Note: I don’t think this argument is currently applicable. Our mitigations are already sufficiently weak that I would recommend intentionally weakening control mitigations further.
Did you mean to say “wouldn’t”?
One
Karma: 44
Even the ones that seemed like they should have worked (MacroDroid seemed pretty promising) just failed to make noise at the right time.
MacroDroid is able to set alarms though?
The AI would only generate unpaid work, so it wouldn’t be measurable by GDP, theoretically.
This isn’t relevant. The post isn’t talking about a commitment to a response (punishment) for political violence.
A maximalist anime-recommendation style LessWrong home design with Madoka Magica, Hololive, Umamusume, Bocchi the Rock, Girls Band Cry, and Watanare visual motifs. (20 images) (made with codex)
weird this isn’t showing up in marketplace. does bring-your-own-agent not work, or was my submission autorejected?
hololive x umamusume x watanare x bocchi the rock x girls band cry x madoka magica ++
now with svgs! (they are so bad)
perhaps “hyperintelligence” could be used for this
Nathanial → Nathaniel?
any more*
How do I join?
The Department of Defense isn’t called the ‘Department of War’.
lol
I think it’s well known that it’s optimizing for watch time.
Decided to provide my solution since others have done so as well.
Solution
The public dataset is approximately symmetrical, so it is very likely that the distribution of the Bernoulli rate is also symmetrical (probability at p is equal to probability at 1-p). Let the probabilities of getting k Rs over all 5 trials for k=0...5 be . Then, from the public dataset, we have . These have standard deviation which is negligible, so we can treat these as linear equations. Solving, we get , and we can then solve for the marginal frequencies etc.
Not sure if this (experiment set?) is a good test of priors, since I got an exact answer without having to consider priors, other than the data being symmetrical. (This also means that any symmetric distribution for the Bernoulli rate will result in the same answer.) Though @DaemonicSigil has a similar solution without using symmetry, instead using
maximum entropy as a prior (if i understand it correctly).
Still, almost all reasonable priors will result in very similar outcomes, differing by a factor probably on the order of the standard deviation (around .) This is likely less than, or at least comparable to, the noise in the actual marginal frequencies.
Answer:
[0.111020, 0.324512, 0.5, 0.675488, 0.888980]
I will provide my solution when the market is resolved.
No; your distribution gives probabilities [0.253247, 0.168831, 0.155844, 0.168831, 0.253247] for the number of Rs in the first four trials. This predicts that the number of experiments with two Rs is binomially (i.e. approximately normally) distributed with mean ~155844 and standard deviation ~363, but the actual number is 161832, around 16 standard deviations away from the mean.
Was this written by AI? The self-altering of consistency makes no sense and I can’t think of a reason that just discovering an inconsistency in the universe would cause a vacuum decay. Even if the universe was a simulation, discovering a bug doesn’t mean exploiting it, though maybe the simulators would end the simulation (which wouldn’t create any propagation, it’d just end it at once.)
Doesn’t this mean that power also implies that nothing external is manipulating the agent’s values or controlling the agent’s information processing to screen off certain outcomes? Is there a useful distinction between power and freedom?
Also, I think corrigible agents should measure power based on their principal’s judging of importance, so that terms like the power to turn the universe or an arbitrary section into paperclips or the like aren’t as important as terms like human extinction. But maybe this can be mitigated by restricting the empowerment goal to the agent’s structure/thoughts/actions.