Definitely just missed it the first time around, my apologies.
This fixes the issue entirely, thanks!
I really like this feature, and will probably switch to reading on greaterwrong because of it. The only implementation choice I disagree with is the confirmation notification if you want to toggle it back on.
A reason to keep the confirmation would be to create a trivial inconvenience for people who are tempted to be biased by the Who and the karma value.
A reason to remove the confirmation is when I want to verify who is replying back to whom. Not the specific person’s name, just if B comments on A’s comment, and then someone comments on B, I’d like to toggle quickly to see if that someone is A or someone else.
From a basic understanding of Hutter’s paper that you linked, agents will not self-modify if it affects their utility function (because that plan produces less original utility).
Re-reading your post:
This isn’t a penalty “in addition” to what the agent “really wants”; u′A (and in a moment, the slightly-improved u′′A) is what evaluates outcomes.
Clearly states that the penalty is part of the utility function that the agent will “really want”
I think the confusing part is “Impact is change to our ability to achieve goals.”
This makes me think that “allowing itself to be put into a box” is high impact since that’s a drastic change to it’s ability to achieve its goals. This also applies to instrumental convergence, “seizing control”, since that’s also a drastic change to it’s attainable utility. This understanding would imply a high penalty for instrumental convergence AND shut-off (We want the first one, but not the second)
“Impact is with respect to the status quo, to if it does nothing” fixes that; however, changing your succinct definition of impact to “Impact is change to our ability to achieve goals relative to doing nothing” would make it less fluent (and less comprehensible!)
Would an AUP agent ever want to self-modify to get rid of it’s penalty and just keep it’s utility function?
I’m a little confused on my question: I’m not sure if this is included in the wireheading objection, the embedded agency flaw, or some third alternative.
I understand now! haha
My study time was a non-interrupted 1-3 hr block. This made it easier to get in the zone and have relevant details in my working memory.
Going for longer than that (4-6 hr), I’d predict I would need to take a walk outside and just think of nothing to let my subconscious do it’s thing. I haven’t done that more than once or twice this summer, so I’m not sure what would be normal for me.
TurnTrout has a lot more experience doing that than me, and he’d be a great resource for any of these type questions.
We actually have a discord server with several people studying miri-related materials if that’s something that interests you.
Thanks for the clarification!
I understand your first equation 3*30= 90 hr (3 hrs/day* 30 days = 90 hrs to complete a book). The second one is a bit confusing. 3*eff*90 = ~30 hours. (3 hrs/day * 1⁄9 efficiency * 90 ? = ~30 hours) Was the second 90 supposed to be 30 to make efficiency 30%?
I definitely think efficiency plays a huge role, and I’d say (Hours/day *days * efficiency = total actual hours for a 100% efficient person) would be my answer.
(hopefully) Related: an overall good frame to tackle this is focusing on increasing quantity and quality of time spent.
Taking time from other activities and put it in this.
Gradually building up to longer and longer times. (6-7 hours on a good day is fantastic, and I applaud you! So what about on average? 4-5 hours?)
Noticing why you stop. Does your mind want to quit? Are you physically tired or have tired eyes?
Making sure you have a good textbook.
Simply reading faster w/o losing comprehension (Imagining hypothetical “Gun to the head, read as fast as you can w/o losing comprehension for 5 minutes, you will be quizzed” might be a good exercise to play around with)
Not wasting time between activities (like going from one exercise to the next) but also!:
Knowing how to make use of your subconscious by letting your mind wander (I don’t have a gears-level model of this one yet, but I have intuitions that it’s important)
May I ask why you would like to compare study paces?
I’ll look into that course before I start, thanks for the recommendation!
I appreciate you explicitly stating that it was a lot to deal with. I was actually a bit embarrassed because I didn’t get as much done as I expected, so, again, thanks Raemon.
Reading: originally 3 hr. This changed to 0-3 hours depending on when I woke up in the mornings, which meant going to bed around 9-10, which meant making a habit of trying to fall asleep when I get in bed. I did try to read in the evenings as well, but my eyes would glaze over after working for the day.
Tensor flow: originally 2 hr. I dropped this after the first week due to work taking up 2.2x as much time as I initially predicted. I also felt like I wasn’t actually learning anything while going through Google’s tutorials, and TurnTrout convinced me to just learn the pre-reqs and theory of ML first.
AI-Safety reading: originally 1 hr. This became 1-3 hours depending on how interested I was in. I dropped this though after I moved 40 days ago due to habit changes and then simply forgetting! I really enjoyed it and it was a low-spoons activity for me.
Meditate: originally 1 hr. This became 0-1 hours depending on the day. I experimented with doing it at different times, but during my lunch break is probably the best for me at the moment.
Weekends are a different animal. If I had a free one & wasn’t experiencing emotional problems, I would tear into a book, meditate a lot, read AI papers, and just get a lot of reading on LW and SlateStarCodex done which was great! I really wish I didn’t have to work so that could be every day.
So to answer your question, I changed what I was doing after giving it a solid try and adjusting from there if I needed to. After doing that for a couple of months, I have a much better idea of how to do these types of things now.
I interpret that to mean “how many pages per day”/“How many chapters per week”/“How many books per month”. If that’s correct, then I would say I could (right now) learn a subject/book a month. Like I could read Linear Algebra Done Right in less than a month and Tao’s Analysis I & II in less than two months, while doing all of the exercises.
If I didn’t have to work, I would predict that I could half that time and finish one in less than 2 weeks.
If that wasn’t what you asked, please let me know!
In contrast, I really liked it written out (which makes picture integration natural) and I was surprised to find others having problems reading it. My vision is 20⁄50 the last time I checked if that’s relevant.
Thank you Jerry, I appreciate it
Thank you Raemon
We will not give up even on those who seem to be already gone, until it’s a certainty they can’t be brought back.
I had never even considered this as a possibility beyond cryogenics, but I’ve mulled over yours and Mitchell’s comments for a few days now, and that hypothesis is on my radar now, so thank you. Your quote above captures how I want to respond in light of that.
I very much appreciate your comment Mitchell. Your’s and Vanessa’s comment had both stated a possible option that I hadn’t considered before: bringing back those we’ve lost. It’s a low probability in my mind, but it’s at least in my hypothesis space now, so thanks.
The funeral was yesterday and I finally did get to be around people who were also mourning for him. It honestly really did help.
I’m also greatly encouraged and look forward to hearing how your own sprint went. Best of luck until then as well.