Wilka

Karma: 161

Wilka 4 Jul 2012 20:24 UTC
5 points
0
in reply to: orthonormal’s comment on: Where to Intervene in a Human?
Is it possible for you to give an example of this works in practice? I’m curios what type of things you would note down.

It sounds like a useful idea worth trying out, but I’m having trouble seeing how I would start using it.

Wilka 30 Dec 2011 14:06 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: David Althaus’s comment on: What are good apps for rationalists?

Is the iPhone sufficiently awesome to justify its high price? Are there good low-cost smartphones? Ios or android?

My first question would be: how do you intend to use the device?

The two apps you mentioned are also available on Android, and I’m very happy with Evernote on my HTC Desire HD (I don’t use Toodledo). So if your main use would be those apps along with the typical phone stuff (calls/text message/email/web browsing) then an Android device should be fine for you.

However, a high-end Android device gets close to the price range of an iPhone.

Wilka 29 Dec 2011 12:46 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: ksvanhorn’s comment on: For-Profit Rationality Training
It can still be done online, e.g. Google+ Hangouts are an example of live group interaction (up to 10 people) that seems to be fairly popular.

The experience still isn’t as rich as in-person meeting, but it’s a big step up from pre-recorded video.

Wilka 14 Dec 2011 16:31 UTC
4 points
0
on: Q&A with Richard Carrier on risks from AI

For example, if we started a human-level AGI tomorrow, it’s ability to revise itself would be hugely limited by our slow and expensive infrastructure (e.g. manufacturing the new circuits, building the mainframe extensions, supplying them with power, debugging the system).

This suggests that he see the limiting factor for AI to be hardware, however I’ve heard people argue that we probably already have the hardware needed for human-level AI if we get the software right (and I’m pretty sure that was before things like cloud computing were so easily available)

I wonder how likely he thinks it is that a single organisation today (maybe Google?) already has the hardware required to run a human-level AI and the same speed as the human brain. Assuming we magically solved all the software problems.

Wilka 7 Nov 2011 17:22 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: SilasBarta’s comment on: Tell me what you think of me
This looks to be a Google Docs form (used for making surveys), it just has a single question which is a “paragraph text” field. It shouldn’t take long to do the same thing for yourself.

Have a look at this help topic for details on making a form.

Wilka 7 Oct 2011 12:41 UTC
9 points
0
in reply to: dreeves’s comment on: Anti-akrasia tool: like stickK.com for data nerds
When signing up, I was told the password I tried to use was too long (I have unique, randomly generated, passwords for each site I use). so I generated a < 20 chars password instead—however, password length limits around this size suggest that the site might be storing the passwords as plain text, rather than only storing a salted hash of the password.

So I was wondering, if that’s the case here?

Wilka 29 Aug 2011 17:20 UTC
4 points
0
in reply to: taryneast’s comment on: Help Fund Lukeprog at SIAI
You can find his “Reading Yudkowsky” series at http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=13052

Wilka 26 Aug 2011 12:59 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: tetsuo55’s comment on: Why no archive of refuted research?

I do not however have a solution for how to become a respected agency.

If journals start to reject publishing researched because it relies on ‘poor’ citations, that should have the effect of making this proposed archive-of-study-quality respected.

So maybe a more specific question: how could we get journals to use this archive as part of their review process?

Wilka 21 Aug 2011 19:53 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: A Crash Course in the Neuroscience of Human Motivation
That seems likely to me.

I enjoyed this post a lot, and I’ve shared with several other people that I think would also like it (and spend the time to read it). But it did take me a while to get to get through, I made coffee at least twice while reading it. I think it was almost 2 hours from opening the article to getting to the end. Not all of that time was spent reading—as well as getting coffee, I paused several times to digest what I’d read so far. However, it was still a lot longer than I’d normally spend on a single post.

Wilka 14 Aug 2011 22:07 UTC
0 points
0
on: “Meetup” proposal: Google+
I might not make it to any hangouts, but this post gets an up vote for having a list of LWers on Google+

I’m here if anyone wants to circle me.

Wilka 5 Aug 2011 12:17 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Rationality Quotes August 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u2ZsoYWwJA#t=7m36s

Wilka 2 Aug 2011 11:39 UTC
0 points
0
in reply to: Will_Newsome’s comment on: Teaching Introspection
This reminds me of http://lesswrong.com/lw/vk/back_up_and_ask_whether_not_why/ but I prefer the phrasing “What caused you to X” over “Should I X” and it feels like an easier question to get into the habit of asking.

Wilka 11 Jul 2011 21:12 UTC
−1 points
0
on: Other Useful Sites LWers Read
What about interesting RSS feeds? Anyone that uses Google Reader for RSS will have a ‘shared items’ feed that other people can subscribe to. I’m guessing that LW readers would tend to have an interesting ‘shared items’ feed if they use that feature?

For example, mine is http://www.google.com/reader/shared/wilka.hudson—although most of the stuff I share that would interesting to LW readers actually comes from LW, so maybe it’s not such a good idea after all.

Wilka 11 Jul 2011 20:54 UTC
11 points
0
on: Signatures for posts
Would it be possible for whoever to did the design to also do the layout for this? The style can go in the main .css, otherwise it could interfere with any future layout tweaks of the site.

I like the idea, I just don’t like the potential future work of having to go update N signatures when the main site styles are tweaked.
What links here?
- Vladimir_Nesov's comment on Signatures for posts by Oscar_Cunningham (11 Jul 2011 21:50 UTC; 12 points)

Wilka 11 Jul 2011 20:48 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: timtyler’s comment on: Self-improving AGI: Is a confrontational or a secretive approach favorable?
I think http://inhabitat.com/google-succeeds-in-making-driverless-cars-legal-in-nevada/ was a big step to helping improve that. Providing it works, once people start to notice the (hopefully) massive drop in traffic accidents for autonomous cars they should push for them to be more widespread.

Still, it’s a way off for them to actually be in use on the roads.

Wilka 10 Jul 2011 16:29 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: Morendil’s comment on: Google search for “rationality” has HP:MoR as the 2nd hit.
I checked on google.com and google.co.uk, both with me logged in and logged out, and it was the second hit each time. Also using ‘private browsing’ to make sure no cookies were still trying to personalize the results. Still, different national flavors of Google will probably give slightly different results—more so if it’s personalizing the search results for you.

Wilka 10 Jul 2011 16:25 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Oscar_Cunningham’s comment on: Google search for “rationality” has HP:MoR as the 2nd hit.
Yea, I checked again after logging out. It’s second either way for me.

Wilka 9 Jul 2011 20:15 UTC
1 point
0
on: Google+
If anyone is interested in having a look at it, but doesn’t have an invite (it’s invite only so they can control the rate new users sign up), then you can send me a message or reply to this comment with your email address and I’ll send some out.

Wilka 12 May 2011 12:00 UTC
20 points
0
on: You’ll die if you do that

based on an agenda you were naive to at the time?

This is almost always the case with warning labels (such as the silica gel example), I don’t recall ever seeing a warning label that also told you why it was warning you.

This reminds of a recent post over at Meteuphoric: Don’t warn nonspecifically!

Wilka 4 May 2011 20:17 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: jsalvatier’s comment on: [Link] Skeptics Stack Exchange
Phrasing it like that is likely to get closed as well, the Stack Exchange sites are strongly focused on Q&A, not discussions, so to avoid the question being closed you usually need to ask something that can have a ‘correct’ answer.