is there a specific culture in which this specific thing is normal?
or are you just saying that lots of culture do lots of things?
Trinley Goldenberg
Karma: 5,780
i believe the second thing but do not think it’s normal to frame neighborly relationships in a transactional way like that, at least in none of the communities i’ve lived in
It still seems unusual
“Hey, I’m gonna have a loud party you don’t like, can I help you with your gardening later? Is not a normal sentiment ime
The other day we had an event at Lighthaven that was louder later into the night than usual. I knew our neighbor was going to be bothered by it. So I went to them and said “hey, I am really sorry, I know we are louder until later into the night, and I know this is bothering you. Is there any way I can make you whole? For example, I would happily pay you $200 for the inconvenience”. She thought a bit about it, then seemed to agree that $200 would make her whole.
But do you think this is normal? Seems like a weird rationalist thing to me to frame it in this way.
What do you think the chances are, if the rstionalists really take this up, of producing a counter response/funding from the accelerationist contingent or the aI superpac?
it’s a strong signal but there are enough people who think that this is just delusion to start a dozen more frontier ai companies if there’s a market gap
I count traumatic recollection of pain as a physical injury—it is a noticeable alteration to my behavior, encoded in physical matter.
This is a weird way to think about the word injury, and makes me think that you’re just considering the word “consciousness” in a similarly weird way.
But if you do insist, again this is easy, simply take a substance that introduces anterograde amnesia after administering the pain. No need to put your brain in a jar.
“I’ll put you in immense pain, but there will be no physical damage or injury whatsoever. No long-term brain damage or lingering pain or anything.”
this actually isn’t that hard, there are pain machines used in research like contact heat thermodes that can deliver pain without any physical damage, no cutting out the brain needed.
cutting out the brain is a weird extra step that goes from the thing you asked above to “forgetting you ever had the pain and acting as if it didn’t happen” which provides this whole extra layer of confusion to what is a very simple and easy thought experiment—you don’t want pain because it hurts, even if it doesn’t injure you.
you don’t want to REMEMBER that experience because it hurt, even if it didn’t injure you (but again, this provides a whole nother level of confusion that is just unnecessary)
fwiw i’ve logged probably thousands of hours with both these approaches living at a monastery for the past 6 years
i would disagree quite a bit with the conclusion, and might even reverse the default—don’t waste your time trying to heal specific traumas
simply meditate, and if you find yourself distracted, then use emotional processing to get back to meditation
Yes, the selfother dualism does seem trivially true, but the closer you look the more it falls apart.
That’s mind/body dualism, which is only one type of dualism. I’m talking about self/other dualism here.
As far as I can tell, this is a pretty simple truth. Are you saying that only misguided dualists avoid suffering?
As soon as you separate between “you” and “not you” you’ve stepped into Dualism. As far as I can tell you think Unreal is telling you to be more dualistic but she’s actually requesting you let your dualism go.
Ahh yes, the old tired new media
I saw the mention of AI generated stuff in several prominent Twitter posts and substqcks, so not sure why you think it was ignored by new media.
I’m not convinced this is a good way to enforce norms.
fwiw i don’t think taste about how central a claim is is exactly the right framing here
my model is that said was attempting to punish people for claims that in his view were disruptive to the culture of lw as a whole
he didn’t actually care how central the argument was to the individual piece
similar to e.g. eugine neir using many upvotes/downvotes to punish certain ways of seeing that he viewed as irrational, said did the same thing with many comments
So, Hitler’s CEV seems to depend on the technical details, in which order he gets the new knowledge and the new skills. He could end up either CEV-nice or a CEV-monster.
This sort of reminds me of Scott Alexander’s Murder Ghandi example. Many moral updates which are stable when extrapolated to the limit, are path dependent when done incrementally.
But it also has a decision-theory dependent flavor to it, it seems like the right decision theory wouldn’t struggle with this.
But that itself seems recursive, since it runs into the same path dependence problem, as you could easily incrementally change your decision theory based on the results of your current decision theory into a bad basin.
I do attempt to address this. Even with fake reviews on the rise, I still think the advice works because no one seems to be targeting this type of analysis.
I just skimmed but it does seem like the LessWrong bayes trope could help here. I practice if you’re trying to get data above random chance that’s unlikelt but if you have some intervrntions that are just on the edge of being worth it with an already strong prior, self experimentation cna help push it over the edge.
> Abram points out that an agent’s beliefs can sometimes affect the world directly (not just via influencing their actions).
Don’t they always affect the world directly?