already written a version of it back in 2010
What is the post that this is referring to, and what prompted thinking of those particular ideas now?
antanaclasis
Karma: 110
I see it in a similar light to “would you rather have more or fewer cells in your body?”. If you made me choose I probably would rather have more, but only insofar as having fewer might be associated with certain bad things (e.g. losing a limb).
Correspondingly, I don’t care intrinsically about e.g. how much algae exists except insofar as that amount being too high or low might cause problems in things I actually care about (such as human lives).
Seeing the relative lack of pickup in terms of upvotes, I just want to thank you for putting this together. I’ve only read a couple of Dath Ilan posts, and this provided a nice coverage of the AI-in-Dath-Ilan concepts, many of the specifics of which I had not read previously.
My understanding of it is that there is conflict between different “types” of the mixed population based on e.g. skin lightness and which particular blend of ethnic groups makes up a person’s ancestry.
EDIT: my knowledge on this topic mostly concerns Mexico, but should still generally apply to Brazil.
That PDF seems like it is a part of a spoken presentation (it’s rather abbreviated for a standalone thing). Does there exist such a presentation? If so, I was not successful in funding it, and would appreciate it if you could point it out.
I similarly offer myself as an author, in either the dungeon master or player role. I could possibly get involved in the management or technical side of things, but would likely not be effective in heading a project (for similar reasons to Brangus), and do not have practical experience in machine learning.
I am best reached through direct message or comment reply here on Lesswrong, and can provide other contact information if someone wants to work with me.
The main post of what amounts of evidence different tests give is this one: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cEohkb9mqbc3JwSLW/how-much-should-you-update-on-a-covid-test-result
Also related is part of this post from Zvi (specifically the section starting “Michael Mena”): https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CoZitvxi2ru9ehypC/covid-9-9-passing-the-peak
Combining the information from the two, it seems like insofar as you care about infectivity rather than the person having dead virus RNA still in their body, the actual amount of evidence from rapid antigen tests will be higher than the amounts given in the first post. There’s a good case to be made that the sensitivity with respect to infectiousness would be 95% or more, though I am not aware of any research directly addressing this question.
This is a good piece of writing. It reminds me of another piece of fiction (somewhat happier in tone) which I cannot find again. The plot involves a woman trying to rescue her boyfriend from a nemesis in a similar AI-managed world. I think it involves her jumping out of a plane, and landing in the garden of someone who eschews AI-protection for his garden, rendering it vulnerable to destruction without his consent. Does anyone recall the name/location of this story?
Copyediting: “Miriam removed off her cornea too” should probably not have the “off”.
The part about hiring proofreading brought a question to mind: where does the operating budget for the lesswrong website come from, both for stuff like that and standard server costs?
Do you have any recommendations of such stories?
If you also consider the indirect deaths due to the collapse of civilization, I would say that 95% lies within the realm of reason. You don’t need anywhere close to 95% of the population to be fully affected by the scissor to bring about 95% destruction.
Sorry if I was ambiguous in my remark. The comparison that I’m musing about is between “fierce” vs “not fierce” nerds, with no particular consideration of those who are not nerds in the first place.
It’s interesting to read posts like this and “Fierce Nerds” while myself being much less ambitious/fierce/driven than the objects of said essays. I wonder what other psychological traits are associated with the difference between those who are more vs less ambitious/fierce/driven, other things being equal.
Nice poem! It’s cool to see philosophical and mathematical concepts expressed through elegant language, though it it somewhat less common, due to the divergence of interests and skills.
I’d say a lot of domains have reasonably-aligned incentives a lot of the time, but that’s a boring non-answer. For a specific example, there’s the classic case of how whenever I go to the grocery store, I’m presented with a panoply of cheap, good quality foodstuffs available for me to purchase. The incentives along the chain from production → store → me are reasonably well-aligned.
J&J (1 shot): mild tiredness the next day, no other symptoms.
Thanks for the summary. A minor copyediting note: the sentence «They begin as the caracter becomes uncontent with their situation, and» cuts off part way.
Is there anywhere that there are transcripts available for these conversations?
Indeed humans are significantly non-aligned. In order for an ASI to be non-catastrophic, it would likely have to be substantially more aligned than humans are. This is probably less-than-impossible due to the fact that the AI can be built from the get-go to be aligned, rather than being a bunch of barely-coherent odds and ends thrown together by natural selection.
Of course, reaching that level of alignedness remains a very hard task, hence the whole AI alignment problem.