problem: this introduces social pressure and possible consequences( this person might recognize you in future and penalize you in the same way), part of the dictator game is that you don’t have to look the person who you’re splitting the cash with in the eye.
HungryHobo
Karma: 788
that’s… actually a really good idea.
somehow incentivising a rule of always citing a replication of an experiment would make a massive difference.
It was a product of its time. For a long time the shift had been towards larger states, bigger weapons of war technology had allowed more central authority.
Since then the shift has gone the other way. One person can carry a weapon which can blow the largest warship out of the water and significant weapons have become smaller and more accessible. Computing and crypto has given everyone capable the tools to speak privately if they really want it.
Some tech makes it easier for a small number of people to control a lot of people, some tech makes it harder.
A minor one I’d add.
It’s important to share cultural context with people, to make yourself part of their ingroup in various ways.
A simple way to do that is to pick some reasonably popular bands/groups who’s music you like and spend a modest amount of time becoming familiar with them. the band, their members and the music well enough that you can sing along with it.
it’s an investment of a few days plus listening to some music in the background.
Then when someone says “what music are you in to” you can answer with something reasonable. Even if it’s a band they don’t like themselves it’s better than “I’m not really into music”
Pure Democracy seems a poor fit for any system with EM’s.
Fortunatly any system with EM’s is likely to open up a much better alternative. One of the major problems with most forms of government is that the rulers come from such a different background to the ruled. Democracy or not. They’re likely to share few experiences.
But if you can create EM’s it’s likely you can create composite EM’s or trade memories.
Rather than electing a leader why not allow each conscious being to send some subset of their memories to be included in a fabricated representitive. Think your leader doesn’t “get” what it’s like to live on the breadline or to lose a child? Make your contribution the memories of the experience. Duplicates or similar experiences could be removed or merged.
Duplicate EM’s would have few different experiences so no matter how many times you copy yourself you’re still only drawing from the same pool of memories and as such wouldn’t be able to get more representation than a single person.
There seems to be the implicit assumption that superhuman AI will be some sort of sudden absolute thing.
why?
If I were to guess I’d say that the most likely course is one of gradual improvement for quite some time, more similar to the development of airplanes than the development of the atomic bomb.
if you handed modern bombers and the tech to support them to one of the sides in the first world war then you can be sure they’ve have won pretty quickly. And there was investment in flight and it was useful. but early planes were slow, fault prone, terrible as weapons platforms etc.
We might very well see AI develop slowly with roadblocks every few years or decades which halt or slow advancement for a while until some sollution is found.
I guess it’s down to whether you assume that the difficulty of increasing intelligence is exponential or linear.
If each additional IQ point(for want of a better measure) gets harder to add than the last then even with a cycle of self improvement you’re not automatically going to get a god.
We might even see intelligence augmentation keeping pace with AI development for quite some time.
Unless I’ve misunderstood this it isn’t an adversarial game.
you’re not trying to trick the predictor if you’re one boxing. if anything you want the predictor to know that with as much certainty as possible. wearing your heart on your sleeve is good for you.
For me I think part of the reason I’m so very very quick to commit to one boxing is the low improvement in outcomes from 2 boxing as the problem was presented on the wiki.
The wiki lists 1000 vs 1000,000.
If I was sitting across from Derren Brown or similar skilled street magician I’d say there’s much more than a 1 in a thousand chance that he’d predict that I’d one box.
If the problem was stated with a lesser difference, say 1000 vs 5000 I might 2 box in part because a certain payoff is worth more to me than an uncertain one even if the expected return on the gamble is marginally higher.
I see now.
the first description I came across with this had a huge difference between boxes A and B on the order of 1000 vs 1,000,000.
At that level there doesn’t seem much point even intending to 2 box, better to let the predictor have his good record as a predictor while I get the million. an improvement of an extra 1000 just isn’t convincing.
though restated with a smaller difference like 2000 in one box, 1000 in the other and the choice of 2 boxing for 3000 vs 2000 is more appealing.
I’ve read those arguments you link and they always seem to boil down to thin self referential definitions and using synonyms as if they’re explanations.
“For example, my concept of phenomenal ‘redness’ is grounded in the phenomenal quality of redness that I experience”
you might as well say that my concept of wibble is grounded in the wib quality of ble that I experience. it shares the same level of insigtfulness.
Not taking account of multiplicity.
Ideally you should plan exactly how you’re going to analyse the data before the experiment but in reality students muddle through a bit.
analyzing data in multiple ways is a big no-no if you’re just hunting for that elusive 0.05 P value to get it published.
It’s stupid and causes statisticians to tear their hair out(both the arbitrary requirement a lot of journals set and the bad stats by researcher) but it’s the reality in a lot of research.
Doing that can be compensated for as long as you keep track of what you tried and make that data available.
