Comment author: Davorak 29 January 2015 07:13:32AM 24 points [-]

Donated.

I would recommend making the donate link large, currently it is the smaller link on the page and is harder to notice. "Donate" or "Donate here" in the link text would also make it more noticeable.* Putting a donate link at the top of the fundraising page, http://lesswrong.com/lw/lfg/cfar_in_2014_continuing_to_climb_out_of_the/ would also make it more noticable and more likely to capture vistors and therefore donations.

  • These things are so common I look for them by default. Some might argue that putting the link at the top or making it larger might be untasteful or communicates a spammy signal, I would argue that at least these techniques and more are so standard as to be expected and missed when not present to many.
Comment author: Document 09 September 2012 04:18:34AM 12 points [-]

Edited how?

Comment author: Davorak 12 September 2012 02:25:03PM 8 points [-]

If I remember correctly the second quote was edited to be something along the lines of "will_newsome is awesome."

Comment author: Armok_GoB 29 July 2012 07:57:11PM 1 point [-]

I don't remember this post. Weird. I've updated on it thou; my evidence is indeed even weaker than that,a nd you are absolutely correct in every point. I've updated to the point where my own estimate and my estimation of the comunitys estimate are indistinguishable.

Comment author: Davorak 31 July 2012 07:24:34PM *  1 point [-]

Interesting, I will be more likely to reply to messages that I feel end the conversation like your last one on this post:

It feels like this one caused my to update far more in the direction f basilisks being unlikely than anything else in this thread, although I don't know exactly how much.

maybe 12-24 hours later just in case the likelihood of update has been reduced by one or both parties having a late night conversation or other mind altering effects.

Comment author: Armok_GoB 05 July 2012 07:17:13PM 1 point [-]

Yea. It's not THAT big a danger, I'm just trying to make it clear why I hold a belief not based of evidence that I can share.

Comment author: Davorak 09 July 2012 09:04:17PM *  3 points [-]

Speculating that your evidence is a written work that has driven multiple people to suicide, further that the written work was targeted to an individual and happened to kill other susceptible people who happened to read it. I would still rate 2% as overconfident.

Specifically the claim of universality, that "any person" can be killed by reading a short email is over confident. Two of your claims that seem to contradict are, the claim that "any one" and "with a few clicks", this suggests that special or in depth knowledge of the individual is unnecessary which suggest some level of universality, and the claim "Never said it was a single universal one." Though my impression is that you lean towards hand crafted basilisks targeted towards individuals or groups of similar individuals, but the contradiction lowered my estimate of this being corrected.

Such hand crafted basilisks indicates the ability to correctly model people to an exceptional degree and experiment with said model until an input can be found which causes death. I have considered other alternative explanations but found them unlikely if you rate another more realistic let me know.

Given this ability could be used for a considerable number task other then causing death, strongly influence elections, legislation, research directions of AI researchers or groups, and much more. If EY possessed this power how would you expect the world to be different then one where he does not?

In response to comment by [deleted] on CFAR website launched
Comment author: KatieHartman 07 July 2012 03:43:36AM 20 points [-]

Thanks, daenerys! :)

Comment author: Davorak 07 July 2012 09:36:05PM 1 point [-]

From my layman perspective it looks professional and very clean, great job.

Comment author: cousin_it 23 May 2012 05:57:50PM *  1 point [-]

Omega could truthfully say "the contents of the boxes are exactly as if I'd presented this problem to an agent running TDT".

Comment author: Davorak 23 May 2012 06:41:41PM 0 points [-]

I do not know if Omega can say that truthfully because I do not know weather the self referential equation representing the problem has a solution.

The problems set out by the OP assumes there is a solution and a particular answer but with out writing out the equation and plugging in his solution to show the solution actually works.

Comment author: Davorak 23 May 2012 05:42:51PM -1 points [-]

Omega (who experience has shown is always truthful) presents the usual two boxes A and B and announces the following. "Before you entered the room, I ran a simulation of this problem as presented to an agent running TDT.

There seems to be a contradiction here. If Omega siad this to me I would either have to believe omega just presented evidence of being untruthful some of the time.

If Omega simulated the problem at hand then in said simulation Omega must have siad: "Before you entered the room, I ran a simulation of this problem as presented to an agent running TDT." In the first simulation the statement is a lie.

Problem 2 has a similar problem.

It is not obvious that the problem can be reformulated to keep Omega constantly truthfully and still have CDT or EDT come out ahead of TDT.

Comment author: zntneo 18 May 2012 02:31:07AM 0 points [-]

I have seen a lot of people suggest remember the milk. Can someone explain why that one compared to others like Toodledoo?

Comment author: Davorak 18 May 2012 09:06:05PM 0 points [-]

I tried entering "Check weather tomorrow" into Toodledoo and it did not automatically set a due date of tomorrow.

I spend ~2 minutes and I found out how to turn on keyboard shortcuts but did not find the page explaining them, it was under a minute for both in RTM. May keyboard short cuts overlapped with gmail and or unix environments in RTM which made them easy to pick up.

I am sure you can find more complete comparisons elsewhere and I was not aware of Toodledoo until your post so it is probably not an evenhanded review on my part.

Comment author: [deleted] 23 November 2011 11:54:04PM *  1 point [-]

This made me laugh, but... is that a bad thing? The thread-starting, not my laughter.

Comment author: Davorak 24 November 2011 01:12:10AM 2 points [-]

It is a bad thing if it discourages people you want posting from posting. Which could happen if Luke came off as dominate and territorial. I do not think Luke appears dominate and territorial so this has not registered as a problem to me.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 15 November 2011 02:17:07AM 4 points [-]

"Digital intelligence" seems like an odd choice of terms. Nothing in what you are talking about needs to be digital per se by any of the usual meanings of digital. It would certainly be strange if humans made such an object that wasn't digital but nothing in the definition requires it to be digital.

Comment author: Davorak 15 November 2011 06:26:46AM *  2 points [-]

What about:

digital intelligence has certain advantages (e.g. copyability)

No degradation with iterative copying is a an advantage digital media is often thought to have over analog media. What I think they are trying to convey is perfect reproduction is possible and is a large advantage.

edit:spelling

View more: Next