TheWakalix

• TheWakalix 24 Oct 2017 0:36 UTC

  6 points

  in reply to: Scott Garrabrant’s comment on: There’s No Fire Alarm for Ar­tifi­cial Gen­eral Intelligence

  Yes, but ideally our prediction methods would allow us to predict events more accurately than flipping a coin does.

• TheWakalix 24 Oct 2017 0:43 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: sarahconstantin’s comment on: There’s No Fire Alarm for Ar­tifi­cial Gen­eral Intelligence

  “Do I think that one ought to feel a sense of urgency about AI right now? Well, that’s a weird way of thinking about it, and I get stuck on the “one ought to feel” part—is it ever true that you should feel a certain way? I have the sense that this is the road to Crazytown.”

  If the room is on fire, one ought to feel at least mildly concerned. If the room has a significant chance of being set on fire, one ought to feel somewhat less concerned but still not entirely okay with the prospect of a fiery death. It seems clear that one ought to be worried about future events to a degree proportional to their likelihood and adverse effects, or else face a greater chance of knowing about but ignoring a significant danger.

• TheWakalix 24 Oct 2017 0:49 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: Zvi’s comment on: There’s No Fire Alarm for Ar­tifi­cial Gen­eral Intelligence

  My take is that Eliezer is saying that we should be aware of the significant probability that AGI takes us unaware, and also that people don’t tend to think enough about their claims. He’s not saying “be certain that it will be soon,” but rather “any claim that it will almost certainly take centuries is suspect if it cannot be backed up with specific, lower-level difficulty claims expressed through estimated times for certain goals to be reached.” I’m not sure if this goes against your reading of the post, though.

• TheWakalix 24 Oct 2017 0:57 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Zvi’s comment on: There’s No Fire Alarm for Ar­tifi­cial Gen­eral Intelligence

  How many people downvoted because Grr I Disagree and How Dare They Question EY, and how many because they didn’t like how the poster leaped from “I haven’t seen any reason to think this” to “they must be automatically assuming this”? This wasn’t so much asking for evidence as… assuming there was none. That tends to annoy people, and I think it makes sense on a productive-discourse level to discourage such posts. On a teach-the-newcomer-and-don’t-drive-them-out-for-not-being-perfectly-rational-yet level, however, I think you have a point.

• TheWakalix 29 Nov 2017 23:15 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: Zvi’s comment on: Inad­e­quacy and Modesty

  I don’t understand what you mean by “conditional on being implemented.” Do you mean that for each policy, it is implemented regardless of being impossible, then out of these words we find the number that have gotten better relative to their controls? Or do you mean that we find the number of possible worlds in which the policy is implemented, and compare it to a similar possible world in which it is not, and determine if a positive correlation between “has Policy X implemented” and “is a world with Y utilons”? The former doesn’t seem right, but in context the latter doesn’t seem to fit.

• TheWakalix 1 Dec 2017 20:17 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: cousin_it’s comment on: A Day in Utopia

  Seriously? Out of things like “artificial wombs”, “ableism is no longer a thing,” “people have figured out how to eliminate the need for sleep” (which let me tell you, as somebody who is marginally knowledgeable about psychology and [to a lesser extent] physiology, sounds like one of the most impossible things on this list), “transition involves changing bone structure without incredible risk and discomfort” (implied), “healthy artificial nutrition that can completely replace eating, given through a machine,” “UBI has been implemented,” and “hunger, thirst, homelessness, and disease are gone” (omg), that is your question?

  (OTOH this might have been less criticism and more “do you have any ideas, and I doubt you know how to cure aging or implement UBI, so I’ll ask about this more realistic utopian change,” in which case: carry on.)

• TheWakalix 1 Dec 2017 20:41 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Front­page Post­ing and Com­ment­ing Guidelines

  [I read the above as saying that we should have a ban on encouraging violence.]

  I feel like this is just an ad-hoc ban, based on a general statement which doesn’t actually seem to hold and then modified where necessary to accomodate public disagreement.

• TheWakalix 3 Apr 2018 16:04 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: 3p1cd3m0n’s comment on: Se­cond-Order Logic: The Controversy

  Are these time crystals made up of protons? If so, proton decay might eventually cause it to disintegrate.

• TheWakalix 4 Apr 2018 15:44 UTC

  5 points

  on: Real­is­tic thought experiments

  “[What if] after you died, you would be transported back and forth in time and get to be each of the other people who ever lived, one at a time, but with no recollection of your other lives?”

  Were you inspired by Egg? If not, that’s a rather strange convergence.

• TheWakalix 4 Apr 2018 15:45 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: zulupineapple’s comment on: Real­is­tic thought experiments

  I’m guessing “about reality”.

