Maybe you could communicate better by being less tricksy , not more.
TheAncientGeek
Some people want to redefine sentience so that it merely means friendliness
As they say on wikipedia: who?
If you want to critique FAI, pick a text …. find something somebody has actually said, … and critique that.
Not decades , about nine years.
“Social democrat” and “liberal” have been given almost identical descriptions. Don’t know if that’s deliberate.
Someone who seems to have something interesting to say, but is unable to say it.
How meaningful are figures on brain size without figures on overall body size?
LessWrong people seem to go to some pains to coin new language only when old language is insufficient
The pains don’t always stretch to learning philosophy, which EY hasn’t done, and advises against, with the result that LW jargon in fact often does reinvent philosophical jargon.
I tend to consider Exit and We Want a King as different theories.
He had no power to send people away. People who left, chose to leave. The continued formulations of this episode which portray his targets as helpless victims lacking agency are dysfunctional. They act and chose too.
Karma is supposed to influence behaviour.
He is one a one-man crusade to show that rationality is identical to adherence to his object level political beliefs, and feels entitled to punish irrational people, ie people who disagree with him politically, by downvoting. He does not define rationality in terms of being able to provide reasoned arguments for beliefs, and does not regard his own inability to provide good reasoned arguments for his political beliefs to impugn his own presumed level of rationality.
A man was telling one of his friends the secret of his contented married life: “My wife makes all the small decisions,” he explained, “and I make all the big ones, so we never interfere in each other’s business and never get annoyed with each other. We have no complaints and no arguments.” “That sounds reasonable,” answered his friend sympathetically. “And what sort of decisions does your wife make?” “Well,” answered the man, “she decides what jobs I apply for, what sort of house we live in, what furniture we have, where we go for our holidays, and things like that.” His friend was surprised. “Oh?” he said. “And what do you consider important decisions then?” “Well,” answered the man, “I decide who should be Prime Minister, whether we should increase our help to poor countries, what we should do about the atom bomb, and things like that.”
Discussed on More or Less, the BBCs programne for statistics nerds.
In addition to my other comments, I’d like to ask what your overall goal is for grade-school education. (It seems to me that most of your arguments are about grade school and not college.
I’d like to amplify that point. Educating people who mostly want to be educated is very different to educating people who mostly don’t want to be there.
“Indeed he knows not how to know who knows not also how to unknow.” Sir Richard Francis Burton.
The easy way to make a convincing simulation is to disable the inner critic.
Punishment as moral desert, and punishment as incentive lead to different results in some cases.
I would count them ss relevant to the US only.
Someone once told me that Obama must be dumber than GWB because he is black. That is what treating someone as an individual isn’t.
Arguments against AI risk, .or arguments against the MIRI conception of AI risk?
I have heard a hint of a whisper of a rumour that I am considered a bit of a contrarian around here...but I am actually a little more convinced of AI threat in general than I used be before I encountered less wrong. (in particular, at one time, I would have said “just pull the plug out”, but there’s some mileage in the unknowing arguments)
The short version of the arguments against MIRIs version of AI threat is that it is highly conjunctive. The long version is long. a consequence of having a multi stage argument, with a fan out of alternative possibilities at each stage.
I’ve read and enjoyed other books by Steiner. His argument probably is that bad, but it probably isn’t worse than his peers. You can spend a lifetime inn the humanities without ever seeing a really rigorous argument,
Humanities types also suffer from Typical Discipline Fallacy, assuming that everybody else’s discipline is as vague as theirs, hence their affiliation with relativism, etc. For their part, STEM types go in for a fallacy of gray, treating everything less rigoroust than a mathematical proof as equally fluffy.
“Social democrat” and “liberal” have been given almost identical descriptions. Don’t know if that’s deliberate.