“V jbefuvc fngna naq V’z zneevrq.” ?
One more thing you might want to consider are vaccine certificates.
Where I live certificates are valid for a year and booster shots renews a certificate. Also where I live one becomes eligible for a booster shot 6 months after final vaccine dose. So if one gets booster shot ASAP then one gets 18 months of valid certificate. If one delays booster shot until the last moment then one gets 24 month of a valid certificate.
And valid certificate is very useful over here so there is a real trade off between making one safer against infection vs making more actions available in the future.
I think it kind of sucks that this is a tradeoff one has to consider.
I have only a very vague idea what are different reasoning ways (vaguely related to “fast and effortless “ vs “slow and effortful in humans? I don’t know how that translates into what’s actually going on (rather than how it feels to me)).
Thank you for pointing me to a thing I’d like to understand better.
I was thinking that current methods could produce AGI (because Turing-complete) and they can apparently good at producing some algorithms so they might be reasonably good at producing AGI.
2nd part of that wasn’t explicit for me before your answer so thank you :)
>Which is basically this: I notice my inside view, while not confident in this, continues to not expect current methods to be sufficient for AGI, and expects the final form to be more different than I understand Eliezer/MIRI to think it is going to be, and that theAGI problem (not counting alignment, where I think we largely agree on difficulty) is ‘harder’ than Eliezer/MIRI think it is.
Could you share why you think that current methods are not sufficient to produce AGI?
After reading Discussion with Eliezer Yudkowsky on AGI interventions I thought about the question “Are current methods sufficient to produce AI?” for a while. I thought I’d check if neural nets are Turing-complete and quick search says they are. To me this looks like a strong clue that we should be able to produce AGI with current methods.
But I remembered reading some people who generally seemed better informed than me having doubts.
I’d like to understand what those doubts are (and why there is apparent disagreement on the subject).
First I’ll echo what many others said. You need to rest so be careful to not make things worse (by not resting properly and as a result performing worse at work / school / whatever you do in your “productive time”).
That said. If you feel like you’re wasting time then it’s ok to improve that. Some time ago I felt like I was wasting a big chunk of my time. What worked for me was trying out a bunch of things.
Doing chores. Cooking, cleaning my apartment, replacing my clothes with new ones, maintaining my car. Learning how to get better at chores, in a low effort way. I watched a bunch of youtube videos about how to clean better, how to do laundry better, a ton of recipes. I tried some of those (maybe 1% which looked like it’s the least effort / most fun). I like having comfortable clothes, clean apartment, working car. I like some food I can cook better than anything I can buy. So sometimes when I feel tired I enjoy doing chores (since I’m doing them for myself, nobody is forcing me to do them, I can stop doing them whenever I feel like it they are slightly pleasant (very different from when I was doing them on somebody else schedule)).
Reading blogs, watching educational videos. I count things like “videos about game exploits”  cooking videos , urban planning related videos as educational videos. I count reading blog posts about history or analysing logistics of Lord of the Rings as good things to read.
Light exercise. I like walking and going on walks helps me a lot with staying healthy.
Things you’ll enjoy while you’re resting are probably different than those I enjoy so I’d just try a bunch of things which sound like you might like them and see what sticks.
 They’re fun examples of things working as implemented and very much not working as intended.
 I never cook most of them but they’re often fun to watch and sometimes I find something I want to try.
 Also fun to watch and I think they help me understand better why I like some places and make it easier to pick a nice place to live.
 Because they’re taking ideas seriously and it’s helps me with learning to notice when things don’t make sense.
Actually, this is heavily criticized by almost anyone sensible in the field: see for example this post by Nate Soares, director of MIRI.
The link is broken. Did you mean to link to this post?
I too want to say that my dentist never even suggested getting an x-ray during a routine check up.
I’ve had a dental x-ray once but it was when looking into a specific problem.
I didn’t have any cavities in years. Back when I had cavities dentist found them by looking at my teeth no x-ray needed.
The description doesn’t fully specify what’s happening.
Yovanni is answering questions in form of “Did X win the lottery”. And gives correct answer 99% of the time. In that case you shouldn’t believe that Xavier won the lottery. If you asked the question for all the participants you’d end up with list of (in expectation) about 10′000 people for which Yovanni claimed they won the lottery.
Yovanni is making 1 claim about who won the lottery. And for questions like that Yovanni gives correct answers 99% of the time. In that case Phil got it and probability that Xavier won is 99%.
Also I think it’s better to avoid using humans in examples like that and try to use something else / not agenty. Because humans can strategically lie (for example somebody can reach very high accuracy in statements they make by talking a lot about simple arithmetic operations. If they later say you should give them money and will receive 10x as much in return then you shouldn’t conclude that there is 99+% chance this will work out and you should give them a lot of money).