• TheWakalix 4 Apr 2018 16:12 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: RicardoFonseca’s comment on: Chap­ter 5: The Fun­da­men­tal At­tri­bu­tion Error

  V guvax gur Qhzoyrqber ulcbgurfvf vf cynhfvoyr, ohg gurer vf AB JNL gung Zvarein jbhyq unir genafsvtherq n YVIVAT ORVAT’F SNPR: “”Naq nobir nyy,” fnvq Cebsrffbe ZpTbantnyy, “lbh jvyy abg Genafsvther nal yvivat fhowrpg, rfcrpvnyyl lbhefryirf. Vg jvyy znxr lbh irel fvpx naq cbffvoyl qrnq, qrcraqvat ba ubj lbh Genafsvther lbhefrys naq ubj ybat lbh znvagnva gur punatr.”″

• TheWakalix 4 Apr 2018 16:17 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: RicardoFonseca’s comment on: Chap­ter 30: Work­ing in Group, Pt 1

  V oryvrir, va guvf pnfr nf jryy nf frireny bguref, gung ersreraprf gb haanzrq Telssvaqbef ner bsgra vzcyvrq ersreraprf gb pnaba!Uneel-naq-sevraqf.

• TheWakalix 4 Apr 2018 16:18 UTC

  1 point

  on: Chap­ter 37: In­ter­lude: Cross­ing the Boundary

  It is claimed, in the navigation bar, that this post has three comments, yet none are visible. Strange.

  Edit: It has not changed since the addition of this comment. Curiouser and curiouser.

• TheWakalix 4 Apr 2018 16:23 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: RicardoFonseca’s comment on: Chap­ter 49: Prior Information

  V qvfnterr gung Dhveeryy jbhyq unir arprffnevyl urneq gur zrffntr:

  “Uneel jnf fgvyy gelvat gb cebprff rirelguvat gung unq unccrarq qhevat gur Vapvqrag jvgu gur Fbegvat Ung. Abg gur yrnfg bs juvpu jnf jung unq unccrarq gur vafgnag Uneel unq yvsgrq gur Ung bss uvf urnq; va gung zbzrag, ur’q urneq n gval juvfcre nf gubhtu sebz abjurer, fbzrguvat gung fbhaqrq bqqyl yvxr Ratyvfu naq n uvff ng gur fnzr gvzr, fbzrguvat gung unq fnvq, “Ffnyhgngvbaf sebz Ffylgureva gb Ffylgureva: vs lbh jbhyq ffrrx zl ffrpergff, ffcrnx gb zl ffanxr.”″

  Gung’f n *gval juvfcre,* naq fvapr Uneel vf cerfhznoyl abg fgnaqvat qverpgyl arkg gb Dhveeryy (be ryfr gur QBBZ jbhyq unir unccrarq), Dhveeryy jbhyq cebonoyl abg or noyr gb urne gur juvfcre. (Vs vg jrer ybhq rabhtu gb urne sebz sne njnl, gura vg jbhyq unir orra zhpu zber yvxryl gung gur frperg jbhyq unir orra qvfpbirerq orsber Uneel’f gvzr, fb ol Onlrf, gur snpg gung vg unf fheivirq gur praghevrf vf rivqrapr gung vg jnf uvqqra orggre guna gung.)

• TheWakalix 15 Apr 2018 20:37 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Unknown’s comment on: Is Real­ity Ugly?

  You can’t decide which branch you go down. That’s confusing the mental level of your model with the quantum level. (In reality, the branches split based only on the fundamental state of things, not whether that state contains a pattern we call a mind.)

• TheWakalix 17 Apr 2018 3:15 UTC

  1 point

  on: The Case Against Education

  Typos:

  The ‘test’ be in your appointed cell --> is to be

  So learned I could take the AP tests anyway --> So I learned

• TheWakalix 17 Apr 2018 14:55 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: judge4’s comment on: Lo­cal Val­idity as a Key to San­ity and Civilization

  There will be scorching days even if the climate is slowly cooling. It’s really not a significant amount of evidence—certainly not worth talking about. It’s not worth the air you would talk it into.

• TheWakalix 17 Apr 2018 15:01 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: zulupineapple’s comment on: Lo­cal Val­idity as a Key to San­ity and Civilization

  I feel like you’re doing something this EY’s post is arguing against.

  Care to specify how that is the case?

• TheWakalix 17 Apr 2018 21:42 UTC

  2 points

  on: Knowl­edge is Freedom

  Perhaps and agent --> an agent

• TheWakalix 18 Apr 2018 21:02 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: pnrjulius’s comment on: Two More Things to Un­learn from School

  I feel similarly about my high school general science class. The teacher tried to make it hands-on etc. by having us run experiments and do simple engineering within the theme of the current topic, but a. he rarely explained the prerequisites to the projects and b. he still treated them as “one right answer”, and you would receive a poor grade if your experiment had odd results or your project didn’t meet the standards.