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

Comment author: gworley 22 August 2017 06:26:55PM 0 points [-]

I'm not aware of anyone describing dialectic in that way. I would instead say that the double crux seems to me a more highly specified version of the dialectical method with specific instructions on how to carry it out. To be fair this is arguably a useful invention since it's helping people carry out dialectics in a particular way at least rather than not at all.

Comment author: ChristianKl 23 August 2017 05:22:54AM 0 points [-]

There are plenty of other techniques for dealing with internal parts. To the extend that CFAR reinvented the wheel I think it makes more sense to focus on other parts work.

NLP has 6-step reframing. Family systems therapy has it's own methods. Even older paradigms like various forms of shamanism have their own methods for doing part work. Those techniques are direct competitors to Internal Double Crux and worthy to be compared to it for the applications of the technique.

Comment author: Viliam 22 August 2017 09:24:59PM *  0 points [-]

Maybe this is just me, but it seems to me like there is a "motte and bailey" game being played with "emergence".

The "motte" is the definition provided here by the defenders of "emergence". An emergent property is any property exhibited by a system composed of pieces, where no individual piece has that property alone. Taking this literally, even "distance between two oranges" is an emergent property of those two oranges. I just somehow do not remember anyone using that word in this sense.

The "bailey" of "emergence" is that it is a mysterious process, which will somehow inevitably happen if you put a lot of pieces together and let them interact randomly. It is somehow important for those pieces to not be arranged in any simple/regular way that would allow us to fully understand their interaction, otherwise the expected effect will not happen. But as long as you close your eyes and arrange those pieces randomly, it is simply a question of having enough pieces in the system for the property to emerge.

For example, the "motte" of "consciousness is an emergent property of neurons" is saying that one neuron is not conscious, but there are some systems of neurons (i.e. brains) which are conscious.

The "bailey" of "consciousness is an emergent property of neurons" is that if you simulate a sufficiently large number of randomly connected neurons on your computer, the system is fated to evolve consciousness. If the consciousness does not appear, it must be because there are not enough neurons, or because the simulation is not fast enough.

In other words, if we consider the space of all possible systems composed of 10^11 neurons, the "motte" version merely says that at least one such system is conscious, while the "bailey" version would predict that actually most of them are conscious, because when you have sufficient complexity, the emergent behavior will appear.

The relevance for LW is that for a believer in "emergence", the problem of creating artificial intelligence (although not necessarily friendly one) is simply a question of having enough computing power to simulate a sufficiently large number of neurons.

Comment author: ChristianKl 23 August 2017 05:06:33AM 0 points [-]

The relevance for LW is that for a believer in "emergence", the problem of creating artificial intelligence (although not necessarily friendly one) is simply a question of having enough computing power to simulate a sufficiently large number of neurons.

I don't think in practice that has much to do with whether or not someone uses the word emergence. As far as a I understand EY thinks that if you simulate enough neurons sufficiently well you get something that's conscious.

Comment author: gworley 21 August 2017 06:02:14PM 0 points [-]

This reminds me, I was sort of sad when I saw the original double crux post. The method itself is fine, but I was sad that it took years for rationalists to reinvent the Hegelian dialectic. Makes you wonder what other well known methods are being ignored because they're not packaged in rationalist language.

Comment author: ChristianKl 22 August 2017 03:40:48PM 0 points [-]

That comment is surprising to me. I didn't understand the Hegelian dialectic about talking to internal parts. Which authors do describe the Hegelian dialectic as part work?

Comment author: Tenoke 21 August 2017 01:55:32PM *  0 points [-]

The fact that you engage with the article and share it, might suggest to the author that he did everything right.

True, but this is one of the less bad articles that have Terminator references (as it makes a bit more sense in this specific context) so I mind less that I am sharing it. It's mostly significant insofar as being one I saw today that prompted me to make a template email.

The idea that your email will discourage the author from writing similar articles might be mistaken.

I can see it having no influence on some journalist, but again

I am not sure how big the impact will be, but after the email is already drafted sending it to new people is pretty low effort and there's the potential that some journalists will think twice..

..

Secondly, calling autonomous weapons killer robots isn't far of the mark.

It's still fairly misleading, although a lot less than in AGI discussions.

The policy question of whether or not to allow autonomous weapons is distinct from AGI.

I am not explicitly talking about AGI either.

Comment author: ChristianKl 21 August 2017 03:03:24PM 1 point [-]

I can see it having no influence on some journalist, but again

My point wasn't that it creates no impact but that you show the journalist by emailing him that his article is engaging. This could encourage him to write more articles like this.

Comment author: Tenoke 21 August 2017 12:03:14PM 0 points [-]

After reading yet another article which mentions the phrase 'killer robots' 5 times and has a photo of terminator (and robo-cop for a bonus), I've drafted a short email asking the author to stop using this vivid but highly misleading metaphor.

