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

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 23 January 2015 03:41:33AM 2 points [-]

That was in reference to the labor issue, right?

Comment author: CarlShulman 23 January 2015 05:37:17AM 6 points [-]

AI that can't compete in the job market probably isn't a global catastrophic risk.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 15 January 2015 11:26:00PM 5 points [-]

This is good news. In general, since all forms of existential risk seem underfunded as a whole, funding more to any one of them is a good thing. But a donation of this size for AI specifically makes me now start to wonder if people should identify other existential risks which are now more underfunded. In general, it takes a very large amount of money to change what has the highest marginal return, but this is a pretty large donation.

Comment author: CarlShulman 17 January 2015 12:11:10AM *  7 points [-]

GiveWell is on the case, and has said it is looking at bio threats (as well as nukes, solar storms, interruptions of agriculture). See their blog post on global catastrophic risks potential focus areas.

The open letter is an indication that GiveWell should take AI risk more seriously, while the Musk donation is an indication that near-term room for more funding will be lower. That could go either way.

On the room for more funding question, it's worth noting that GiveWell and Good Ventures are now moving tens of millions of dollars per year, and have been talking about moving quite a bit more than Musk's donation to the areas the Open Philanthropy Project winds up prioritizing.

However, even if the amount of money does not exhaust the field, there may be limits on how fast it can be digested, and the efficient growth path, that would favor gradually increasing activity.

Comment author: Pablo_Stafforini 15 January 2015 05:50:46AM *  1 point [-]

Why should we consider possible rather than actual experiences in this context? It seems that cryonics patients who are successfully revived will retain their original reward circuitry, so I don't see why we should expect their best possible experiences to be as good as their worst possible experiences are bad, given that this is not the case for current humans.

Comment author: CarlShulman 16 January 2015 02:28:17AM *  2 points [-]

For some of the same reasons depressed people take drugs to elevate their mood.

Comment author: CarlShulman 26 December 2014 09:58:02PM 0 points [-]

Typo, "amplified" vs "amplify":

"on its motherboard as a makeshift radio to amplified oscillating signals from nearby computers"

Comment author: Brian_Tomasik 15 December 2014 05:03:27AM 2 points [-]

Thanks for the correction! I changed "endorsed" to "discussed" in the OP. What I meant to convey was that these authors endorsed the logic of the argument given the premises (ignoring sim scenarios), rather than that they agreed with the argument all things considered.

Comment author: CarlShulman 15 December 2014 05:16:13AM 2 points [-]

Thanks Brian.

Comment author: CarlShulman 15 December 2014 04:59:07AM *  2 points [-]

It has been endorsed by Robin Hanson, Carl Shulman, and Nick Bostrom.

The article you cite for Shulman and Bostrom does not endorse the SIA-doomsday argument. It describes it, but:

  • Doesn't take a stance on the SIA; it does an analysis of alternatives including SIA
  • Argues that the interaction with the Simulation Argument changes the conclusion of the Fermi Paradox SIA Doomsday argument given the assumption of SIA.
Comment author: examachine 17 November 2014 02:23:48PM 0 points [-]

We believe we can achieve trans-sapient performance by 2018, he is not that off the mark. But dangers as such, those are highly over-blown, exaggerated, pseudo-scientific fears, as always.

Comment author: CarlShulman 17 November 2014 05:37:49PM *  4 points [-]

By "we" do you mean Gök Us Sibernetik Ar & Ge in Turkey? How many people work there?

Comment author: PhilGoetz 07 October 2014 11:05:27PM 1 point [-]

It would be better than nothing. I am grinding one of my favorite axes more than I probably should. But those numbers make my case. My intuition says it would be hard to mine a few million SNPs, pick the most strongly associated 9500, and have them account for less than .29 of the variance, even if there were no relationship at all. And height is probably a very simple property, which may depend mainly on the intensity and duration of expression of a single growth program, minus interference from deficiencies or programs competing for resources.

Comment author: CarlShulman 07 October 2014 11:41:54PM 3 points [-]

"My intuition says it would be hard to mine a few million SNPs, pick the most strongly associated 9500, and have them account for less than .29 of the variance, even if there were no relationship at all."

With sample sizes of thousands or low tens of thousands you'd get almost nothing. Going from 130k to 250k subjects took it from 0.13 to 0.29 (where the total contribution of all common additive effects is around 0.5).

Most of the top 9500 are false positives (the top 697 are genome-wide significant and contribute most of the variance explained). Larger sample sizes let you overcome noise and correctly weight the alleles with actual effects. The approach looks set to explain everything you can get (and the bulk of heritability for height and IQ) without whole genome sequencing for rare variants just by scaling up another order of magnitude.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 07 October 2014 11:56:19AM *  1 point [-]

One problem is that for that approach, you would need, say, standardized IQ tests and genomes for a large number of people, and then to identify genome properties correlated with high IQ.

First, all biologists everywhere are still obsessed with "one gene" answers. Even when they use big-data tools, they use them to come up with lists of genes, each of which they say has a measurable independent contribution to whatever it is they're studying. This is looking for your keys under the lamppost. The effect of one gene allele depends on what alleles of other genes are present. But try to find anything in the literature acknowledging that. (Admittedly we have probably evolved for high independence of genes, so that we can reproduce thru sex.)

Second, as soon as you start identifying genome properties associated with IQ, you'll get accused of racism.

Comment author: CarlShulman 07 October 2014 11:32:24PM *  3 points [-]

You can deal with epistasis using the techniques Hsu discusses and big datasets, and in any case additive variance terms account for most of the heritability even without doing that. There is much more about epistasis (and why it is of secondary importance for characterizing the variation) in the linked preprint.

Comment author: KatjaGrace 07 October 2014 02:49:06AM 2 points [-]

If parents had strong embryo selection available to them, how would the world be different, other than via increased intelligence?

Comment author: CarlShulman 07 October 2014 11:29:21PM 5 points [-]

A lot of negative-sum selection for height perhaps. The genetic architecture is already known well enough for major embryo selection, and the rest is coming quickly.

Height's contribution to CEO status is perhaps half of IQ's, and in addition to substantial effects on income it is also very helpful in the marriage market for men.

But many of the benefits are likely positional, reflecting the social status gains of being taller than others in one's social environment, and there are physiological costs (as well as use of selective power that could be used on health, cognition, and other less positional goods).

Choices at actual sperm banks suggests parents would use a mix that placed serious non-exclusive weight on each of height, attractiveness, health, education/intelligence, and anything contributing to professional success. Selection on personality might be for traits that improve individual success or for compatibility with parents, but I'm not sure about the net.

Selection for similarity on political and religious orientation might come into use, and could have disturbing and important consequences.

View more: Next