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

Comment author: Punoxysm 28 October 2014 07:02:10AM 6 points [-]

It's wildly premature. We wouldn't have wanted to apply today's commercial aircraft standards to the Wright Brothers.

Comment author: Larks 30 October 2014 03:00:20AM 2 points [-]

We might have wanted to apply today's anti-proliferation standards to early nuclear weapons (assuming this would have been possible).

Comment author: bramflakes 27 October 2014 07:53:59PM 12 points [-]

My thoughts on the following are rather disorganized and I've been meaning to collate them into a post for quite some time but here goes:

Discussions of morality and ethics in the LW-sphere overwhelmingly tend to short-circuit to naive harm-based consequentialist morality. When pressed I think most will state a far-mode meta-ethical version that acknowledges other facets of human morality (disgust, purity, fairness etc) that would get wrapped up into a standardized utilon currency (I believe CEV is meant to do this?) but when it comes to actual policy (EA) there is too much focus on optimizing what we can measure (lives saved in africa) instead of what would actually satisfy people. The drunken moral philosopher looking under the lamppost for his keys because that's where the light is. I also think there's a more-or-less unstated assumption that considerations other than Harm are low-status.

Comment author: Larks 28 October 2014 02:04:36AM 1 point [-]

Do you have any thoughts on how to do EA on the other aspects of morality? I think about this a fair bit, but run into the same problem you mentioned. I have had a few ideas but do not wish to prime you. Feel free to PM me.

Comment author: Username 20 October 2014 02:20:14AM *  1 point [-]

我决定读中文. So technically I guess I invested my time, not money.

Comment author: Larks 20 October 2014 11:42:25PM 1 point [-]

Good answer, one I hadn't thought of.

Comment author: Lumifer 17 October 2014 02:58:04AM 2 points [-]

By "anti-Ebola preparations" do you actually mean "minimizing your chance of getting infected"?

Take a tent and go solo camping. Somewhere up North :-)

Comment author: Larks 17 October 2014 11:07:56PM 0 points [-]

By "anti-Ebola preparations" do you actually mean "minimizing your chance of getting infected"?

No, because as garabik noted, I don't want to commit suicide.

Comment author: Larks 17 October 2014 02:39:39AM 3 points [-]

Does anyone have any serious thoughts about anti-Ebola preparations one could take? (Please keep 'it is not a big threat' responses to a minimum - I'm aware of that, but am interested in the question anyway).

Comment author: Username 13 October 2014 01:19:51AM 2 points [-]

My money's on China.

Comment author: Larks 17 October 2014 12:15:08AM 1 point [-]

Given the theme of the thread I must ask: in what exact way? Chinese Stocks? Australian Commodities? Currencies? Short Taiwan?

Comment author: JenniferRM 16 October 2014 07:52:28AM 3 points [-]

106 comments so far and the word "artificial" (as in "artificial general intelligence", AI, or AGI) hasn't come up!?

As near as I can tell, if someone gets AGI to really work properly (and get even a not-very-explodey sort of intelligence explosion, just exponential curves with double times of months or years), it is likely, in the span of years to decades, to become worth more than the entire present value of the economy of the planet. How can this not be an investment opportunity?

Comment author: Larks 17 October 2014 12:10:01AM 2 points [-]

Also I appreciate the way you incremented the count, and expressed implicit minor surprise that your previous comment did not mention AGI!

Comment author: JenniferRM 16 October 2014 07:52:28AM 3 points [-]

106 comments so far and the word "artificial" (as in "artificial general intelligence", AI, or AGI) hasn't come up!?

As near as I can tell, if someone gets AGI to really work properly (and get even a not-very-explodey sort of intelligence explosion, just exponential curves with double times of months or years), it is likely, in the span of years to decades, to become worth more than the entire present value of the economy of the planet. How can this not be an investment opportunity?

Comment author: Larks 17 October 2014 12:09:14AM 1 point [-]

Perhaps it is in part due to my suggestion of a 1-3 year time horizon. But it is plausible that it could be discovered in 1-3 years.

Do you have suggestions on how one would invest on this thesis? (Invest in land and commodities? Or Google???)

Comment author: Lumifer 09 October 2014 08:56:48PM 6 points [-]

It's hard to short universities :-)

I expect the market to bifurcate with the top tier maintaining its ability to commandeer outrageous prices, but the bottom tier either reinventing itself or going bust. Harvard is fine, a fifth-tier law school in South Dakota is in deep trouble.

Comment author: Larks 11 October 2014 09:56:13PM 2 points [-]

You can short this one.

Comment author: Larks 11 October 2014 09:49:38PM 3 points [-]
  • Order the countries by their frequency in previous surveys.
  • As ever, the political labels used are misleading. The Scandinavian countries are not socialist, and the UK labour party are in many ways extremely illiberal.
  • You might want to break the cryonics question up a little more - some people are 'just finishing up the paperwork' for a very long time.
  • The immigration question is presumably actually asking about immigration controls, not immigration itself.

View more: Next