= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DeepMind isn't doing safety engineering; they're doing standard AI. It doesn't matter if Elon Musk is interested in AI safety, if, after his deliberations, he invests in efforts to develop unsafe AI. Good intentions don't leak value into the consequences of your acts.
In response to
Rationality Quotes February 2014
You are never going to catch up, and neither is anyone else.
-- Gian-Carlo Rota
In response to
Tricky Bets and Truth-Tracking Fields
Bob will accept that some phrase X is meaningful if there is a test that can be performed whose outcome value depends on truth value of X. If there is such a test, then we can construct a further test of asking someone who has performed the original test what the outcome of the test was. Since the people who set up tests are usually honest, this test would also be a test of X (provided the original test exists).
If I ask an honest peasant how long the emperor's nose is, but I also suspect no one has ever seen the emperor, how much do I learn from her statement? What if she says, "I have never seen the emperor, but other people tell me his nose is 5cm"? How many people has she talked to? Has any of them seen the emperor?
I don't know how to answer those questions, and yet your example is even less clear. You think no one has seen the emperor and you're not sure if he can be seen. 5cm? Well she is honest.
I would phrase this more along the lines of "If nothing MIRI does works, or for that matter if everything works but it's still not enough, CFAR tries to get a fully generic bonus on paths unseen in advance."
Do you choose that rephrasing because you don't see how MIRI's work could be harmful or because there is nothing CFAR can do in that case?
In response to
Above-Average AI Scientists
Mirror of the Bonobo Conspiracy webcomic: #569: Easy once you know
Nope!
Richard Jeffrey!
Karma points to whoever identifies them correctly!
The guy on the right is more accurately represented than the guy on the left, but the guy on the left may still be guessable based on the subject matter. Hint: the guy on the left is a philosopher known, among other things, for his post-1950 contributions to theory of causality.
(The guy in the middle is Judea Pearl, Ilya's advisor at UCLA.)
Update: dougclow correctly identified the man on the right, and vallinder correctly identified the man on the left.
The man on the left is Hans Reichenbach.
we already know with confidence what to expect from the test: slowed reactions and limited attention
This is indeed what I expect, but I think you are more confident about it than I am -- I'm interested in seeing what's causing the difference. Can you link/cite the resources that caused you to update the most? (If you have a very strong prior against this sort of thing, that's fair game too.)
If, in fact, a (strongly) polyphasic schedule did provide considerable advantages to a monophasic schedule, this would be very valuable information, if only because it could be used to the benefit of a large number of people. I'm sort of puzzled at why you dislike other people spending their resources on things that might help you, even if the chance of it doing so is small; even if you were purely a selfish agent, I don't see why you would discourage this. (One possibility is that alternative uses of the time of the people involved would help you more. Is this likely?)
No, I don't dislike that Brienne et al. ran the experiment. They can spend their time how they like, and quantitative self-help is admirable. But we didn't get to the quantitative part yet, so I'm very confused that this post was so well received. It reflects a problem more severe than community standards falling because individuals are unwilling to bear the cost of speaking out; individuals are actively encouraging low standards. Or that's how it seemed before people responded to me. Now my probability mass is mostly split between my values being weird or some cynical explanations about unconscious motivations producing exceptional support/inclusion toward this one post. At this point my complaining has exceeding my gripe, so whatever, ignore me.
I upvoted out of gratitude for doing an experiment that involves personal sacrifice and has a high potential payoff for all of us, and to suggest that I eagerly await the cognitive battery results.
If adopting a weird sleep schedule has a high cost for the experimenter, that also offsets any potential payoff of adopting one on the experiment's basis. The experiment so far hasn't yielded any valuable results, because we already knew that a mild polyphasic schedule can be maintained (siestas), and that only running on naps is difficult (college students). Sleep deprivation is interesting and cognitive test results are fun to read; other than that novelty I don't see the VoI, because we already know with confidence what to expect from the test: slowed reactions and limited attention, with more extreme impairment for more deviant sleep schedules.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
General case:
When someone posts links from webpage X, which can be refuted from webpage Y (or vice versa), and so on, without adding anything themselves to the discussion.
Motivating example:
I've often seen things posted on climate change, lifted directly from http://wattsupwiththat.com/ , that can be refuted from http://www.skepticalscience.com/ , which can often be re-refuted from the original website, and so on. Since we're just letting the websites talk to each other, and neither poster has any relevant expertise, this seems a pointless waste.
An argument that halts in disagreement (or fails to halt in agreement) because the interlocutors are each waiting for another to provide a skillful assessment of their own inexpertly-referenced media sounds a lot like a software process deadlock condition in computer science. Maybe there's a more specific type of deadlock, livelock, resource starvation, ..., in the semantic neighborhood of your identified pattern.
Dropping references, while failing to disclaim your ability to evaluate the quality and relevance of topical media, could be called a violation of pragmatic expectations of rational discourse, like Grice's prescriptive maxims.
Maybe a telecommunications analogy would work, making reference to amplifiers \ repeaters \ broadcast stations that degrade a received signal if they fail to filter \ shape it to the characteristics of the retransmission channel.
"Rhetorical reenactment" sounds like "historical reenactment" and hints at the unproductive, not-directly-participatory role in the debate of the people sharing links.