Engineer at CoinList.co. Donor to LW 2.0.
ESRogs
Was just thinking the same thing.
Donating hours worked within a professional specialty and paying-customer priority, whether directly, or by donating the money earned to hire other professional specialists, is far more effective than volunteering unskilled hours.
What does “paying-customer priority” refer to in the above sentence? Is ‘paying’ being used as a verb or is “paying-customer priority” something that is being donated?
I would also like to follow the discussion on decision theory.
From 2006–2011, annual US inflation was close to 1% over that period and the net inflation was 9.25%.
If annual inflation was close to 1% then I would expect total inflation for the five-year time period to be on the order of 1.01^5-1, which is much less than 9.25%. Am I misunderstanding that sentence?
If the councils & troops are charged $1.20 for a box and the baker then pays 20 cents to GSUSA, you could change the arrangement to the baker having no license fee, charging $1 a box, and then GSUSA taking 20 cents. Everyone makes the same amount of money in the end, but suddenly no longer are ‘70% of proceeds staying in the local Girl Scout council’.
If the councils & troops keep the remaining $2.80 per box, how is that not still them getting 70% of proceeds, regardless of how the other $1.20 is divided up between the bakers and GSUSA?
It’s not clear in what way powerful humans/narrow AI teams “make SIAI’s work moot”. Controlling the world doesn’t give insight about what to do with it, or guard from fatal mistakes.
I think Holden is making the point that the work SIAI is trying to do (i.e. sort out all the issues of how to make FAI) might be so much easier to do in the future with the help of advanced narrow AI that it’s not really worth investing a lot into trying to do it now.
Note: for anyone else who’d been wondering about Eliezer’s position on Oracle AI, see here.
For some reason this one isn’t showing up for me here: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/tag/sequence_reruns/.
It sounds like you really want to be a writer...
It was these essays (The Visions of Sane Persons and Visualised Numerals), linked from the number form wikipedia article.
I think the cultural differences thing was just my conjecture, because the recorded number forms (as well as my own) often had turns at twelve and then subsequently at the decades, which led me to believe that they were probably based on the cadence of counting in English (one, two, three… ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen… nineteen, twenty, twenty-one… twenty-nine, thirty, thirty-one, etc.). Whereas a Spanish speaker might be likely to develop a number form with a turn at 15 instead of 12, and a Chinese speaker to develop one with turns just at the decades.
It’s interesting that you put history on there. I also have a history timeline that’s separate from my generic number line, but I don’t think I’d seen that mentioned before in what I’d read about spatial-sequence synesthesia (see my reply to jsalvatier).
At some point I realized I had a line like this for just about any sequence of things I’ve ever thought of. Besides the ones you’ve mentioned: days of the week, months of the year, grades in school, etc.
My sequence lines are not all totally unique though. For example, on the history timeline the years within a century just follow the pattern of the numbers from 1 to 100, and for me minutes/seconds and temperatures fall on the normal number line.
Yeah, mine have that substructure-available-on-zoom too. It seems pretty clear that our brains are doing the same thing here. Out of curiosity, do you feel that you read more quickly or more slowly than others? I’m a very slow reader—my silent reading speed is about on par with my reading-aloud speed, and I’ve sometimes wondered if this is connected at all to my tendency to visualize things, or is completely unrelated.
On the other hand, I think having a detailed timeline helps me to remember when events took place. I’ve noticed on movie rounds at pub trivia that I’m often able to make more use than some of my teammates of the year a movie was released, if that information was given, to rule out possible answers—not because I know the exact dates of when many movies came out, but because if I’m familiar with the film at all, then I have a general sense of where it should go on my timeline. (Disclaimer: it’s quite possible that this is all just confirmation bias on my part.)
Minor editorial comments:
Consider expanding WBE the first time it is mentioned. I’m a regular reader and couldn’t think of what it referred to until I searched the site.
I believe “ok” should be either “OK” or “okay”.
It sounded like she was already coming down on the side of the good being good because it is commanded by God when she said, “an innate morality that seems, possibly, somewhat arbitrary.”
So maybe the dilemma is not such a problem for her.
Who are you?
I’m pretty sure a larger than normal fraction of people that rule us are sociopaths.
What makes you think that? I’d have guessed that a lot of the non-optimal decisions made by people in various positions of power are the result of normal human biases mixed with whatever incentives pertain to their situation.
Your reply makes me think that you interpreted the ‘you’ in “You would invoke …” as you—XiXiDu, so it sounded like Incorrect was accusing you of being hypocritical. I think they might have just meant ‘one’, though, which would make their reply less of a snide remark and more of an (attempted) helpful correction.
I’m guessing you didn’t read it that way because Incorrect was attempting to correct the way Leverage Researcher was using that argument, but you didn’t identify with the Leverage Researcher character in your dialogue. So when Incorrect posted that as a reply to you, you thought they were saying that you yourself are just as bad as your character. I’m guessing about what’s going on in two different people’s brains though, so I could easily be wrong.
Someone who will be there. Looking forward to meeting you. :)
Those all, or at least mostly, sound like bad developments that we’d be better off without, but I don’t think they fall under the category of what Luke is getting at.
He’s talking about limitations that have always been true of humans (i.e. we can only live on earth, we’re mortal), but that might not be true anymore or for much longer, rather than the more mundane limits on freedom (primarily in the U.S.) that have been imposed on us by bad laws or improper regulation.
I’m guessing that discrepancy is why you got the downvotes. Hope you’ll stick around though!
Like shorting?