There has been major progress with at least one autoimmune disorder over the last 30 years. Even if there has not been an outright cure, the life expectancy of someone with HIV/AIDS, who can get treatment, is far greater now.
edit: clarifying, in case the downvoter didn’t understand the combination I responded to.
Update on the collaboration:
One person has contacted me so far. We’re each prototyping to our own vision with plans to share our results (with eachother at least) at some point. We’d love to exchange previews with more people, please don’t let our working on it stop you from prototyping your own vision of how it might work.
And I completely agree that at this point it would be more efficient to find new audience at universities.
Less time required to reach a given number of people who are going to join in, agreed. Yet the translation can help raise the sanity waterline of a group of people that would not even consider coming to a ‘rationality meetup’. I go to meetups because of the sequences, because it’s worth a three to five hour journey to hang out with people who share that.
The people who gain the most from structured arguments are the people who don’t need to sift through ten blog posts and hundreds of comments. The gains for the writers are more along the lines of less time reiterating arguments in different contexts.
I’ve been working on a tool like this. Done well it would be applicable to more than just debate… If folks want to collaborate, I’m interested.
Hence the actually useful numbers bit! Yet I do care to some extent, if for some reason I end up there in future, just less then everyone here and now. Maybe one could weight populations by inverse distance?
That’s not accurate; did you mean 13/10000?
Thanks, fixed.
I have a hard time seeing people as replaceable, much less easially. Even between two people who fit some abstracted ideal, one won’t replace another. Leaving that aside though, I think that the difficulty is more in finding the people who fit that ideal than their actual existence.
Of course… I thought 100 was meant to be the global mean. Lynn set Great Britian’s mean, nothing like a flexible definition!
The (not very good) data doesn’t bear out a 90ish global mean though, the sub-90 IQ countries are much lower population than over 90. To be pessimistic I’d take another half sigma. (92.5)
World Population: 7 billion
145+ IQ (1/4200): 17 million
Male (1/2): 8 million
College-aged (1/10): 800 thousand
Normal weight (3/5): 480 thousand
Actually useful numbers may be able to be obtained by using more locale specific filters.
World Population: 7 billion
145+ IQ (13/10000): 93 million
Male (1/2): 46 million
College-aged (1/10): 4 million
Normal weight (3/5): 2 million
Transhumanist values are probably higher than average in that group, but I have no idea of numbers there. Clicking with you and a more refined definition of attraction I can’t speak to, but if you’ve come in contact with 5 in your time at college… There’s still lots.
Consider all the possible outcomes of the races. Any algorithm will be right half the time (on average for the non-deterministic ones), on any subset of those races algorithms (other than random guessing) some algorithms will do better than others. We’re looking for algorithms that do well in the subsets that match up to reality.
The more randomness in an algorithm, the less the algorithm varies across those subsets. By doing better in subsets that don’t match reality the weighted maximum algorithm does worse in the subsets that do, which are the ones we care about. There are algorithms that does better in reality, and they have less randomness. (Now if none can be reduced from giant lookup tables, that’d be interesting...)
But the point of the randomized weighted majority guarantee is that it holds (up to the correctness of the random number generator) regardless of how much more complicated reality may be than the experts’ models.
How often are the models both perfectly contradictory and equal to chance? How often is reality custom tailored to make the algorithm fail?
Those are the cases you’re protecting against, no? I imagine there are more effective ways.
You wouldn’t notice the muscular subvocalizations. The easiest way to detect them is EMGs on the neck.
I do get to a point where the external world fades away and (with fiction) I have much stronger auditory and visual sensations. I imagine I stop subvocalization during that, I certainly appear to read faster.
Ask a creative friend to arrange one.
If someone asked me to arrange one… Firstly I’d schedule a random date a year or more hence, and not look at it. I’d determine how much cooperation I could expect from simulated and family and friends. More cooperation makes it easier. On that random day, I’d get an email, and I’d let people know, and start things moving. Anything from one parent calling about the other’s death to “police” calling to their partner summoning them home… The better people are at acting and the further away the simulated death occures the more realistic and longer experience they get. Given a specific situation there are probably better ideas.
Then there are less normal possibilities, perhaps hypnosis?
In lieu of losing someone, you could put yourself through a realistic simulation (of the first stages).
Really though, we’re all qualified to defend either deathism or immortalism. I’d love to hear what a deathist thinks is the strongest arguments for deathism.
And how do you expect to do better by using the weighted majority algorithm? Not in the worst case, but on average?
Zooko did this: Tahoe-LAFS
You can safely use it for private files too, just don’t lose your preencryption hashes.
Are cryopreserved humans l-zombies?
keeping in mind that if they were an l-zombie, they would still say “I have conscious experiences, so clearly I can’t be an l-zombie”?
As well they should. For l-zombies to do anything they need to be run, whereupon they stop being l-zombies.
If you rewrite my nuerons such that I have all of Donald Trump’s memories (or connections) and none of my own, yes. If you only rewrite my name, no, for I would still identify with the memories. There’s lots of space between those where I’m partially me and partially him, and I would hazard to forward-identify with beings in proportion to how much of my current memories they retain, possibly diluted by their additional memories.
I find the whole question less confusing when viewed from the other direction. After the upload, the uploaded you will view the current you as it’s past. If the upload is nondestructive, the non-uploaded you will also.
It’s not that bold a claim. It’s quite the same claim that simulating a brain at the level of quantum electrodynamics requires much more processing power than at the level of neurons. Or, if you will, that simulating a CPU at the level of silicon takes more than simulating at a functional level takes more than running the same algorithm natively.
I’ve never used Beeminder, but I find social commitment works well instead. Even teling someone who has no way to check aside from asking me helps a lot. That might be less effective if you’re willing to lie though.
An alternative would be to exchange commitments with a friend, proportional to your incomes...