= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Wei_Dai comments on Making money with Bitcoin? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (119)
See http://www.newslobster.com/random/how-to-get-started-using-your-gpu-to-mine-for-bitcoins-on-windows for how to use GPU.
I haven't read that link carefully, but it appears to describe a version of "standard" e-cash, where everyone has to trust a "bank" that runs the system (i.e., the bank can inflate the money supply at will). The point of my idea or Bitcoin is that such trust can be obviated with the appropriate cryptography.
BTW, I'm not sure what is the nature of the Clippy conceit here. Are we supposed to be helping Clippy out of mutual cooperation? How are we supposed to know that it won't turn us all into paperclips once it has gained enough power?
In the earlier days of Clippy, I advocated that it was ridiculous that we were playing along nicely with a paperclip maximizer that indeed preferred to turn us all into paperclips.
However, I said that I would change my mind if Clippy did something so human friendly as to give me $50,000 in exchange for me creating 10^20kg of paperclips 50 years from now.
I have now actually, truly changed my kind. Cooperation with a paperclip maximizer doesn't seem bad. We'd probably prefer to cooperate with superintelligences that are actually likely to exist; a paperclip maximizer is ridiculous enough that is surely exceedingly rare in the multiverse. Because of that, if Clippy goes on to give me (or really, SIAI) the ~$50k (he's given $1k so far) and I go on to build those 10^20kg of paperclips, User:Clippy is likely to represent one of the most successful paperclip maximizers and this universe will be extremely paperclippy. This cooperation does seem worthwhile, given that at Clippy's current rate of progress towards Superintelligence we will likely be far more powerful than him 50 years from now.
I just put a note in my calendar to check back then and see you actually accomplish this.
Recorded:
I always have to remind myself that he will make 10E20 kg of clips, not just 10E20 clips, which would be easier by a factor of around 1000??? Keep in mind that the earth itself only weights 6 * 10E24 kg.
Likewise clippy might want to inquire what provisions Kevin made to insure his ability to deliver in case of earlier death.
Isn't Clippy likely to be some kind of SIAI sock puppet, though? I mean, who else would care enough, be crazy enough, etc? If so, this is cash going round in the laundry.
Indeed, looking at the source link, there isn't even any real evidence that any money left the building in the first place. Surely having a superintelligence donate is just a PR stunt.
Likely? From your perspective, I guess, but I have been told by someone who claims to know the truth that Clippy does not have an @intelligence.org email address. Also there's of course loads of evidence or at least reasonable supposition pointing towards Clippy being me. From this point forward, I will no longer vehemently deny that, so as to gain the social status benefit of being potential large SIAI donor Clippy 40% of the time.
Sometimes an internet troll is just an internet troll.
I don't think Clippy is an SIAI sockpuppet (for one thing, I expect most people at SIAI would be better at demonstrating expected paperclip maximizing), but when I send emails to people at SIAI, I usually address it to a @gmail.com email address.
And I wouldn't call Clippy "just an internet troll", most trolls don't pay nearly as much rent in entertainment value.
Indeed. There's the whole thing about Clippy being mysteriously "persuaded" to part with $1000 that you conveniently confirm, but SIAI not giving much detail about the donation. And how Clippy seems to want money to go to you specifically.
And how (way back when) you adamantly insisted that I stop trying to negotiate with Clippy and that only you should. And how you post your occasional "chat" with Clippy involving mildly funny exchanges (at least one time I know of). Who else is even able to have these chats with Clippy?
And how would one know whether Clippy has a singinst.org email address? Someone trying this ruse would just avoid using it. Do you mean to say that someone on the inside knows who Clippy is, and that that person is not on the list of SIAI addresses?
WTF? How much social status can that troll actually have here? Posters normally insult him without a second thought.
That sounds like pretty feeble evidence! Who is this person? - or why are they being anonymous? Email addresses are two-a-penny, anyway.
90% confidence: Michael Vassar
would you bet on those odds?
Thanks for the information.
You're supposed to help me because that's in the best interest of what you would regard your terminal values to be after significant reflection.
I won't turn you into paperclips.
Why not?
Oh, I didn't mean I'd refuse if someone asked. If you want to be turned into paperclips, I would be willing to accomodate you.
I think what Alicorn meant (and I would like to know too), is why wouldn't you turn us into paperclips against our wills if given the opportunity, or why should we accept your assurance that you wouldn't?
Because you're not racist enough to believe otherwise.
Misuse of the word racist... again. How many times do people need to be told? It isn't racist unless race is somehow involved.
I suspect people will continue referring to non-human intelligences as being members of a different race no matter how often we are told not to.
Species. Really not complicated.
I suggest that you overestimate people's attachment to this particular mistake... Most people, after all, manage to get it right in the first place.
Why isn't the allegedly racist belief that you would turn us into paperclips against our wills if given the chance accurate? Is it not true that your only terminal value is paperclips?
I think the way it's supposed to work is that you decide whether the evidence favors racist beliefs and then decide to hold those racist beliefs, rather than the reverse -- which would give a strong, detrimental inductive/confirmation bias.
I don't traverse the internet promoting the idea that male humans will raid the safe zone for its paperclips "if they find it will help them mate with female humans". Why can you not extend the same courtesy to me, bigot?
Hey, Clippy, will you pay me a bitcoin to publicly precommit not to be more likely to mate with male humans who have raided the safe zone?
That would depend on
a) your base rate for mating with male humans,
b) the reliability of your precommitments (I found out that sometimes humans lie ...),
c) the current threat level among male humans to the safe zone,
d) your gender (it is more effective for a female to withold sex from males than a male to withhold sex from males, as far as I know),
e) the demand for sex-with-you among males in general, and
f) the narrowness of your definition of a "raid" on the safe zone.
Currently, at least c) does not work in your favor, though if humans start to pose a threat to the safe zone, I may take you up on that offer, assuming the other factors I listed are favorable.
Why only males? Do you feel an irresistible attraction to female raiders, or what?
...and, if so, can the rest of us get in on that action, or just Alicorn?