You’re ignoring that with probability 1/4 agent ends up in room B.n that case you don’t get to decide but you get to collect reward. Which is 3 for (the other agent) guessing T, or 0 for (the other agent) guessing H.
So basically guessing H is increasing your own expected reward at the expense of the other agent’s expected reward (before you actually went to a room you didn’t know if you’ll be an agent which gets to decide or not so your expected reward also included part of expected reward for agent which doesn’t get an opportunity to make a guess).
There wasn’t an elegant way to set the specific times I wanted my computer to shut down.
You could change the script to check the time and configure cron to run it every 30 minutes, all day.
H=$(date +%H)if [ $H -gt 8 ] || [ $H -lt 22 ]; then # Don't try to shut down exitfi# Script to try to shut down goes here
It seems I misunderstood the level of English pronaunciaction you’re at and the level you’re aiming for. Could you clarify?
What I wrote in my comment is what made me comfortable with speaking in English. I got some compliments for my English later and some surprised answers when I said I wasn’t a native speaker (which I count as weak and strongish evidence respectively for being good at spoken English). Im not sure I did much else but I might be able to write how I leveled up if I know for which level up you’re looking (in case you read but don’t reply: most likely the answer is practice(prefferably in a way that rewards you of it self)).
Upboat for recommendation that I think wouldn’t work for me but looks like it would work for many other people. It’s always interesting to see those (at least for me ;) ).
I guess this depends a lot on what kind of person you are. What worked for me was:
talking to people who don’t know my native laguage. To do it I had to speak clearly enough to be understood. And I was interested in those people which madeit easier for me to put a bit of effort to make my pronaunciaction clear. Go on vacaction with people from other nations. Go to events where you can talk to foreigners. Those kinds of things.
listening to English. Watching movies, listening to podcasts, …
Basically exposing myself to spoken English in ways that were rewarding on their own.
I think there is no reason to expect a single meaning of the word. You did a good job in enumerating uses of ‘abstraction’ and finding its theme (removed from specific). I don’t understand what confusion remains though.
A link/ googleable phrase for KonMarie, phrase?
I kept on reading and wanted to check your numbers further (concrete math I could do in my head seems correct but I wanted to check moar) but I got lost in my tiredness and spreadseets. If you’re interested in feedback on the math you’re doing.. smaller steps are easier to verify. For example when you give the formula for P(D|+) in order to verify it I have to check the formula, value of each conditional probability (including figuring out formula for each of those), and the result at the same time.
It would be much easier to verify if you wrote down the intermediate steps (possibly simplifying verification from 30 minutes of spredsheet munching to a few in-head multiplications).
I’m pretty sure you got math wrong here:
O(D:¬D), read as the odds of dementia to no dementia, is the odds ratio that D is true compared to the odds ratio that D is false. O(D:¬D)=3:1 means that it’s 3 times as likely that somebody has dementia than that they don’t. It doesn’t say anything about the magnitude of the probability, so it could be small, like 3% and 1%, or big, like 90% and 30%.
P(D or ¬D) = 1 (with P=1 one either has dementia or doesn’t have it) and P(D and ¬D) = 0 (probability of having dementia and not having it is 0), so if O(D:¬D)=3:1 then P(D) = 75% and P(¬D) = 25%.
I mean in your examples.. if :P(D) = 3% and P(¬D) = 1% then what happens in other 96+% of cases (when patient neither has dementia nor doesn’t have it)? If P(D) = 90% and P(¬D) = 30% what is the state of the 20+% of patients who both have dementia and don’t have it?
I’m half way through the article and it’s been an interesting read so far but I got to this sentence:
> But that is the trouble: we have no way to tell which traditions are adaptive and which are merely drift.
The article (so far) didn’t provide evidence for that. I’d even say that the article provides some evidence against this claim. It describes a bunch of traditions, identifies them as useful, and explains why they’re useful. I thik there are exaples of traditions that people identified as useless (or harmful). Like using torture to extract confessions (I hope this is an example old enough to not be controversial).
So far my impression is that the article makes a good case for “distinguishing useful traditions is hard” and provides a few examples of traditions for which reasons why they’re good require way more knowledge than people executing those traditions have. Still saying it’s impossible seems wrong.
On the other hand pointing out that we might invent a wrong explanation for a tradition (removing bitternes from manioc) and screw up the clean up process is a good point.
so i kinda expected those. so do you know of any evidence that people’s minds where changed significantly or mostly due to debate/discussion? polls? surveys? ???
If debate / discussion doesn’t actually change people minds then it’s totally safe to let anyone defend whatever nonsense they want, they’re not going to change anyones mind anyway.