I don’t think it’s direct considerations but literally the ick of decapitation and no body at the funeral at all
romeostevensit
Karma: 11,085
the solution to spam has always been a small fee and for some reason this has been considered impossible. I don’t understand why.
You sound like a good doctor. Unfortunately I have seen very bad patterns repeatedly:
Organizing your statement helps yourself and the clinician.
3 page summary produced at great cost by a distressed person outlining 1. medication history, 2. course of treatment and effects, 3. background medical problems. Ignored, even with repeated requests on the basis of having trouble keeping it straight.
Think thrice about withholding information from the doctor
Doctors doing wink wink nudge nudge to get the person to not say things that might imply liability in order to avoid just stonewalling or giving a halfhearted referral elsewhere.
yes, I was able to just bet implicit probabilities from options prices on prediction markets and have decent edge, but I was doing it for fun in play money markets and stopped when I got enough calibration data from it.
Good point. Decreased quality of life due to competing with ai for basic resources has already begun (RAM prices) and will eventually show up in non direct goods.
This feels like a crux for liability as the operative constraint. A good test of whether rendering someone liable is a de facto ban. I expect it to be.
Sure thing. A friend who had met with the team and was impressed offered to set up a meeting. When I met them I was impressed by detailed answers to both my questions around the science and the questions around the incentives that surround such an org, and what long term viability looks like. Often when I speak with founders I have to be a little forgiving and see whether I think their strengths will render them enough resources and non terrible incentive environment to be able to pay for their weaknesses. In the case of Nectome I got the sense they are paying attention to past failures and not falling prey to too much hopeful thinking. I think this is reflected in the scenario analysis of the post.
The particulars that got me interested:
I have long been sympathetic to fixation over cryo bc I believe org risk is very high on some basic actuarial base rates for orgs. If my body can be chucked in a borehole in permafrost at a geologically inactive site and left there that would be ideal IMO. People who imagine themselves revived in a repaired version of their biological body seem to think full body cryo has a better shot for hand wavy reasons afaict.
compatible with normal funerals, so dramatically lower spending of weirdness points and religious objections. I think this means it can scale about 2oom more than cryo at least.
the level of damage by this process (as performed by random assay from third parties) appears to be less than the levels of damage in cases of revival from hypothermic drowning, such people have had (mostly?) complete recovery of personality and memories afaik.
competence of the team.
the much higher feedback cycle over cryo. Other preservation groups are not actively doing electron microscopy nor lab animal experiments afaik.
I don’t know a ton about why aldehyde fixation is able to preserve such fine structure, but the data look reasonable to me.
I gave my favorite lesswrong post to suno. I probably owe Avril Lavigne money.
As Robin Hanson put it: finding new considerations often trumps fine tuning existing considerations.
I’d say this is expected in worlds with high dimension complexity, large differences in rewards, hidden information (both external and internal), and adversarial dynamicss.
Vote of confidence: I have signed up with Nectome and am keeping my eyes open for ways to support their work.
I am assuming companies have a very good chance of releasing dangerous models, whether at executive or shareholder direction, if their business viability feels threatened.
Caught is misnomer. Elite flights are always seeking to undermine each other’s dead man switches. Once yours is neutralized, game over.
I think 3 is underrated. Initial kompromat handshakes are for more mundane business deals and only escalate over time.
People also try to play whack a mole with their psychological problems rather than investigate the generators.
Process documentation is notoriously bad, and people are heavily disposed to working well=invisible.
I could probably talk about ways that business consultants were impressed with mistakes we didn’t make at mealsquares, but we still made some big ones, and we never got big.
This analysis feels object oriented rather than process oriented. I think object oriented people are easily manipulated by process oriented people via which objects are paid attention to.
To my younger self: you’ll converge on these upstream skills later. You have a limited amount of focus and these synergize well. To whatever extent your special interests are aimable, these are good targets.
Econ—you basically already know this is important. Micro, history, behavioral, finance, and running a small business.
Relational—this one you definitely don’t know is important. Read a couple books on communication patterns and attachment styles. Find a context to do peer therapy and learn about how others affect you and vice versa. Many invisible gotchas.
Contemplative—investigating your own mind. You’re right to be skeptical of a lot of the material out there, nonetheless there is some good in it. Find the people trying to be careful.
Pedagogical—how you learn everything else here and how you teach others anything. Honorable mention subskill of business writing, principles of succinct communication of complex topics.
Creativity—becoming more generative and the very important skill of ambiguity tolerance. This also helps everywhere. At the technical end it also relates to managing ambiguity, think How to Measure Anything
Expert Judgement—who should you listen to? Which sources do you actually want to marinate your brain in? The autobiographies of interesting thinkers are a good start, keep going.
Copernicus, Arabic numerals, Feynman diagrams, double helix, periodic table, cartesian coordinates, Einstein (and for that matter, Minkowski), information theory (bits), germ theory. These are just the super famous ones.
no, I think the jump is much larger.
as a one time bet sure, but there are obviously bankroll considerations for iterated. kelly criterion is about growing your bankroll the fastest you can without busting so you can’t take advantage of the iterated bet any more.