What you need to do is get really good at it so you can use biases subtly, and them make it so there’s a certain chance that you get “No bias”. That way, you’ll find out what your real biases are.
DanielLC
You are smart enough to tell that 8 pebbles is incorrect. Knowing that, will you dedicate your life to sorting pebbles into prime-numbered piles, or are you going to worry about humans? How can the pebble-sorters be so sure that they won’t get an AI like you?
Nobody’s arguing that a superintelligent AI won’t know what we want. The problem is that it might not care.
Zoophilia is perfectly fine.
Columbus’s “genius” was using the largest estimate for the size of Eurasia and the smallest estimate for the size of the world to make the numbers say what he wanted them to. As normally happens with that sort of thing, he was dead wrong. But he got lucky and it turned out there was another continent there.
Eliezer three-boxes on Newcomb’s problem.
He bought the present ox along with the future ox. He could have just bought the present ox, or at least a shorter interval of one. This is known as “renting”.
Levels are an attribute of the map. The territory only has one level. Its only level is the most basic one.
Let’s consider a fractal. The Mandelbrot set can be made by taking the union of infinitely many iterations. You could think of each additional iteration as a better map. That being said, either a point is in the Mandelbrot set or it is not. The set itself only has one level.
There’s a mathematical law about this. If you split something into groups, there will always be a dividing line. Move it within epsilon, and it crosses the line.
Whether or not they’re guilty may be beyond resonable doubt without whether or not its beyond resonable doubt being beyond reasonable doubt.
For example, if we define “reasonable doubt” to be < 99% chance of guilt, then if you think there’s a 99% chance of them being guilty, you’re pretty sure they’re guilty, but there’s about a 50% chance of them being convicted, based on whether the jury considers it slightly more likely or slightly less likely.
My immediate reaction was “It linked you to a youtube video?”
You’re ignoring the probability of succeeding at something else. If you’re still doing this, it’s zero. If you give up, it’s not.
Of course, that can also be considered a cost of failure, in which case you didn’t ignore it.
Edit: This is equivalent to counting opportunity cost as a cost of failure that’s not a cost of giving up, so maybe you weren’t ignoring it.
Why do Africans deserve so much less than Americans? Why did people in the past deserve so much less than current people? Why do people with poor parents deserve less than people with rich parents?
It seems interesting that people are just barely competent enough to drive. Maybe it’s just that they drive as fast as they can. If we were more competent, we’d drive fast enough that we’d crash if we were drunk. If we were less competent, we’d drive slow enough that we wouldn’t crash unless we were drunk.
I’d be happy with that.
Until we do, I’m not eating meat.
Necronimicon Light: 95% likely not to drive you insane.
I think the organ market should be legal. The arguments against it are far to weak to justify so many people dying.
Because the ones that have addition and multiplication are better?
No, it’s also mathematically true. He won’t change what he wants to believe.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
-- Barry Gehm
Personally, I think this one is more accurate:
Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don’t understand it.
Voldemort’s greatest fear is death. Death’s greatest fear is Harry Potter.
She initially got a fail grade for dying, but then Professor Quirrell let her retake the test.