= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I occasionally just forget that I can change things about my environment. If my clothes are uncomfortable, I can change. If there are annoying sounds, I can wear earplugs.
In response to
Neutralizing Physical Annoyances
For some context about when and what to change see Attempted Telekinesis.
In response to
Open thread, Oct. 10 - Oct. 16, 2016
There is 5 times more members in the group "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT)" (9800) in Facebook than in the group "Existential risks" (1880). What we should conclude from it?
Link: http://www.vhemt.org/
It's very likely much bigger then 9800. It is also very balanced and laid back in its views and methods. I'd think that contributes.
"known unknowns" describes a model where you have unknown variables but you know which variables you don't know.
OK with that terminology we can agree.
The known specific behavior is "known knowns" and not "known unknowns". There are certainly known unknowns over which you can make valuable statements.
But we can't get any further if we can't agree on an intermediate point.
Accepting the limits of what one can know is important. That does often mean that one can't go further.
Yes, the known specific behavior is known known. But I'm talking about the general behavior. Where we do not know specifics of but which is still within the general model? How do you call these?
The known physics don't allow you to say things about things unknown to model of known physics. Unknown variables that you can describe with the model of physics are known unknowns.
I agree to that. But we can't get any further if we can't agree on an intermediate point.
Would you argue about a system where we do not know the specifics of of some behavior of the system (to avoid the word 'unknown') but where we can know something about the (e.g. the probability mass) outside of the known specific behavior but still inside some general model of the system.
If all it takes to ensure FAI is to instruct "henceforth, always do what humans mean, not what they say" then FAI is trivial.
Except I bet that this also lots of caveats, e.g. in resolving the ambiguity of the referent 'humans'. Though the basic approach of using an AI's intelligence to understand the commands is part of some approaches.
In response to
Open thread, Oct. 03 - Oct. 09, 2016
Is there an effective way for a layman to get serious feedback on scientific theories?
I have a weird theory about physics. I know that my theory will most likely be wrong, but I expect that some of its ideas could be useful and it will be an interesting learning experience even in the worst case. Due to the prevalence of crackpots on the internet, nobody will spare it a glance on physics forums because it is assumed out of hand that I am one of the crazy people (to be fair, the theory does sound pretty unusual).
Do you have a mathematical formulation for it? (That will be the first question by the physics consultant mentioned above)
Math can only tell you about what happens inside your model. It can tell you something about known unknowns.
Social effects. Long-Term Capital Management maybe didn't want to see the limits of their approach.
Their approach was that they thought risk can be measured with modern portfolio theory for which their funders got the "Nobel".
It's not that different from how you don't want to see the limits.
Math can only tell you about what happens inside your model. True by construction. Apparently I meant something else.
And I don't mean it in the sense that a model of physics allows in principle to quantify that. But as a check of premises: Can we agree that known physics would in principle be model that would include the unknown unknowns are a quantifiable term (in principle)?
By the definition of unknown unknowns, they aren't known.
Long-Term Capital Management did hedge their risk with their "Noble prize"-winning formulas.
Math. Can sometimes surprisingly say something about the unknown.
Social effects. Long-Term Capital Management maybe didn't want to see the limits of their approach.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I'm not sure this has the best visibility here in Main. I just noted it right now because I haven't looked in Main for ages. And it wasn't featured in discussions, or was it?