Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Adele_L 22 November 2014 12:49:43AM 4 points [-]
Comment author: Lumifer 18 November 2014 07:16:56PM 3 points [-]


Because if you're not upsetting some people, you are not impacting the status quo in any meaningful way.

Comment author: Adele_L 18 November 2014 07:36:49PM 1 point [-]

Maybe that is true in many cases, but even so, it still is a bad thing to optimize for. The outside view says that most of the time, having your percentage of positive karma steadily decreasing means the quality of your comments are getting worse. If you want to be controversial and still be taken seriously, you need to signal your competence in less controversial areas.

Comment author: advancedatheist 17 November 2014 06:27:32PM 3 points [-]

In the real world, the probability of a ten year old's death also reflects the fact that in developed countries, children live in sheltered conditions.

Comment author: Adele_L 17 November 2014 10:54:59PM 6 points [-]

According to the CDC, the leading causes for death for children aged 5-9 (in 2012 in the United States) are: 1. Unintentional injury 2. Malignant neoplasm (aka cancer) 3. Congenital disorders 4. Homicide 5. Heart disease

If we solved aging, it seems likely we could eliminate or significantly reduce deaths from cancer, congenital disorders and heart disease.

Once we look at the 10-14 age bracket or above, suicide makes it into the top five causes of death until age ~50 and above.

We can also look at the leading causes of unintentional injury. For the 5-9 age bracket, we have 1. Motor vehicle accidents 2. Drowning 3. Fire/Burns 4. Unintentional suffocation 5. Other land transport injuries

Traffic accidents seem likely to be solvable to a large degree with self-driving car technology. Not as sure about the others. It's worth noting that the primary cause of unintentional injury deaths for adults is unintentional poisoning. This was surprising to me; I would guess it's mostly due to drug use.

Comment author: Adele_L 17 November 2014 07:33:15PM 3 points [-]

Generally, dark arts should be avoided for decision theoretic reasons - essentially you are defecting on the prisoner dilemma.

Meetup : MIRIxAtlanta - MIRI Research Guide + Corrigibility

1 Adele_L 16 November 2014 10:34PM

Discussion article for the meetup : MIRIxAtlanta - MIRI Research Guide + Corrigibility

WHEN: 22 November 2014 06:00:00PM (-0500)

WHERE: 2388 Lawrenceville Hwy. Unit L. Decatur, GA 30033

We'll go over the new research guide http://intelligence.org/research-guide/ which discusses which mathematical knowledge is necessary for doing FAI research, and goes over the major lines of research done at MIRI.

We will also look at a new line of research called corrigibility. From the research guide: "As artificially intelligent systems grow in intelligence and capability, some of their available options may allow them to resist intervention by their programmers. We call an AI system “corrigible” if it cooperates with what its creators regard as a corrective intervention, despite default incentives for rational agents to resist attempts to shut them down or modify their preferences."

There will also be snacks and cats! Hope to see you there!

Discussion article for the meetup : MIRIxAtlanta - MIRI Research Guide + Corrigibility

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 11 November 2014 06:45:20AM 1 point [-]

Quines don't say anything about human working memory limitations or the amount of time a human would require for learning to understand the whole system, and furthermore only talk about printing the source code not understanding it, so I'm not sure how they're relevant for this.

Comment author: Adele_L 11 November 2014 03:17:05PM 2 points [-]

I wouldn't be too surprised if the hypothesis is true for unmodified humans, but for systems in general I expect it to be untrue. Whatever 'understanding' is, the diagonal lemma should be able to find a fixed point for it (or at the very least, an arbitrarily close approximation) - it would be very surprising if it didn't hold. Quines are just an instance of this general principle that you can actually play with and poke around and see how they work - which helps demystify the core idea and gives you a picture of how this could be possible.

Comment author: Fluttershy 11 November 2014 04:20:52AM 5 points [-]

In case it was not obvious, the correct takeaway from this article is that you should go and get a flu shot, if you haven't gotten one already this year. If you have already gotten a flu shot this year, and you reply to this comment with a message that states that you have done so, I would be more than happy to upvote you.

Comment author: Adele_L 11 November 2014 05:44:52AM 4 points [-]

I got one this year! I didn't get one last year, and someone else ended up getting very sick as a direct consequence... :(

Comment author: polymathwannabe 11 November 2014 05:24:22AM 0 points [-]

I have a hypothesis based on systems theory, but I don't know how much sense it makes.

A system can only simulate a less complex system, not one at least as complex as itself. Therefore, human neurologists will never come up with a complete theory of the human mind, because they'll not be able to think of it, i.e. the human brain cannot contain a complete model of itself. Even if collectively they get to understand all the parts, no single brain will be able to see the complete picture.

Am I missing some crucial detail?

Comment author: Adele_L 11 November 2014 05:41:34AM *  1 point [-]

Seems unlikely, given the existence of things like quines, and the fact that self-reference comes pretty easily. I recommend reading Godel Escher Bach, it discusses your original question in the context of this sort of self-referential mathematics, and is also very entertaining.

Comment author: gwern 08 November 2014 04:00:48AM 1 point [-]

Already has been, see Reddit.

Comment author: Adele_L 08 November 2014 04:33:34AM *  2 points [-]

What was the string that generated the hash, then?

ETA: See Lumifer's link above.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 06 November 2014 08:14:01AM 3 points [-]

Your poll is somewhat broken (last option missing). Note that ability to rotate in the mind is very differently expressed. Some people do it effortlessly, some even with multiple elements (Tesla was said to be able to animate whole machines in his mind). Therefore I'd recommend to provide a scaled or indexical poll ("not at all", "partial/limited", "single element single rotation", "single element, multiple motions/changes", "multiple elements interacting (gears)", "whole machines"). As only 4 people (me included) voted I recommend to repost the poll and extend it.

Comment author: Adele_L 06 November 2014 04:51:37PM 2 points [-]

Thanks for catching the error, and I think the rest of your suggestion is good, but unfortunately 32 people have taken it now (wow!) and I don't think I can change it without breaking it.

View more: Next