Overall mortality mortality and morbidity rates don’t lie. You can’t do enough creative accounting to hide vast amounts of infectious disease mortality within a much longer healthy lifespan.
(And yes, it’s healthier on average, even counting obesity. Painful disability was more common in the past.)The nice thing about sequencing is that eventually it’ll be feasible to take a slice of your tissue and identify everything that’s not you. Easier to make progress at that point.
Replacing your cells with nanotech cells that bacteria/viruses/prions/etc can’t crack, and which have very solid checksum/error-correcting codes to prevent things like nanotech cancer… you’re safe against any non-intentionally-designed attack. (To say nothing of the abstraction layers possible with uploading.)
“Normal” transhumanist technologies aren’t perfect, but they are barely epsilon-susceptible to natural infectious diseases.
orthonormal
Obfuscation might be feasible, yeah. Though unless you can take down / modify the Wayback Machine and all other mirrors, you’re still accountable retroactively.
You can choose to draw your bounds of tolerance as broadly as you like!
On a prescriptive level, I’m offering a coherent alternative that’s between “tolerate everybody” and “tolerate nobody”.
On a descriptive level, I’m pointing out why you encounter consequences when you damn the torpedoes and try to personally tolerate every fringe believer.
I like Scott Alexander’s discussion of symmetric vs asymmetric weapons. Symmetric weapons lead to an unceasing battle, which as you said has at least become less directly violent, but whose outcomes are more or less a random walk. But asymmetric weapons pull ever so slightly toward, well, a weakly extrapolated volition of the players on both sides.
Brownian motion plus a small term looks just like Brownian motion until you look a long ways back and notice the unlikeliness of the trend. The arc of the moral universe is long, etc.
(Of course, in this century we very probably don’t have the luxury of a long arc...)
I’d additionally expect the death of pseudonymity on the Internet, as AIs will find it easy to detect similar writing style and correlated posting behavior. What at present takes detective work will in the future be cheaply automated, and we will finally be completely in Zuckerberg’s desired world where nobody can maintain a second identity online.
Oh, and this is going to be retroactive, so be ready for the consequences of everything you’ve ever said online.
Transitive Tolerance Means Intolerance
Ah yes, the bottle glitch...
I have a hard time trusting any mere humans to think straight on the decision theory of divorce; the stakes are so high that emotions come to the fore.
There must be conditions, even conditions short of abuse, where unilateral exit is allowed regardless of whether the other thinks that is a mistake. The conditions are a safety valve for motivated thinking. They can be things like “if you’re miserable, having more fights than intimacy, have tried couples therapy for at least 6 months, stayed apart for a month and felt better alone, then you can divorce if you want”.
Obviously that would be clunky in the vows, so there may be a lower-entropy way of saying that this marriage has some unlikely conditions for exit as well as voice.
(If you don’t have this, you risk “one spouse trying to convince the other, unwilling, spouse to accept a divorce”, which is pretty damn bad.)
The Vows can be unmade by dissolving the marriage, but the act of dissolving the marriage is in itself subject to the Vow of Concord, which limits the ability to dissolve it unilaterally.
My ex and I included a more informal version of this in our own vows, and it was the only vow I ever broke. You cannot exclude from possibility a situation where the marriage is unhealthy, one spouse is suffering, and the other cannot bear the idea of letting go.
My ex was desperate to make things work, and I was trying with all my might, but there was no progress on the problems that blew up as soon as we moved in together. The first highly recommended couples therapist couldn’t help us after over a year, then the next one threw up her hands and said she didn’t think she could help any more.
Could I have convinced my ex to agree to a divorce while still living together? It seemed impossible to me—my guilt, and my fear of letting loved ones down, would drag me back.
(I’m in so much healthier a place, by the way, and my ex now seems to be happier as well. Our divorce was amicable after the first few weeks.)
I don’t know what the more human-safe version of this clause would be, but it’s not this. Unilateral exit should be a difficult option—to be done only in great emergencies or after a large amount of effort has been expended—but please don’t take it off the table.
One of his main steps was founding OpenAI, whose charter looks like a questionable decision now from an AI Safety standpoint (as they push capabilities of language models and reinforcement learning forward, while driving their original safety team away) and looked fishy to me even at the time (simply because more initiatives make coordination harder).
I agree that Musk takes AI risk seriously, and I understand the “try something” mentality. But I suspect he founded OpenAI because he didn’t trust a safety project he didn’t have his hands on himself; then later he realized OpenAI wasn’t working as he hoped, so he drifted away to focus on Neuralink.
That sounds pretty rough.
This is harsh and may be completely off the mark, but I was trying to call attention especially to alarms where those close to you disagree. If friends and family agree that you’re not social enough, then that’s probably a true alarm that you’re facing.
Ehhh, in 2019 McAfee wasn’t in prison at all. I don’t expect him in particular to have consistent enough desires over time for that old promise to bind him, and “just after your extradition is approved” is a pretty understandable time to commit suicide. (A fake suicide would be just about as effective at any point in time, given that I don’t expect most people to update on the argument above.)
Plausible he was killed? Sure. But significantly less probable than Epstein for several reasons, including that the latter presumably had massive dirt that could come out soon. I don’t think many powerful people were trusting McAfee with their secrets.
[MENTOR] Machine learning. I do it for work, but I’m a bit behind the frontier and this would motivate me to catch up. You should already know how to code in Python, and have taken multivariable calculus and linear algebra.
A political analysis asks why Biden has high ratings on the pandemic. It makes no mention of any of Biden’s policies, decisions, actions or statements, because it turns out none of that matters whatsoever. Presumably there’s a point at which something would matter, but we are still waiting to prove that via example.
I think this is too cynical.
FiveThirtyEight is analyzing a bunch of existing polls. I expect that none of them asked questions more specific than overall assessment of how Biden was doing on COVID-19. If someone did do a poll asking more specific subquestions—does he do messaging better, do they credit him with beating his vaccine rollout target, etc—you’d probably see some details emerge.
(His messaging hasn’t been ideal, of course, but it’s raised the bar from the last guy. And his rollout speed was pretty good, but he also managed expectations smartly. Etc.)
Of course, the biggest reason that people rate him highly is just that, well, things are going Back To Normal and that means he’s doing a good job on it. That’s not a super sophisticated analysis on their part, but there are worse things for low-info voters to do than to support the ruling party when things go well and oppose it when things go badly, without trying to divine the causality.
Interesting! Different experiences.
I do want to make it clear that people who are X often acknowledge that they are X, but don’t intensely worry about it. E.g. a friend who knows he’s abrasive, knows his life would be better if he were less abrasive on the margin, but doesn’t have the emotional reaction “oh god, am I being abrasive?” in the middle of social interactions.
On the other hand, I was undiagnosed (and accordingly untreated) bipolar type 2 at the time of that comment, so my results are not generalizable. My hypomanic self wrote checks that my depressive self couldn’t cash.
That’s a great point. [Getting more pundits to make predictions at all] is much more valuable than [more accurately comparing pundits who do make predictions] right now, to such an extent that I now doubt whether my idea was worthwhile.
Improvement for pundit prediction comparisons
Meanwhile, Biden continues to double down on underpromising to maximize the chances of being able to claim overdelivery on all fronts.
Besides the incentives (cf. the Scotty Factor), it’s an important safety valve against the Planning Fallacy.
It’s something that the AI has got to make you understand.