Expression. Civics. Game design. http://aboutmako.makopool.com
I greatly respect the Shiba as it is clearly possesses a will of its own.
It is one of the most agenty dogs.
For example, some Shiba Inus will emit a light Shiba scream simply if you give them the softest of “pinches” or pull on their collar in a way they don’t like.
Most dogs just wont tell you when you’re doing something they don’t like very much, like this. It’s much better when our friends are honest about what they want, especially our animal friends, whose minds are the hardest for us to read.
Update: I find that I’m still using “construction”.
I note that it would agree will with the word “construct”. Most social constructs are things that are true because we believe in them, subjunctively sustained. There’s a bit of a negative vibe on “construct”, but it’s so neurotic there’s no way it can survive and mostly it’s just trying to say “we can change it! It’s our choice!” which is true.
It doesn’t look like a permanent curtailment if humans are still living and the artifacts of the magic of old are still there to inspire them.
This would be much stronger if there weren’t a surviving human figure (who can somehow afford to feed a horse, no less!) in the scene. I’m not sure this is what extinction risk looks like at all
It’s about degrees of understanding, of course, but it should be mentioned that our lives will always be greatly enriched by the bizarre fact that we can use technologies we have no understanding of, and there is no such test. No one knows how a pencil is made. We float every day over an inscrutable river of magic maintained by a people we’ve never met.
I sometimes wonder if this is the reason advanced ancient technology is such a popular theme in contemporary fantasy media. All of the technology we interact with might as well be a product of some lost civilization, because we know that we will never meet most of the people who know how to make it all, if it breaks we can’t fix it, and we know that their tradition is separate from ours and traced back centuries into the history of science and technology that we might never learn. If we did meet them, we know that we wouldn’t have time to learn the whole craft from them. They are, in a sense, necessarily absent from our lives. We only see their artifacts.
Somehow, their artifacts keep working and abounding without them and that miracle is hard to get used to, so maybe we write stories about it, frame it in the most basally digestible anthropic terms, to help us to process it.
If so, I think he’s wrong here. The book may lead them to realize that unaligned AGI doesn’t actually constitute an improvement in capabilities. It’s the creation of a new enemy. A bridge that might fall down is not a useful bridge and a successful military power, informed of that, wouldn’t want to build it.
It’s in no party’s interests to create AGI that isn’t aligned with at least the people overseeing the research project.
An AGI aligned with a few living humans is generally going to lead to better outcomes than an AGI aligned with nobody at all, there is enough shared, to know that, and no one coherently extrapolated is as crass or parochial as the people we are now. Alignment theory should be promoted with every party.
Incentive problem: Separating one’s output into neat categories is not always in a one’s interests, and I may be naive to expect people to want to do it. The prospect of capitalizing on the audience you’ve built up by being on-brand by befouling your posts with unrelated political content/self-promotion is probably most of the point of using social media for most people.
I suppose in this case, it might be necessary to move away from promoting ideal social configurations then waiting for people to purely altruistically embody them, cause they wont, and focus more on promoting evolution over materially viable configurations. But of course if you foster a culture of relying on blind iteration you will end up stuck in a molochean equilibrium so there’s going to need to be a balance.
it’s almost certainly still better to live here than in a town where people fly Confederate flags and openly carry guns
I do not really like lenient gun laws, but I haven’t gotten the impression that it’s especially unsafe to live in those places? Also not sure free-thinkers in general mind being around their outgroup all that much.
If you’re forming a largish intentional community, running schooling ourselves would be a lot easier than it normally is, we can pool resources, have different people teach different subjects. Again, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a consensus among parents willing to move for community that we do not need state schools.
1: A continuous process of presences on each side endorsing their own side and unendorsing presences of the other side when they notice them posting incorrect things. An automated process may notice the split in the endorsement relations, and recommend naming uh, subtags (now starting to really doubt that calling them ‘tags’ instead of ‘sets’ was a good idea); tags with more specific meanings.
2: Maybe marginal yeah, someone else will have to apply the more specific indian food tag if they don’t want to do it, which shouldn’t end up being very much work. In exchange they get to take credit for the tagging and gain influence over the indian food genre.
