turchin

• turchin 3 Feb 2010 20:24 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Roko’s comment on: The AI in a box boxes you

  But in order to colonize light cone at least one AI must be relised. This may be real hidden catch.

• turchin 16 Mar 2010 13:38 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Jayson_Virissimo’s comment on: Undis­crim­i­nat­ing Skepticism

  May be my confestion will spoil again my low reputation, but I should tell that I wrote an article about UFOs. And I think it was rational.

  Because even slightest probability that we have unknown phenomena in our sky should be taken in account when we speak about existential risks. Also I use Baiesian path of weighting different hypothesis and calculating expected negative utility associated with each.

  “UFO as Global Risk” Alexei Turchin, expert on global catastrophes of Russian Transhumanist Movement

  Version 0.910, 5 Jan 2010.

  Abstract In this article are discussed global risks – i.e. risks that could lead to the complete extinction of mankind, – associated with the problem of UFOs. Although the author is on 90 per cent sure that the UFOs are some common phenomena, the remaining 10 percent are forced him to consider these risks seriously. In the paper is suggested almost complete list of possible hypotheses explaining the nature of UFOs, including a number of new hypotheses (crown discharge around human body, ships from other dimensions covered by the shell of liquid metal, alien nanorobots, conspiracy of suppressed unconscious parts of self, parasites-symbionts from unknown forms of matter, bugs and viruses in the Matrix, etc.) and assessed the reliability of each of the hypotheses and the risk that relates to it. I consider several factors of global risk that may be associated with UFO (intelligence, energy, specific form of toxicity, informational effect, global power), based on observational data. The work is intended for a wide range of readers, as well as for anyone interested in existential risks. This work does not reflect the official position of the Russian Transhumanist Movement, or of any other organization and is only my personal research.

  Permalink: http://​​www.scribd.com/​​doc/​​18221425/​​UFO-as-Global-Risk

Sim­ple freindli­ness: plan B for AI

Sim­ple friendli­ness: Plan B for AI

• turchin 10 Nov 2010 8:27 UTC

  −1 points

  in reply to: Relsqui’s comment on: Sim­ple friendli­ness: Plan B for AI

  I post again because I do no see my post in Discussion.

• turchin 10 Nov 2010 8:46 UTC

  −1 points

  in reply to: JoshuaZ’s comment on: Sim­ple freindli­ness: plan B for AI

  I understand my mistakes with grammar and font size :(. English is not my native language, but on native I have the same problem

  I agree that all suggested ideas could fail. But I think it is better to have such laws enforced to all AI projects, then to have many “naked” AI projects without any friendliness.

  We have tradeoff between complexity of friendliness and time needed to install it all existing AI projects. That is my main idea. Simple friendliness could be much easier disseminated.

• turchin 10 Nov 2010 8:49 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Sim­ple freindli­ness: plan B for AI

  But creating of state laws was- at least partly—an attempt to create friendly state. And we should use millions of human day of work spent on the same goal—creating goal system for nonhuman object.

• turchin 10 Nov 2010 8:50 UTC

  −1 points

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Sim­ple freindli­ness: plan B for AI

  We should learn from this attempt

• turchin 11 Nov 2010 0:09 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: JoshuaZ’s comment on: Sim­ple freindli­ness: plan B for AI

  I posted again before read your answer, because I got message from Nesov with suggestion to change font and because I didn’t see my message in the main topic (it was downvoted). My browser doesnot show mistakes in the text., sorry for them.

  The main point of my post is that in order to reach maximum of existing AI projects, the freindliness system must be simple and clear. Its parts must be mutual independent so different projects could implement those part which better suited to them.

  And it is better that all AI projects would have some kind of friendliness, then to have correct but complex friendliness theory which is not implemented by any AI project.

  And that is why I call this plan B. Because plan A is to wait until SIAI creates friendliness theory and then implement it in its AI project.

Bayesian ap­proach: UFO vs. AI hypotheses

• turchin 13 Dec 2010 20:38 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: shokwave’s comment on: Bayesian ap­proach: UFO vs. AI hypotheses

  Yes, I mean exactly what you said about Bayesian probability: that UFO evidences do not support UFO existence hypothesis more than UFO non existence hypothesis.

• turchin 15 Dec 2010 20:53 UTC

  −4 points

  on: Friendly AI Re­search and Taskification

  I have outline the same problem in my post Simple friendliness: Plan B for AI http://​​lesswrong.com/​​r/​​discussion/​​lw/​​327/​​simple_friendliness_plan_b_for_ai/​​

  We have no time to create FAI, before any AI project would reach success. So we need to make the problem of FAI taskable by dividing it on several mutely independent principles which could be so simple that every one could understand them. In my post I suggested possible list of such principles.

My mother is now in cryostasis

• turchin 8 Jan 2011 20:52 UTC

  6 points

  in reply to: JoshuaZ’s comment on: My mother is now in cryostasis

  I want to keep it in secret only for some my mothers friends and not forever. In fact I was going to tell that she was cryopreserved on the funerall, but it was too hard for me. So I am irrational in this point. Most of russian speakers here are russian transhumanist who already know about the case. Her brain was near zero but not below freesing point, and was partly successfully filed with cryoprotector as I was told. The partial success was due to brain hydrops

• turchin 8 Jan 2011 21:26 UTC

  5 points

  in reply to: icebrand’s comment on: My mother is now in cryostasis

  The main point is that the body was legaly buried. By law the body is the skeleton, not the brain. If Criorus failed, I can take the brain home and keep it in the refrigiratoir. Even in US the brain is not covered by law and was many times removed without agreement with relatives. See e.g. A.Einstein brain history.

• turchin 8 Jan 2011 21:36 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: Vladimir_M’s comment on: My mother is now in cryostasis

  I replaced wiki link with short url, hope it would be ok

• turchin 10 Jan 2011 9:06 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: TheRev’s comment on: My mother is now in cryostasis

  In fact I am more afraid about “moral pressure” from close friends. The existance of Criorus is well known to public by many TV shows. Of course one day authority could come and ask them—where is the documents? But in her will is said that she donate her brain for scintific study, this is legal.

• turchin 5 Feb 2011 15:00 UTC

  −1 points

  in reply to: endoself’s comment on: What is Eliezer Yud­kowsky’s meta-eth­i­cal the­ory?

  near future : “you are paper clip maximazer! Kill him!”

• turchin 28 Jun 2011 20:06 UTC

  1 point

  on: Meetup : Less Wrong Ottawa

  I want to make annoncemt about Less Wrong meetup in Moscow 2 Jule 16.00, Fiztex on tretiakovkaia,, but I need one more carma point to post, please add it.

Meetup: Less Wrong Moscow 2 Jule 2011