interactive system design http://aboutmako.makopool.com
If you actually succeeded and everyone started writing “ifeff” the etymology would no longer point to a logical story.
“Ifof” seems better to me. It more resembles “If and only if” which would make it easier to learn.
Specialization. Yes. I’ve been making an induction puzzle game over the past couple of years. It takes place largely on the workbench of a reverseng (derivation: Reverse Engineer) employed by a drone factory that is situated in a late industrial society (a few years after creating misaligned AGI, so hardened by its state of biological warfare that it will last a few years yet).
One of the organizing principles that has allowed your world to run so terrifically fast is “Specialism”, which holds that a person’s profession should cast a long shadow over their entire lives. Most of us are edited straight from the germline, and then we begin our training at birth. The notion that a person would choose their specialization is mostly extinct, and discussed rarely, when it is discussed, it is depicted fantasistically, a little bit like love marriages in India. They happen, they’re normal in many elite subcultures, but most of us know why they wouldn’t be right for us.
Your training presents you with narratives, the narratives frame your specialization (spec) as the backbone of history, the girthiest load-bearing column, holding up the weight of the whole world. As a child, your media diet is well controlled, as it must be, and by your teen years, the media of other specs, of the same age group, will have grown incomprehensible or uninteresting to you, as if it were written in a different language, for a different belief system, dressed with an alien’s sense of beauty. When you enter the workplace, you will have to interact harmoniously with these aliens. Learning to admire them is the final part of your training. It wont be easy. They are deeply unlike you, and even though you are each proud of your spec, you need each other, they can do things you never could, you will love them for their difference.
There will be partings in these black thickets, glimpses out into a calmer world, a world that is doing a lot more rumination, and a lot less hurtling. This other world may, or may not survive these glimpses from our creatures of the black thickets. That will be up to you.
I don’t think the world belonging to Specialism is a good one. Everything moves too fast here. Philosophers, anthropologists, sociologists, have none of their hands on any of its reigns, instead, market forces looking for 20 years returns, its homesteads pumping out specials like puppies from a mill.But I can’t help but internalize Specialism, a little bit. It is practical. I am finite. I can only be a few types of thing, I can only make a few humble contributions to the global product. Better I approach them with absolute devotion. As a forecaster I’m permitted the relief of looking out over the needs of the future and figure out where I’d fit into them. I get to figure out what I ought to be before becoming it. Most people don’t have that. It would be nice if there were some higher civic process that could give this clarity to everyone. It would have been nice if it could have given some clarity to me back when I was wandering deserts.
That’s the great thing about roam pages, you don’t have to publish. Draft forever. For instance, here’s a draft applying my conception of anthropics to fish. It’s not finished and maybe it never will be but at least it’s recorded and I can show it to people.
x] I actually didn’t mean that. The concern is that if this is a simulation, it’s unlikely that whales are simulated with much detail, as they don’t have much of an effect on the most probably-interesting-to-simulators aspects of this era. Which I really should have mentioned because that’s one of the branches of the prediction: If we look closely at some whale brains and find that they ought to be huge anthropic measure attractors, there is a way that the underlying theory could still be probable.
I suppose the reason I didn’t mention it is that, if it’s a simulation thing, we have no way of demonstrating that until it’s too late to do anything with that information, and I’m not sure anything good would come of me writing about it any time soon because simulationism is a big pill that most people aren’t eager to swallow.
in the absence of exact duplicates
in the absence of exact duplicates
Have you come across examples of it getting weird around exact duplicates? I should probably be informed of them. The only one example I’m aware of is the one I found https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9RdhJKPrYvsttsko9/the-mirror-chamber-a-short-story-exploring-the-anthropic
Are you keeping a list somewhere we can look? A roam page, maybe?
For now nothing comes to mind, but I can register a prediction of my own. I’ve been developing a theory of experience as an emergent property of matter. I’m not sure of it. One of its big tensions is, it finds it strange that we are not whales. Whales seem to have more of the physical qualities that make human brains cosmically peculiar than human brains do. Assuming that whales actually exist, it would hold that most observer-moments experiences ought to belong to whales. The main alternative is:
Prediction: Whale brains must be missing some amount of nth-degree connectivity in some way.
Right now the only scrapings of anything like confirmation I’ve stumbled over as a non marine neurologist is that their cortex is missing layer four.
