To me the biggest parallel I see in this to existing work is to that of program correctness. It is as hard IMHO to prove program correctness (as in: this program is supposed to sort records/extract every record with inconsistent ID numbers/whatever, and actually does) as it is to write the program correctly; actually, I think it’s harder. So I never pursued it. Now we see a really good reason to pursue it. And even w/ conventional, non-AI programs, we have the problem of precisely defining what we want done.
Astynax
Karma: 108
For me, the case for doing this has not sufficiently been made. I read two sets of arguments for it. On this page, essentially, “aging is the leading cause of death,” which is funny—like engagement is the leading cause of marriage—but more seriously: to attempt to abolish aging is largely about fighting death. Pointing out aging kills doesn’t take us anywhere until we’ve shown death needs to go.
On the linked page about “pro-aging trance,” it was that if I’m still asking that question, I must be in a trance, and that’s not exactly sound.
I don’t have convincing arguments for death that I’ve thought through. The ecosystem would collapse, but maybe we could prevent that by almost never having children, if we can figure a way to convince everyone. It used to be said that a new paradigm in science takes hold when all the old scientists die, but maybe we can make scientists more flexible. And more creative, as they say a new physicist (say) does all his important work in his 20′s. Anyway, it seems there are a lot of problems to address.
I think we can at least answer, why have 2 sexes rather than, 3, 4, or whatever.
Assuming the benefit of sex is to mix up genes with others’ (seems reasonable, as that’s what it does!),
In one generation 2 sexes mixes in 50% others’ genes to 3 sexes mixing in 66%; not a huge difference. In 4 generations, it’s 94% to 99%.
So the benefit of the extra sex isn’t huge, but the cost of getting the third may be (just as the cost of finding one mate can be high, esp. if you’re somebody’s prey and need to both be noticed and not be noticed at the same time).
Oops, just thought of this: he loves slurpy noises near his ears. Shouldn’t that be way too stimulating? It would be for me or anyone else I know! Seems autism is both about avoiding/muting stimuli and seeking them out.
My autistic child used to be terrified of the lawn mower, even if he was inside. We couldn’t use the mixer, the vacuum, or even the shower without him freaking out.
He went from terror to thinking these things were cool: if I cut the grass, he comes out to play nearby with his toy mower; he loves to vacuum. And—glory of glories—the shower is boring.
So I think for him at least, it’s a progression from WAY TOO MUCH to fascinating and fun to bo-ring.
This leads me to wonder: if it’s possible for a stimulus to be overwhelming but not too overwhelming, if exposure therapy might help rather than just making him freak. It’s worth a try.
Definitely getting that book. I wanted something to take me past Arendt’s book, which never really seemed to get to the banality of it all. Will check it out.
I never get them—not for two decades. I have very strong teeth and everything has been fine. But I was quie confident. If I had regular cavities I would get it done. YMMV.
Likelihood of cancer—quite low; cost of getting it—quite high.
Likelihood of cavities—higher; cost of getting them—lower.
It’s hard to figure small numbers times big numbers when you don’t really have either. :)
Looks like I don’t know how to do spoiler tags. Can’t find it on site, alas.
>!Certain math sequences that aren’t very useful, like, to get the next number add the digits in this one. Should often get down to something stable.
The pre-Hadean earth as postulated: form oceans, suck up the CO2 into rock, cool down till the oceans freeze, stop sucking up CO2 and eventually volcanoes spit out enough it melts the oceans, etc.
Social popularity of certain things like, say, socialism, individualism/conformity, bowdlerism/pornography, anything where if you get too much of it it either blows up or at least people like it less.!<
This is from Arm in Arm: A Collection of Connections, Endless Tales, Reiterations, and Other Echolalia. It’s a children’s book full of pictures suggesting logical paradox or infinite sequences.
Are the Schedule’s times in Eastern Daylight Time?
It’s kind of aside, but I think this about safety systems in general. Don’t give me a backup system to shut down the nuclear reactor if the water stops pumping; design it so the reaction depends on the water. Don’t give me great ways to dispose of a chemical that destroys your flesh if it touches you; don’t make the chemical to begin with. Don’t give me a super-strong set of policies to keep the function-gained virus in the lab; don’t make function-gained viruses. Wish they’d listened to that last one 3 years ago.
Admittedly it may be too late in a lot of ways. We can’t make it so if our civilization founders we can prevent mass starvation; not starving depends on modern farming. And we probably can’t make it so we can just pull the plug on AI if it starts going all Skynet: the companies or nations that don’t pull the plug may be able to bankrupt those that do. Sometimes survival of the fittest sucks.