Fruits have lots of fibers. Fibers both reduce sugar absorption in the guts and slow it down, evening the amount of sugar that gets in the blood stream over time (avoiding peaks that cause mass insulin production followed by a sugar dip when insulin keeps being produced while sugar intake drops, causing sudden fatigue). Fibers also fill the stomach, stretching it which signals satiety. You only get those benefits if you eat the whole fruit. In juices, slushies and the like, the fibers have been cut in small pieces and they effect is significantly reduced.
It’s a long shot, but how about oxygen deficiency? Our cells’ mitochondria use oxygen to produce ATP by ‘burning’ glucose. Could less oxygen mean less energy consumption and therefore more fat storage? All I could find about the evolution of oxygen concentration is on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen#Later_history: Oxygen levels in the atmosphere are trending slightly downward globally, possibly because of fossil-fuel burning.
We’d expect altitude to be positively correlated with obesity, though.
It becomes amazing that we make progress at all, when you think of it this way: it’s often to the state’s advantage to keep the population ignorant and poor.
States are also in competition with each other. A state with more military innovations can invade you. A state with more advanced culture can assimilate you. Your population can defect and move to a state that offers them a better deal.
How many got killed after the population supported invading Iraq based on Colin Powell’s very official little lies that Iraq had WMD and was linked to 9/11? According to Wikipedia:
U.S. military deaths: 4,576
Iraq excess deaths: aournd 500,000 according to Lancet and PLOS Medicine, including at least 100,000 violent deaths
Regardless of the general point, I think you’re making a noncentral fallacy here. This vaccine differs from the vaccine archetype for multiple reasons: it uses a new, different technology, it was rushed and we have no hindsight on its long-term side effects, it does not offer as strong a protection as expected from a typical vaccine (in particular, not strong enough to eradicate the virus even if it had maximum coverage), it’s used at the height of a pandemic with the risk of creating variants through recombination, the potential market has never been this huge, thus increasing the incentive for foul play. This is not a typical get-1-shot-go-carefree-for-10-years vaccine.
My bad, I thought stress was helping you achieve your goals in your life. I thought it was making you miserable but efficient.
A minor qualm that does not impact your main point. From this quotation of Bostrom:
We can tentatively define a superintelligence as any intellect that greatly exceeds the cognitive performance of humans in virtually all domains of interest
So, the singularity claim assumes a notion of intelligence like the human one, just ‘more’ of it.
That’s too narrow of an interpretation. The definition by Bostrom only states that the superintelligence outperforms humans on all intellectual tasks. But its inner workings could be totally different from human reasoning.
Others here will be able to discuss your main point better than me (edit: but I’ll have a go at it as a personal challenge). I think the central point is one you mention in passing, the difference between instrumental goals and terminal values. An agent’s terminal values should be able to be expressed as a utility function, otherwise these values are incoherent and open to dutch-booking. We humans are incoherent, which is why we often confuse instrumental goals for terminal values, and we need to force ourselves to think rationally otherwise we’re vulnerable to dutch-booking. The utility function is absolute: if an agent’s utility function is to maximize the number of paperclips, no reasoning about ethics will make them value some instrumental goal over it. I’m not sure whether the agent is totally protected against wireheading though (convincing itself it’s fullfilling its values rather than actually doing it).
It’d be nice if we could implement our values as the agent’s terminal values. But that turns out to be immensely difficult (look for articles with ‘genie’ here). Forget the 3 laws of Asimov: the first law alone is irredeemably ambiguous. How far should the agent go to protect human lives? What counts as a human? It might turn out more convenient for the agent to turn mankind into brains in a jar and store them eternally in a bunker for maximum safety.
Would you have successfully gotten some gravy if you hadn’t felt ‘unreasonable’ stress? In hindsight, it’s easier to notice that you stressed yourself more than was strictly needed, but without hindsight, isn’t it better to stress a little more than what seems necessary, and reach your goal, rather than stress the bare minimum and fail because an unexpected hurdle happened?
FWIW, strongly upvoted, despite thinking that the term ‘anti-vax’ perpetuates a false dichitomy that poisons the well.
I am French and the “incentive” OP talks about is blackmail by a president who just got disavowed in elections (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lections_r%C3%A9gionales_fran%C3%A7aises_de_2021#Synth%C3%A8se_des_r%C3%A9sultats LREM, the governing party, gets 0,52% of voter’s votes on the first round).
I’ve been writing a piece explaining the background of these “incentives” but since it’s a political issue, I don’t think it can find a place on LW (see the recent debate on https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BY5f7iEzHtEDJLXS7/prediction-what-war-between-the-usa-and-china-would-look).
