Discussion article for the meetup : Ann Arbor Meetup - singing

Discussion article for the meetup : Ann Arbor Meetup - singing

Discussion article for the meetup : Ann Arbor Meetup - Meditation

Discussion article for the meetup : Ann Arbor Meetup - Meditation

I've been going through the AIFoom debate, and both sides makes sense to me. I intend to continue, but I'm wondering if there're already insights in LW culture I can get if I just ask for them.

My understanding is as follows:

The difference between a chimp and a human is only 5 million years of evolution. That's not time enough for many changes.

Eliezer takes this as proof that the difference between the two in the brain architecture can't be much. Thus, you can have a chimp-intelligent AI that doesn't do much, and then with some very small changes, suddenly get a human-intelligent AI and FOOM!

Robin takes the 5-million year gap as proof that the significant difference between chimps and humans is only partly in the brain architecture. Evolution simply can't be responsible for most of the relevant difference; the difference must be elsewhere.

So he concludes that when our ancestors got smart enough for language, culture became a thing. Our species stumbled across various little insights into life, and these got passed on. An increasingly massive base of cultural content, made of very many small improvements is largely responsible for the difference between chimps and humans.

Culture assimilated new information into humans much faster than evolution could.

So he concludes that you can get a chimp-level AI, and to get up to human-level will take, not a very few insights, but a very great many, each one slowly improving the computer's intelligence. So no Foom, it'll be a gradual thing.

So I think I've figured out the question. Is there a commonly known answer, or are there insights towards the same?

Discussion article for the meetup : Ann Arbor Meetup - Saturday, March 5, 7 PM, Amer's

Discussion article for the meetup : Ann Arbor Meetup - Saturday, March 5, 7 PM, Amer's

Inspired by the call to go forth and make rationality reign...

I've started a blog at http://www.bettertoknow.wordpress.com

It teaches discussion/debate techniques by showing them at work in a dialogue about the existence of God.

I don't expect theists to read it much, but atheists will be able to discuss theology (and everything else) more effectively with theists (and everyone else) after reading it.

With that in mind, I'd much appreciate critique of the plan and execution.

Am I thinking clearly? Am I expressing the ideas well? Am I taking too long to say things, using too great inferential distances, or strawmanning?

And on another level, am I using the wrong website to blog? Are my posts too long? Are they missing some important element? Should I be doing anything differently?

Discussion article for the meetup : Ann Arbor Meetup, 2/19/16

Discussion article for the meetup : Ann Arbor Meetup, 2/19/16

The most recent post in December's Stupid Questions article is from the 11th.

I suppose as the article's been pushed further down the list of new articles, it's had less exposure, so here's another one for the rest of December.

Plus I have a few questions, so I'll get it kicked off.

It was said in the last one, and it's good advice, I think:

This thread is for asking any questions that might seem obvious, tangential, silly or what-have-you. Don't be shy, everyone has holes in their knowledge, though the fewer and the smaller we can make them, the better.

Please be respectful of other people's admitting ignorance and don't mock them for it, as they're doing a noble thing.

Mine was to work tax policy to incentivize companies to make all their packaging shiny and white, incentivize people to litter, and disincentivize everybody from recycling.

My friend's was to use a giant rocket to push the earth farther away from the sun

Discussion article for the meetup : Suzhou Meet-up

Discussion article for the meetup : Suzhou Meet-up

http://measureofdoubt.com/2011/04/12/pulling-levers-killing-monsters-the-lure-of-unpredictable-rewards/ (how do I put a link like this in a word with blue letters?)

I've read that unpredictable rewards associated with a behavior actually encourage that behavior more effectively than consistent rewards.

The optimal habit-forming figure given in the link above is a 25% chance of reward for each instance of performing the behavior.

My hypothesis then, is that if I want to establish a habit by rewarding myself upon successfully performing a certain task, I should reward myself only 25% of the time if I want to ingrain the habit as forcefully as possible into my unconscious.

Anyone else think so, or have any other research to add?