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

Comment author: RichardKennaway 30 January 2015 11:53:39AM 1 point [-]

The Law of the Minimum seems metaphorically relevant. "Growth is controlled not by the total amount of resources available, but by the scarcest resource."

Intelligence, speed, time, energy, charisma, money, able-bodiedness, a like-minded community, etc.: any of these may be someone's limiting factor.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 30 January 2015 02:08:52PM 0 points [-]

On the other hand, sometimes one resource can trade off for another. There are a lot of examples of this in computational complexity where one can use up less memory if one is willing to use a slower algorithm or if one is willing to use more memory one can get more speed. These aren't the only examples.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 29 January 2015 07:43:02AM *  0 points [-]

I'm certainly aware that there are many variants of these religions which believe wildly different things, but it was still my understanding that "eternal suffering for non-believers" was they most mainstream branch.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 29 January 2015 03:51:58PM 0 points [-]

Certainly not for Judaism, even stringent forms of Orthodox Judaism. And not for the Bahai either. For the others the situation is more complicated.

Comment author: Capla 29 January 2015 04:13:23AM 0 points [-]

Is the author unaffiliated with LessWrong?

Comment author: JoshuaZ 29 January 2015 04:36:40AM 0 points [-]

As far as I am aware yes. Their framing, priorities and vocabulary all make me strongly believe so.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 28 January 2015 09:54:44PM 0 points [-]

So is this the situation where everything the Christians value is gone..?

By the standards of Christians living a few hundred years ago (and hardliners living today), the secularisation of Europe must look catastrophic. Hundreds of millions of people doomed to burn in eternal hellfire.

All that (except maybe for the last sentence) sounds perfectly reasonable to me. In fact, acknowledging that some kids are not Christian -- if, in fact, they are not -- seems to me like the first step away from insanity.

This is probably because you are not a hardline conservative Christian. To them, the idea that there is an alternative to Christianity is an information hazard far worse then, say, Roko's Basilisk. The idea that you would present impressionable young children with an idea which, if adopted, results in them burning in hell is pure insanity in their eyes.

Before I read the sequences and understood about 'beliefs as attire' and so forth, I was confused as to how any Abraham religion could possibly co-exist with any other religion.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 29 January 2015 03:08:35AM 0 points [-]

I was confused as to how any Abraham religion could possibly co-exist with any other religion.

Um, you do know that there are major versions of every one of the three major Abrahamic religions that don't believe in eternal suffering for non-believers? Similar remarks apply for the minor Abrahamic offshoots (although deciding which are their own offshoots is fuzzy). Moreover, there are also variations in at least one of those religions where there's enough pre-destination that most of this is rendered completely irrelevant.

Comment author: solipsist 29 January 2015 02:35:42AM 0 points [-]

The Pythagorean theorem hasn't been mentioned in HPMOR. Given this, would anyone bet me at 100-to-1 odds that future chapters will reveal that Harry rederived the Pythagorean theorem, in secret, while a student at Hogwarts, before April, and had fun?

Comment author: JoshuaZ 29 January 2015 03:04:12AM 1 point [-]

Is there some reason to locate this hypothesis? Is there some reference I'm forgetting?

Comment author: solipsist 29 January 2015 02:03:58AM *  53 points [-]

Confirmation the prophecy isn't about Neville:

Neville Longbottom... who took this test in the Longbottom home... received a grade of Outstanding.

Harry raised the parchment with its EE+, still silent.

The Defense Professor smiled, and it went all the way to those tired eyes.

"It is the same grade... that I received in my own first year."


Comment author: JoshuaZ 29 January 2015 02:51:41AM 1 point [-]

I did not pick up on that. That's brilliant.

Comment author: Capla 29 January 2015 12:35:37AM *  3 points [-]

Other than Superintelligence and Global Catastrophic Risks what should I read to find out more about existential risk?

Comment author: JoshuaZ 29 January 2015 01:18:25AM 0 points [-]

"X-Events:The Collapse of Everything" covers some similar ground but from a more popular perspective.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 29 January 2015 12:26:24AM 1 point [-]

One question that keeps kicking around in my mind is that if someone's true but unstated objection to the problem of AI risk is that superintelligence will never happen, how do you change their mind?

Note that superintelligence doesn't by itself provide much of a risk. It is extreme superintelligence, together with variants of the orthogonality thesis and an intelligence that is able to rapidly achieve its superintelligence. The first two of these seem to be much easier to convince people of than the third, which shouldn't be that surprising because the third is really the most questionable. (At the same time there seems to be a hard core of people who absolutely won't budge on orthogonality. I disagree with such people on such fundamental intuitions and other issues that I'm not sure I can model well what they are thinking.)

Comment author: AnnaSalamon 28 January 2015 08:40:33PM *  2 points [-]

Yes, small ones -- but not peer-reviewed or published (which is much harder). We did a tiny randomized admissions experiment early on (with the admissions in summer 2012, the follow-up surveys one year later), and a small randomized online experiment; we will probably run another randomized admissions set sometime in 2015, w/ results coming in in 2016. (In some years, if/when we get to a point where funding is more secure, we will likely do more.)

Comment author: JoshuaZ 29 January 2015 12:20:41AM 0 points [-]

Is there a chance that a written up version of these small results will get posted on the CFAR website?

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 28 January 2015 08:07:28PM *  1 point [-]

I wanted to ask about working in an open space where your boss is... let's say in the same room, somewhere where he can watch you all day long.

Not necessarily immediately behind you; could be on the opposite side of the room; could be sideways. And of course sometimes he leaves the room for meetings etc., but his official sitting place is in the same room as yours, and he uses it almost every day for a few hours.

And "boss" doesn't necessarily mean the owner of the company; simply someone who is above you in the hierarchy; someone who gives you commands and who could fire you or significantly contribute to getting you fired. So it's not a room full of equals.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 28 January 2015 08:11:53PM 1 point [-]

I think you should clarify that in the original post. I interpreted it much more closely to what gjm labeled as (2) than (1), and voted mild accordingly. If I had realized the intended meaning I would have voted for horrible.

View more: Next