Most or all of these vary by culture. In some places, it is expected that everyone will bring a non-dining friend to dinner, or not contribute to a wiki.
Things exist because of reasons. In a counterfactual world where everyone did X, maybe Y wouldn’t exist, but in reality very few people do X—usually because doing X is culturally frowned on, or requires more cash, brains, or neurodivergences than 67% of everyone.
Rice is the killer, though. Make sure you keep anything bad for the dishwasher out of the dishwasher.
With 2 hypothesis: die is fair/die is 100% loaded, a single roll doesn’t discriminate at all.
The key insight is that you have to combine Baysean and Frequentist theories. The prior is heavily weighted towards “the die is fair” such that even 3 or 4 of the same number in a row doesn’t push the actionable probability all the way to “more likely weighted” but as independent observations continue, the weight of evidence accumulates.
Cautiknary tale: There was a browser game about sustainable fishing that was supposed to show the value of catch shares, but the concept was only introduced at the end of the game, so after playing for 30 minutes I hadn’t even seen it (and had gotten bored with the mechanics)
Don’t wait too long into the play experience to have your player start interacting with yiur key concepts.
Isn’t that begging the question? If the goal is to teach why being optimistic is dangerous, declaring by fiat that an unaligned AI ends the world skips the whole “teaching” part of a game.
If you are tall, put your feet (instead of your bag) under the seat in front of you.
Every flight I’ve taken (circa 2000-2014) was either at 95%+ capacity, or was a 1 hour commuter leg with a half-full plane #misleadingAverages
Humans who are not concentrating are not general intelligences.
It’s a warning label, not a categorical imperative.
The warning explains why, so anyone who chooses to think about it can figure out what precautions to take, if they chose to disregard the warning.
Sometimes inexperienced people become parents and/or babysitters. Everyone has to learn about uneven microwave heating at some point—better from a written warning than a trip to the ER.
This feels like an incomplete thought. Maybe another editing pass could add some overall structure to the essay.
I think even with search capabilities, it wouldn’t accurately sort a set of real submissions (eg, if a high school English teacher have the assignment to thier ~150 students—with a note that they would be only mildly punished for plagiarism on this one assignment to ensure at least some actual plagiarized essays in the sample)
Accurately (ie 0% false positive and no more than 10% false negative) idenrify if one paragraph book reviews are plagiarized.
This result seems not surprising. Finding the most common result in a large dataset is explicitly what computers are good at, and people are not good at. That’s kind of why we invented computers. There is little value in knowing that 70% of the time the sentence is
“Now, the developer is planning for phase 2 trials” and not
“Phase 2 trials are the next step”
“Now the developer, [name], is planning phase 2 trials”
“Now trials enter phase 2″
Or any other variations. Our understanding is at the sentence level, and based on a tiny and biased sampling from the possible set of source data.
I feel like there is some vocabulary confusion in the genesis of this post.
“Reward” is hard coded into the agents. The Dinosaurs of Jurrasic Park (spoiler alert) were genetically engineered to lack iodine. So, the trainers could use iodine as a reward to incentives other behaviors because be definition the dinos valued iodine as a terminal value.
In humans Seratonin and Dopamine bonding to appropriate brain receptors are DNA-coded terminal values that inherently train us to pursue certain behaviors (eg food, sex).
An AI is, by definition, going to take whatever actions maximize its Reward system. That’s what having a Reward system means.
“Divisibility” is meaningless. Your accounting ledger can use however many decimal places are desired. And unless price tags are denominated in a currency, it doesn’t matter if I have 1,000,000 yen or .0000001 BTC.
And if price tags are written in a currency, it helps to have common items cluster in a clean set of values, preferably near 1, but Xthousand or Xmillion or Xhundreths or Xthousandths etc. can also work.
To be fair, we did have animals that served the purpose of computers. We even called them computers—as in, people whose job it was to do calculations (typically Linear Algebra or Calculus or Differential Equations—hard stuff).
The example that springs to mind is the 19th century US. And what they did was conquer and drive off (or kill off) the existing residents west of the Mississippi to make room for the new immigrants.
It can just be a random number that is a number and not, say, a telephone dialing pattern or PIN. But it can’t be a number with relevant context.
So if you’re selling a used car, mention big numbers without meaningful context like “they made 123,456 of this model year.” But if you mention the Milage, that has a “slot” I the buyer’s brain, and won’t be used as an anchor for the price.
In the Rich Dad/Poor Dad frame, some people, when they have money, spend that money multiple times (eg, with a bank balance of $500 they charge up $300 on thier credit card, and withdraw $300 in cash, and commit to a monthly $20 subscription box, and plan a party for next month that will cost $300).
No, I don’t remember exactly where on LW I saw it—just wanted to aknowledge that I was amplifying so.eone else’s thoughts.
My college writing instructor was taken aback when I asked her how to cite something I could quote, but didn’t recall from where, but her answer was “then you can’t use it” which seemed harsh. There should be a way to aknowledge plagiarism without knowing or stating who is being plagiarized—and if the original author shown up, you’ve basically pre-conceded any question of originality to them.
I don’t know that anyone has done the studies, but you could look at how winners of large lotteries behave. That is a natural example of someone suddenly gaining a lot of money (and therefore power). Do they tend to keep thier previous goals, amd just scale up thier efforts, or do they start doing power-retaining things? I have no idea what the data will show—thought experiments and amecdotes could go either way.
I saw this note in another thread, but the just of it is that power doesn’t corrupt. Rather,
Evil people seek power, and are willing to be corrupt (shared cause correlation)
Being corrupt helps to get more power—in the extreme statement of this, maintaining power requires corruption
The process of gaining power creates murder-ghandis.
People with power attract and/or need advice on how and for what goal to wield it, and that leads to mis-alignment with the agents pre-power values.