madhatter

Karma: 68

madhatter 27 Jan 2017 0:42 UTC
2 points
in reply to: morganism’s comment on: new study finds performance enhancing drugs for chess
I’m not surprised. But I also don’t see much utility from this study; most people already believe that coffee helps them focus.

madhatter 27 Jan 2017 19:17 UTC
4 points
in reply to: Benquo’s comment on: new study finds performance enhancing drugs for chess
Actually, as a tournament player I feel I can help explain the slowness:

The article suggests that this isn’t due to increased computational speed or focus, but I think that’s wrong. Playing slowly doesn’t imply thinking slowly. In a chess game, you have a certain amount of time overall, and often when the position is very complicated players will spend half an hour delving into variations and sub-variations. If it’s hard to concentrate, they may just rely on low-calc alternatives, and play faster.

madhatter 9 Feb 2017 1:35 UTC
2 points
on: Stupid Questions February 2017
Thanks for this topic! Stupid questions are my specialty, for better or worse.

1) Isn’t cryonics extremely selfish? I mean, couldn’t the money spent on cryopreserving oneself be better spend on, say, AI safety research?

2) Would the human race be eradicated if there is a worst-possible-scenario nuclear incident? Or merely a lot of people?

3) Is the study linking nut consumption to longevity found in the link below convincing?

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2173094

And if so, is it worth a lot of effort promoting nut consumption in moderation?

madhatter 10 Mar 2017 21:47 UTC
2 points
in reply to: James_Miller’s comment on: [stub] 100-Word Unpolished Insights Thread (3/10-???)
I read somewhere NK is collapsing, according to a top-level defector. Maybe it’s best to wait things out.

madhatter 16 Mar 2017 2:12 UTC
0 points
on: Open thread, March 13 - March 19, 2017
Is neuroscience research underfunded? If so, I’ve been thinking more and more that trying to understand human consciousness has a huge expected value, and maybe EA should pay it more attention.

madhatter 16 Mar 2017 11:58 UTC
0 points
in reply to: MrMind’s comment on: Open thread, March 13 - March 19, 2017
Well, suppose it increases awareness of the threat of AGI, if we can prove that consciousness is not some mystical, supernatural phenomenon. Because it would be more clear that intelligence is just about information processing.

Furthermore, the ethical debate about creating artificial consciousness in a computer (mindcrime issues, etc.) would very shortly become a mainstream issue, I would imagine.

Superintelligence discussed on Startalk

madhatter19 Mar 2017 1:12 UTC

2 points

2 comments1 min readLW link

(www.startalkradio.net)

madhatter 21 Mar 2017 0:26 UTC
0 points
on: [Error]: Statistical Death in Damascus
So wait, why is FDT better than UDT? Are there situations where UDT fails?

madhatter 21 Mar 2017 22:28 UTC
1 point
on: Making equilibrium CDT into FDT in one+ easy step
Can someone explain why UDT wasn’t good enough? In what case does UDT fail? (Or is it just hard to approximate with algorithms)?
What links here?
- Comparison of decision theories (with a focus on logical-counterfactual decision theories) by riceissa (16 Mar 2019 21:15 UTC; 77 points)

madhatter 24 Mar 2017 23:47 UTC
0 points
on: [Humor] In honor of our new overlord decision theory acronym FDT...
This is brilliant

madhatter 25 Mar 2017 14:50 UTC
0 points
on: survey about biases in the investment context
Quick note: I put a 1 for the driving question because I don’t drive

madhatter 27 Mar 2017 12:22 UTC
3 points
on: Unethical Human Behavior Incentivised by Existence of AGI and Mind-Uploading
Let me also add that while a sadist can parallelize torture, it’s also possible to parallelize euphoria, so maybe that mitigates things to some extent.

madhatter 1 Apr 2017 8:50 UTC
1 point
on: “On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines”
This is fantastic

Net Utility and Planetary Biocide

madhatter9 Apr 2017 3:43 UTC

14 points

43 comments2 min readLW link

madhatter 9 Apr 2017 13:06 UTC
1 point
in reply to: username2’s comment on: Net Utility and Planetary Biocide
Thanks for your reply, username2. I am disheartened to see that “You’re crazy” is still being used in the guise of a counterargument.

Why do you think the net utility of the world is either negative or undefined?

madhatter 9 Apr 2017 23:14 UTC
3 points
in reply to: Yosarian2’s comment on: Net Utility and Planetary Biocide
Perhaps I was a bit misleading, but when I said the net utility of the Earth may be negative, I had in mind mostly fish and other animals that can feel pain. That was what Singer was talking about in the beginning essays. I am fairly certain net utility of humans is positive.

madhatter 10 Apr 2017 17:15 UTC
6 points
in reply to: gjm’s comment on: Net Utility and Planetary Biocide
Wow, that had for some reason never crossed my mind. That’s probably a very bad sign.

madhatter 11 Apr 2017 22:47 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: Open thread, Apr. 10 - Apr. 16, 2017
I agree there is a big danger of slipping down the free speech slope if we fight too hard against fake news, but I also think we need to consider a (successful) campaign effort of another nation to undermine the legitimacy of our elections as an act of hostile aggression, and in times of war most people agree some measured limitation of free speech can be justified.

madhatter 12 Apr 2017 17:44 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: Open thread, Apr. 10 - Apr. 16, 2017
No, at least not yet. That’s a good point. But Facebook is a private company, so filtering content that goes against their policy need not necessarily violate the constitution, right? I don’t know the legal details, though, I could be completely wrong.

madhatter 15 Apr 2017 22:03 UTC
0 points
on: Open thread, Apr. 10 - Apr. 16, 2017
I have said before that I think consciousness research is not getting enough attention in EA, and I want to add another argument for this claim:

Suppose we find compelling evidence that consciousness is merely “how information feels from the inside when it is being processed in certain complex ways”, as Max Tegmark claims (and Dan Dennett and others agree). Then, I argue, we should be compelled from a utilitarian perspective to create a superintelligent AI that is provably conscious, regardless of whether it is safe, and regardless whether it kills us humans (or worse), if we know it will try to maximize the subjective happiness of itself and the subagents it creates.

The above isn’t my argument (Sam Harris mentioned someone else arguing this) but I am claiming this is one reason why consciousness research is ethically important.