It should be mentioned that Eliezer’s last (known) big release Inadequate Equilibria was pretty much a correction of pathological outside-viewing. The thrust can be summed up as “sometimes you can’t beat the market, sometimes you can, it’s important to know which situation you’re in instead of just pathetically assuming the former all of the time.”
Are you actually looking for the “watch later” feature..
I noticed the subtle background forces that whisper (at least to blue tribe members in their youth) “phylogenetic classification is the one true way to organize life forms”, and rejected its claim.
I still can’t guess why that bothers you :/ When I try to imagine the motivations of this shadowy conspiracy of elites who quietly manipulated the anglosphere into always maintaining separate concepts for fish and cetaceans, I just see a desire to teach us about how special and cool cetaceans are.
Another point is that most people strongly value existence/non-existence additionally to the quality and ‘probability’ of existence
Mm, agreed. We’re fans of quantities, rather than qualities, so I may have been underrecognizing this.
Humans clearly have special concerns about not existing at all, that extend beyond the linear concern for merely existing less. A quantum multiverse (or maybe even just a physically large multiverse, with chance recurrences) would soundly and naturally decrease a human’s aversion to death, to some extent.
but would then go on to use the phrase to refer to parts of masculinity which are not clearly problematic
I think this is usually is a disagreement about which parts of masculinity are problematic. Their position might be really ignorant and hateful, but I think it’s sincere.
Youtube lets you access your viewing history through your “library” (or in the web version, probably it’s in the sidebar)
I wish I could figure out what factor divided people into these two language groups. For one there is toxic masculinity and there is non-toxic (or just ordinary) masculinity. For another, uttering “toxic masculinity” directly means “all masculinity is toxic”. I do not know how they came apart.
You haven’t really stated that she’s putting all that much energy into this (implied, I guess), but I’d see nothing wrong with having a moral stance about literally everything but still prioritizing your activity in healthy ways, judging this, maybe even arguing vociferously for it, for about 10 minutes, before getting back to work and never thinking about it again.
I don’t like that one either, it usually reflects a lack of imagination. They’re talking about the purposes we can think of now, they usually know nothing about the purposes we will find, once we have it, which haven’t been invented yet.
Public funding seems especially easy to make truly democratic (proportionate to the needs of the voters, without majoritarian dynamics, additive), so it’s weird to me that it took cryptocurrencies for it to start to happen.
Noticing I’ve been operating under a bias where I notice existential risk precursors pretty easily (EG, biotech, advances in computing hardware), but I notice no precursors of existential safety. To me it is as if technologies that tend to do more good than harm, or at least, would improve our odds by their introduction, social or otherwise, do not exist. That can’t be right, surely?...
When I think about what they might be… I find only cultural technologies, or political conditions: the strength of global governance, the clarity of global discourses, perhaps the existence of universities. But that can’t be it. These are all low hanging fruit, things that already exist. Differential progress is about what could be made to exist.
The reason to call it “Hydra” is that the scaling solution works by “growing” “heads”. It is very hydra-like in its behavior. It might have been named before the marketplace was a (visible) thing? (They may have been developing it for a while)
It can be argued that in many contracts, they actually wouldn’t want use the native coin, because the unpredictable changes (or increases, even if it is always an increase) makes them unsuitable for most uses. For instance, say you’d made a bet with someone about something that’s only going to resolve a year later. You want to know how much you’re betting, but if you bet in a native coin, you really don’t know how much a given quantity of that is going to be worth. The problem also comes up for contracts that use fines or collateral. That covers most contracts. So there are stable coins, that peg to the price of metal, or mirror the USD. I also came across a coin that multiplies or winnows in your wallet depending on how much its value changed over the course of a day so that it’s always worth roughly one USD. I’m still not sure how to feel about that one.
But, ADA is mandatory for paying transaction fees, staking (which currently gets a return of 5% per annum), and voting in the governance processes. Generally, I’d guess that a lot of people will decide to trade in, or hold, ADA, just because converting would be mildly inconvenient.
And I cannot really stand the (probably good intended) paternalism
Finance is basically the least paternalistic way of helping people, pretty much everything they’re doing leaves all of the decisions about how it will be used to Ethiopia, Ethiopian developers, and the end-users.
I don’t see why doing this in a formal academic setting would be significantly better.
I don’t know how to help you.