Many Worlds seems fake because doesn’t that imply the universe is tracking a complex number with magnitude in the order of 10^-10^100 for the branch that we live in? Since the worlds have to split up all the time.
all the other quantities (number of atoms in the universe, planck times since the big bang) are only a singly stacked exponential like 10^100
Also whats the precision of these amplitude numbers.
Wasn’t translator supposed to be a normal stable job? Allegedly they were hit hard by google translate even pre-llm
the implementation could use some work because the emoji votes here are overflowing on mobile
which one is your favorite?
hmm it didn’t strike me when reading but that paragraph in OP is kinda bad as you say.
> the minimax theorem
a less complicated and more correct reference is Zermelo’s theorem, this is combinatorial game theory not economic (a further complication of reality is that the wiki article is kinda bad, it’s just induction). The theory also explains that in fact some chess moves are better than others in a mathematical sense, because some worsen the position more than others (e.g. Win->Draw vs Win->Win). Though it doesn’t match what Tessa says about vectors with lengths very well.
no way they invented yudslop 💀
Interpretations-of-media realism is the claim that there exists at least one interpretative of media statement that is objectively true.
that’s what I meant but somewhat jokingly
as a gaygp victim thank you for your service
less wrong should add a “confirms my biases” reaction. like to put under stuff that idk if it’s especially objectively true or good but I love hearing that shit
I liked the dashed-words in planecrash but many here felt jarring: “work-site”, “processor-ticks”. why do we have to know these are single words in robot language. but not eg “space station”
sounds miserable, have they looked into not being violinists?
she “disagrees with catastrophic framings of AI risk.”
that’s not very consistent with my understanding of the words “endorsed IABIED” from OP
Feels true to me, but what’s the distinction between theoretical and non-theoretical arguments?
Consider the mythological case of the calculation if the atomic bomb would ignite the atmosphere. I guess the concern guided the “policy” to perform the calculation. And if it came out as 50% of omnicide, atomic bombs would be prevented, despite the lack of a spectacular warning shot.
Policy has also ever been guided by arguments with little related maths, for example, the MAKING FEDERAL ARCHITECTURE BEAUTIFUL AGAIN executive order.
Maybe the problem with AI existential risk arguments is that they’re not very convincing.
Common rationalist take is that people used to really believe their religions (and now it’s fake).
Somehow I can’t not doubt that 1st century people unironically believed the Bethlehem census story. They would be familiar with state logistics of the time!
They must’ve been like yeah we made it up for Messiah lore lmao
This seems pretty useless.
Step 1 won’t work for distinguishing good from bad, current tech is not capable of this.. (I guessed that it would be biased to be negative since it’s kinda suggested in the prompt, but from other comments it seems it still glazes)
As pointed out by other comments, step 2 would reject much/most real knowledge progress.
“Support” is kind of weak. To make it like the CAIS statement, maybe “I largely agree with IABIED”. Or “I ~agree with IABIED”. Or “I agree* with IABIED [bring your own footnotes]” 🙂
”Statement of ~agreement with IABIED”
I never got that cause is deciding to smoke much of an update after you already detected an urge to smoke? edt looks simpler so it should be correct
I don’t think this can be exactly right. I have googled some largest numbers in the universe (space and time) and they were < 10^100. Then I turned to computing 1/the magnitude of the amplitude of our branch. At that point I have some probability distribution of what that number is, and it can be surprising (aka seem fake) if it’s exponentially more than the previous numbers.
It seems quite clear to me that is a valid form of reasoning that has ever worked correctly. It may turn out to be wrong in this case, but my vibe tell is that something is up with the amplitude.
Some form of this reasoning could work for the cat in your example, e.g. comparing the width of a hair to the size of the house he’d get the order of the order of magnitude of earth (math not checked).
This might work better or worse depending on the version of Occam’s razor, which I have uncertainty over.