It’s a relief to see that someone is finally speaking the truth about Acetone.
I’ve never been mad at elon for not having decision theoretic alignmentism. I wonder, should I be mad. Should I be mad about the fact that he has never talked to eliezer (eliezer said that in passing a year or two ago on twitter) even though he totally could whenever he wanted.
Also, what happened at OpenAI? He appointed some people to solve the alignment problem, I think we can infer that they told him, “you’ve misunderstood something and the approach you’re advocating (proliferate the technology?) wouldn’t really be all that helpful”, and he responded badly to that? They did not reach mutual understanding?
I should add, most of the longtermist projects I could imagine initiating in NZ would help people in the present, but I’m not sure how how much of that is a result of me limiting my hopes to fit through the overton window. I should think more about that.
some method of incentivizing novelty / importance
Lesswrong upvote count.
Slightly more seriously: Propagation through the academic segments of centerless curation networks. The author might be anticipating continued advances in social media technology, conventions of use, and uptake. Uptake and improvements in conventions of use, at least, seem to be visibly occuring. Advances in technology seem less assured, but I will do what I can.
Setting aside disagreements about what aspects of religions makes it practical to distinguishing them from other kinds of organizations, or about whether longtermism is on a trajectory to develop those
that’s between you and the tax man.
And no one else? It seems likely that this conversation with the tax man will need to involve other people, via a requirement that the variant publicly identifying as a religion somewhere, or via at least one published text that analyses the group as a religion (which I’d probably have to write).
Although skimming NZ’s laws, it does seem as if the texts we have might already be enough! (for reasons I will prefer not to publicly expound until a decision has been made.)
if long-termism were to embrace ritual, community, and other activities of religion, would long-termism benefit?
While that is worth asking, it’s not the brunt of the question I’m wrestling with. I agree we should do more of that, I think that falls under the consequences of simply taking adequately seriously a system of claims that touch on many aspects of life, which doesn’t necessarily need to be described as religious.
The question is, should we call it a religion now, or soon after a thorough account of its religion-like qualities is written, or should we only start calling it a religion if it is forced.
I’m not sure how identifying as a religion would help, in that respect. I think it would make it harder to grow, at least in the current atmosphere, than just sticking with EA. I don’t think it would make it easier to acquire physical churchehouses/community centers, but I should probably look into that more. Maybe talk to my Quaker friends.
Interested, could you recommend a desktop app made with flutter? Or something about what the rendering engine is made of on linux?
To clarify, stoners would misuse the tree tag, people looking for actual tree content wouldn’t see any of that because they would not be using the stoner web to sort results.
Have you played The Witness? I’ve put your name on the beta list for crycog. I am looking for puzzle designers, but I should probably try bugging the friends I’ve already conscribed a few times before giving up on them. I have so far not tried bugging or in any way cajoling or hyping them so I should just see if it works at some point.
I’m wondering if there’s much point in showing other people that game right now though. I’m not sure anyone believes there’s going to be depth here but me and so there is no guarantee they’ll be able to find it. This seems to be the case for most successful games. I hear the concept of something new and interesting and like, there will usually not be an intuition that says “ah yes I can see why that would work”.
My intuition hates The Mind, for instance. I guess if someone asked me to contribute to a game like that though… maybe I’d say “okay this is for people with fewer tacit communication insights than me, I can do this condescendingly.” That said, to be clear, I believe that I am right. I do earnestly believe I wouldn’t be able to enjoy The Mind. You’d have to fight me to get me to try it.
The other game I’m developing is a tabletop game where basically… players have utility functions that act on an environment that they coexist in, violence is possible, they have to sort things out in such a way that it maximizes their own utility function. There is an emphasis on negotiation as a theory-heavy skill, as most games allow only one winner, every time the opponent gains you lose, there aren’t very many games like this, and that’s kind of shocking considering how normal in life this kind of situation is.
What sorts of stuff have you worked on? What sorts of things do you still want to create? (what are your absurd and unlikely design ambitions)