I'm going to start sending this same email to other journalists that do the same from now on. I am not sure how big the impact will be, but after the email is already drafted sending it to new people is pretty low effort and there's the potential that some journalists will think twice before referencing Terminator in AI Safety discussions, potentially improving the quality of the discourse a little.

The effect of this might be slightly larger if more people do this.

Comment author: ChristianKl 21 August 2017 01:09:20PM 3 points [-]

The fact that you engage with the article and share it, might suggest to the author that he did everything right. The idea that your email will discourage the author from writing similar articles might be mistaken.

Secondly, calling autonomous weapons killer robots isn't far of the mark. The policy question of whether or not to allow autonomous weapons is distinct from AGI.

Comment author: DataPacRat 21 August 2017 12:26:27PM 0 points [-]

The leaky extensions in question, like "Web of Trust", phone home with browsing data, and say that they do. The extensions I use either just plain don't do that, or have an option to turn off such feedback. It's just one more detail that an eye has to be kept on.

Comment author: ChristianKl 21 August 2017 12:49:59PM 0 points [-]

How do you know whether an extension such as Adblock Plus or uBlock phones back?

Comment author: DataPacRat 21 August 2017 09:12:09AM 0 points [-]

Start paying twenty bucks a year for a VPN. Use Linux instead of Windows (even if just through a bootable flashdrive). Download the Tor Browser Bundle and start getting the hang of it. For everyday surfing, use Firefox as your browser, with the extensions Adblock Plus, Adblock Plus Pop-Up Addon, AdNauseum, BetterPrivacy, Decentraleyes, Element Hiding Helper for Adblock Plus, Flashblock, Ghostery, HTTPS Everywhere, NoScript, Privacy Badger, Random Agent Spoofer, RequestPolicy Continued, Self-Destructing Cookies, TrackMeNot, U2F Support Add-on, uBlock Origin, and uMatrix, so that when one add-on fails you another can fill the gap. Use two-factor authentication, including paying ten bucks for a physical U2F dongle to plug into your USB port (and a second dongle to keep at home as a backup), and preferably not using SMS messages sent to your phone. Start teaching yourself about particular items such as various cryptocurrencies, BitMessage, and Ricochet. Don't forget the basics, like clearing your Google and Youtube histories, and turning off personalized ads.

And, even if you start doing all of that right now, it'll still take time and practice to avoid various privacy-destroying mistakes. So it's better to get the practice period over as soon as possible, so you can then spend as much time as possible browsing with a modest level of privacy.

Comment author: ChristianKl 21 August 2017 10:30:03AM 0 points [-]

The article suggests "The pair found that 95% of the data they obtained came from 10 popular browser extensions."

Given that the prime leakage of data seems to be browser extensions, why do you think the solution is to install more browser extensions? Do you have strong reason to believe that the ones you listed (especially adblockers) don't leak any data?

Comment author: Viliam 20 August 2017 09:58:03PM *  2 points [-]

Emergency still feels like a "nonapple". You are right that mass is not an emergent property of quarks, but still, pretty much everything else in this universe is. If I understand it correctly, even "the distance between two specific quarks" is already an emergent property of quarks, because neither of those two quarks contains their distance in itself. So if I say e.g. "consciousness is an emergent property of quarks", I pretty much said "consciousness is not mass", which is technically true, but still mostly useless. Most of us already expected that.

Similarly, "consciousness is an emergent property of neurons" is only a surprise to those people who expected individual neurons to be conscious. I am sure such people exist. But for the rest of us, what new information does it convey?

Because the trick is that even if you don't believe that individual neurons are conscious, hearing "consciousness is an emergent property of neurons" still feels like new information. Except, there is nothing more there, only the aura of having an explanation.

Comment author: ChristianKl 21 August 2017 07:13:41AM 2 points [-]

The ability to express basic nonsurprising facts is useful.

When discussing whether or not to allow abortion of a fetus it matters whether you believe that real human consciousness needs a certain amount of neurons to emerge.

Plenty of people believe in some form of soul that's a unit that creates consciousness. Saying that it's emergent means that you disagree.

According to Scott's latest post about EA global, there are people at the foundational research institute who do ask themseves whether particles can be conscious.

There are plenty of cases where people try to find reductionist ways to thinking about a domain. Calories in, calories out is a common paradigm that drives a lot of thinking about diet. If you instead have a paradigm that centeres around a cybernetic system that has an emergent set point that's managed by a complex net of neurons, that paradigm gives a different perspective about what to do about weightloss.

Comment author: ChristianKl 21 August 2017 07:06:09AM 0 points [-]

What's the best practice for protecting one's privacy?

[Link] It is easy to expose users' secret web habits, say researchers

2 ChristianKl 21 August 2017 07:05AM

View more: Next