One takeaway should already be obvious to anyone who’s concerned with AI alignment or read Superintelligence: don’t applaud when a growing potential tyrant does what you want.
But it is surprising that life could only appear on our planet, since it doesn’t seem to have unique features. If we’re alone, that probably means we’re just first. If we just blow up ourselves, another sentient species will probably appear someday somewhere else with a chance to not mess up. But an expanding unaligned AI will wipe out all chance of life appearing in the future. That’s a big difference.
Well, that’s just a variation of the Fermi paradox, isn’t it? What’s strange is that we don’t observe any sign of alien sentience, superintelligence or not. I guess, if we’re in the zoo hypothesis, then the aliens will probably step in and stop us from developing a rogue AI (anytime now). But I wouldn’t pin my hopes for life in the universe on it.
And it doesn’t expand into the universe to kill every other life.
I don’t know how common or obvious it is, but I noticed music works for me the same way as concepts do in your model. By listening to a song while having an experience arising positive affects, some positive affect is loaded into the song. Then, when I want to do something hard like study or work, listening to the song makes it more doable by tapping into its positive charge. This works for a time, until the song feels ‘discharged’, and even starts feeling as unpleasant as the hard situation it’s now associated with.
In the old days, the way you got to be a spy for Her Majesty’s Government was to be the “right sort” [...]
The freemasons and other semi-occult organisations also recruit that way.
Organisations holding a high amount of power have a natural tendency to become more and more bureaucratic over time. I’m borrowing the concept from Graeber’s The Utopia of Rules. The signs of a bureaucracy are the one-way addition of rules over time (rules are only added, very rarely deleted). While maintaining a facade of impartiality, these rules allow the insiders the flexibility to settle whatever way as the moment’s incentives require. They act in a way that displaces accountability from the insiders on to the outsiders.
Wikipedia does hold some amount of power, and it looks well on its way towards bureaucratization. The number of editors has been going down, and it’s notoriously become more discouraging for newcomers.
I don’t think Wikipedia’s rules are leaning left. I think Wikipedia’s rules are on their way to becoming dense and overlapping enough as to allow insiders to settle whatever way they need to.
Bureaucratic organisations rarely reform. Hopefully they crumble under their own dead weight and are replaced by better ones.
That wasn’t my complaint. I just pointed that it was waveman’s point and Steven Byrnes failed to address it.
The amount of people on both sides matters for how conflicts are resolved. If someone else already made an argument adding your position in addition is helpful.
On controversial topics, a few persons arguing can already produce an article’s length of points. How can a newcomer weigh in? There is (generally) no vote. You can just add more points. For those points to have a slight chance of being relevant, you need to read all the discussion and the rules referred to. And then someone will point that you forgot a yet-unmentioned-rule, and your words will only add to the noise and make it more difficult for the next one to weigh in.
It an openly known fact that mainstream media leans heavily on one side of the political spectrum. This makes it very difficult to find “authoritative” sources that tell a certain side of the story on a lot of topics.
As a habit, when I want to edit a page, I check the talk page. On any topic that the mainstream media touches (not only politics, but also critical reviews of movies, etc.), it is often longer than the article, and riddled with nitpicks and gotchas. I don’t want to waste my time on arguing there, and I think that’s the intended effect.
I’m not sure what you were expecting. There are a gazillion people who think “circumcision” is the obviously correct term, and a gazillion other people who think “genital mutilation” is the obviously correct term. Of course there’s going to be an Official Policy on this, settled long long ago, otherwise people would spend all day in endless “edit wars”
Sure, but the point was about the double standard of using “circumcision” for one side an “genital mutilation” for the other It’s ok to have an official policy, but you’d expect it to be justified and consistent.
I am wondering: how much protection woudl be/have been lost by 1) making masks mandatory for symptomatic people rather than 2) for everyone?
My current understanding is that masks work by keeping you from spreading virus. If you don’t have the virus, wearing a mask is useless. So with 1) the only protection lost would be from asymptomatic people. OTHO, the social and economic costs would be/have been much lower.
Also, could 1) have possibly given a slight selective advantage to more benign variants over harmful ones? Some diseases can be harmful while keeping mostly asomptomatic for a long time, but I don’t know if coronaviruses could.
Edit: Thanks for the reply. Here is what I meant for 1) in more detail: set a list of symptoms, like temperature, runny nose, etc., and if someone has any symptom, however mild, they have to wear a mask. This should include any symptomatic person, however pauci-.