My thoughts exactly. Seeing that statement, I must absolutely AGREE with the second part, and only politely point out that he should rephrase the first part, working “probability” and “working hypothesis” into it.
mamert
Karma: 18
I keep having trouble thinking of probabilities when I’m to be copied and >=1 of “me” will see red and >=1 of “me” will see green. My thought is that it is 100% likely that “I” will see red and know there are others, once-mes, who see green, and 100% likely vice-versa. Waking up to see red (green) is exactly the expected result.
I do not know what to make of this opinion of mine. It’s as if my definition of self—or choice of body—is in superposition. Am I committing an error here? Suggestions for further reading would be appreciated.
Salient point: why you mention arrangements of inscriptions and contents at all? That is what confuses me. Either the arrangements matter at some point—such as inscribing—in which case there had been a lie when the king labeled an (apparently?) empty box with “This box contains the key.” (not “this box doesn’t contain the dagger”, which would have been true), or not at all, in which case I reiterate my previous question.
I’m trying to stay levelheaded about King Richard. What I meant was that there seems to be extraneous details here—about the order things were done in, first inscribe (“key is here”, on an empty(?) box), then put dagger in, or that it was written, not spoken. Many comments only enforce the importance of that.
The “real” answer seems to be one that effectively makes all kinds of communication useless, and what I’ve spent so much time on was trying to pin down the borders of this insanity, some marker saying “abstract logic application to real life* not allowed past this point”.
*) the use of physical boxes binding the riddle to “real life”
There is something I don’t understand about the “fooling programmers → shutdown” idea—how “It looks like it should be possible”
Am I correct assuming this requires an AI that:
Implements changes in discrete iterations
Understands how it itself works, both on low and very high levels (getting fractal here)
Can do the same for its more advanced iteration
Monitors the more advanced iteration (a simulation or a live deployment) for a certain behavior, preferably in real time or faster
Has the concept of deception (shutdown condition, AND a salient factor in other calculations)
At all times allows itself to be killed by its previous iteration (accidental Robin Hood/Friar Tuck hacks come to mind)
Has a full-proof definition of “deceiving programmers” which:
a) remains consistent with programmers’ intentions across iterations, immune to drift
not just from n-1 to n, but from 0 to n—you could have iteration 0 also watch over n, but would it understand n?
b) remains applicable across iterations, cannot be bypassed or cheated
“the device category is now ‘data processor’, not ‘human output device’, so- [process terminated]”
c) allows n to give different output than in n-1 (else why bother changing?)
just having n-1 evaluate n’s output might not suffice: n-1 might need to change itself first to understand it
d) does not have too significant an impact on improvement process
metaanalysis on own shutdown logs causing shutdown?
e) has a satisfactory solution for the concept of manipulating people, which somehow doesn’t paralyze the system
situation: output data that is true but would be misinterpreted by / cause a glitch in some other system the results will be fed to, leading people to act upon the wrong results of in a way desirable by the AI
“It is not deceit if the format change is communicated along with the output data. Or somewhere in the status update PDFs sent 40 times a second.”
“this output is not false, it is merely unrelated”
“but that would make the programmers’ business competitors draw wrong conclusions… wait, that is allowed? Moving non-programmers to Resource.Actuator category, calculating new self-improvement strategy.”
For the purposes of the universe, the first coin flip not only doesn’t matter, it never existed. The magicker himself will claim—and show any amount of supporting evidence—that it landed tails. He will not even remember casting a spell, unless he’d have cast one in this case, too, but for a different reason (if he’d have cast anyway regardless of the toss outcome, he’d get looped, recalling himself making the toss, but not yet casting; or being confused why he recalls casting, but there is no change in the toss outcome).
Time between the toss and casting, when things were different than they are now? What perspective would that need? Looking at the universe from outside the universe?
The term “obsolete” as used here confuses me. It seems to imply a purpose, one that individuals—or humanity—or whatever other “intelligence collective” there may be—could get behind. What might that purpose be? Not survival, is it?
Definitely yes. It’s not like killing babies is inherently wrong (*), it just is under most circumstances. I was thinking more along the lines of euthanasia of babies you’ve discovered have been prepared for use in biological warfare… but my mind tends to go into bad places. Let’s not get any further into that.
*) unless you use absolute values for wrong, in which case it definitely is, but so is breathing
Breaking #24 of the Evil Overlord List makes me wince, too, even if it’s a jester doing it. Not sure if that’s the main point, though, but then, none of the proposed explanation for how the king could pull his “riddle” off without at any point lying feel entirely right to me, so, unless someone offers to help me, I shall have to take your advice and not let myself get entangled in the “complex and detailed logic”, when the answer might as well be “BS”.
The king wrote “This box contains the key.” on the 2nd box, before putting the dagger in. Did the second box contain the key as well as the dagger?
I notice we’re somehow not debating what Bellini always telling the truth means for the truth value of the inscribed text which may have had no meaning to him?
Among them, the need to cope with reality, of fall physically ill from depression. I think that counts as a susceptibility.
If you mean that the “binds tribes closer together” and related aspects are being grossly underestimated, I agree. The “costly sacrifices”, too, may have been poorly assessed—the net effect for individuals, in their true circumstances at the time, may have been frequently positive. Or—this is not to be discounted either—believed to be positive.
“were never “invented” by anyone”—Dubious claim, Gene.
What is claimed here is that, whether in any way reflecting something real or not, religious practices frequently came into being as particularly effective deceptions. Step 1: convince others you can do magic. Step 2: make yourself less of a target by pretending to be a chosen servant of an invisible dragon. This also ensures obedience even in your absence. Step 3: profit better than any warlord. Step 4: the invisible dragon survives you.
...and thus strengthening the “see how many people believe already?” “argument”. Alternately, if they are found out, several others—orbiting around No True Scotsman and several kinds of fear.
Also, not Batesian—it’s the same species, and it’s a lot of risk raising your offspring to only pretend.
“E.Yudowsky declares that attempts to explain religion with evolution are ‘prima facie absurdities’”—if that hasn’t appeared in the Watchtower yet, it might still. The danger of speaking at all about hypotheses that address only one of the factors in play.
I am not familiar with the claims you’re referring to, but I would, instead, draw a parallel between “group selection explains religion” and “mutation explains evolution”.
Regarding the correlation between inscriptions and contents being merely assumed: are the spoken claims any different? I don’t see them being called into question the same way.
I could make up a new language for every sentence I utter, and claim that 2⁄3 of the words I am merely speaking to myself in an unrelated monologue.
Communication is so context-dependent that I see the utterance of “it was assumed, not implied” as an admission to deceit.
Bx is true if box x has gold, false if frog. one contains frog, other gold → B1 == ~B2. only one inscription is true → Bf == ~Bt
We know:
B2 && Bf || Bt && B1 (I1)
B2 && Bt || B1 && Bt (I2)
Bt == B1 && Bf == B2 && I1 && ~I2 || Bf == B1 && Bt == B2 && ~I1 && I2 # only one inscription is true
From this:
((B2 && B2 || B1 && B1) && ~(B2 && B1 || B1 && B1)) || (~(B2 && B1 || B2 && B1) && (B2 && B2 || B1 && B2))
((B2 || B1) && ~(false || B1)) || (~(false || false) && (B2 || false))
(true && (true && B2)) || ((true && true) && B2)
B2 || B2
B2 # so, Box 2 contains gold
I had to look up whether robins are migratory.