It’s even worse because often people, including experienced professors, delude themselves with bad stats and waste time and money chasing statistical phantoms because they went significance mining.
People are more afraid of things which could kill anyone at any time.
point to any particular natural disaster and the majority of people can either say that you’ll see it coming hours, days or weeks in advance or the majority are not subject to risk of that disaster.
Terrorism on the other hand could technically strike anyone, at any time.
people also give a weighting to human actions. if 1 person per day in a big city is killed in road accidents that’s no big deal. if one utterly random person a day is shot by a sniper the whole city will shut down.
I’m probably going to end up on a list for saying this might be possible.
Most evil thing I can think of?
I’ve not put much time into it but I’ll take a swing at it. My top candidate would probably be to use the million to set up DNA synthesis company making custom DNA sequences to sell to university labs and similar.
The company probably wouldn’t survive very long term as there’s established companies already in the field but there’s a good chance that it would allow you to leverage that million bucks to get more investment and most importantly leave you in a position where, once you have the equipment, you can synthesis your own sequences un-monitored. (hence why you wouldn’t just use the million to pay an existing company to do it)
It’d be a huge task but then you could synthesis the 180K bases of smallpox, building it up from small synthesized sections, culture it and release it into the human population through contaminated letters sent to many many unimportant people in every country in the world at once.
Make sure to leave a manifesto where you claim to have done it “for science” to smite the “unscientific” and commit suicide in a manner which leaves no body or proof that you’re dead so that there will be an eternal hunt for you and eternal fear of future attacks.
Hundreds of millions dead, one of the greatest achievements in human history reversed, economic turmoil across the globe, biotech and bio research probably permanently crippled, science itself demonized, blamed and hated.
I must apologize, I only skimmed the second half and took it as just being able to find somewhere there it wasn’t explicitly banned like sitting out on a barge in international waters.
So are you trying to find things which are bad but not so obviously bad to everyone that they’ve been banned? but it’s not really limited to any particular country but if you want to apply it everywhere then it would have to be legal in every country, even those where wearing hats in church is illegal?
Intentionally causing a crisis of trust would probably be a good cheap option, so a more complex version of this:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2936
but may not be totally legal everywhere because so many countries have vague catch-all laws like “causing an affray” or “inciting public worry”
A bigger danger is publication bias. collect 10 well run trials without knowing that 20 similar well run ones exist but weren’t published because their findings weren’t convenient and your meta-analysis ends up distorted from the outset.
That works for digging a ditch, not for writing a computer program or really anything covered by copyright or patents .
Lets say, for example, that there is some piece of software wanted by 1000 companies who would be willing to pay 50 cents each.
It’s also wanted by 10000 other entities without the resources to pay a notable amount.
It would cost our programmer $400 worth of time to make it so he could make it and sell it or make it and give it away.
The companies willing to pay would get angry if he took their money then also gave it away for free to everyone who had not paid so they make their offer of 50 cents each conditional on access being restricted to those who have paid.
After all, they don’t want their competitors getting it without having to pay and thus getting an advantage over them.
He could make it for free and give it away to everyone generating utility not just for the companies with 50 cents to spare but also for all the ones which don’t.
This also eliminates many of the transaction costs for the parties involved. the 1000 companies now don’t even have to pay for the bureaucracy needed to decide how much they’re willing to pay and to track the payments while the 10000 other entities without resources can get it easily.
Combining them can be invaluable.
For the first 2 not knowing the correct terms for a niche area can slow your progress or lead you to the least informed articles because you’re likely to use the same terms as an amateur journalist or writer talking about the subject.
3, simply asking a few simple questions on forums can significantly augment other searches by teaching you the correct terms and start you off in the correct node clusters.
Probably because almost every other safety decision in a cars design is focused on the occupants.
those reinforced bars protecting the passenger: Do you think they care if they mean that any car hitting the side of the car suffers more damage due to hitting a more solid structure?
They want to sell the cars, thus they likely want the cars priorities to be somewhat in line with the buyer. They buyer doesn’t care all much about the toddler in the other car except in a philosophical sense. They care about the toddler in their own car. The person is not the priority of the seller or the buyer.
In terms of liability it makes sense to try to make sure that the accident remains legally the fault of the other party no matter the number of deaths and the law rarely accepts intentionally harming one person who wasn’t at fault in order to avoid an accident and spare the lives of a car with 2 people who were at fault themselves.
Be wary of placing too much trust in that logic, that way lies homeopathy.
For the radiation thing there’s at least some evidence that humans can adapt to high background radiation but I’ve never seen any evidence that the reaction ever outweighs the exposure.
How do they “fail”
If autistic people get classed as non-humans then that’s a failure on the part of the assessing human beings and merely forms part of the baseline to which you are comparing the machines.
The humans are your control so that you can’t set silly standards for the machines. The humans can’t fail any more than the control rats in a drug trial can fail.