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

Comment author: cousin_it 12 September 2017 12:57:16PM *  5 points [-]

Next time you find yourself idly thinking about random stuff, notice just how repetitive it feels at times, and try to interject some thoughts that you never thought before.

For example, I just tried for a minute to come up with answers why the sky is blue, without any care for truth or beauty, aiming only to avoid the feeling of repetitiveness:

1) The universe is filled with blue powder

2) Our eyes are blue on the inside, so when we look at nothing, we see blue

3) It's not sky, it's blue land

Fun! I wonder if this exercise is a good alternative to relaxation for creativity.

Comment author: MakoYass 13 September 2017 07:15:19AM 0 points [-]

All of those facts about blue skies are true. I would also like to add that the white sky of a cloudy day is the emissions of a tremendous steam powered machine

Comment author: Caspar42 26 August 2017 08:12:30AM 2 points [-]

I recently published a different proposal for implementing acausal trade as humans: https://foundational-research.org/multiverse-wide-cooperation-via-correlated-decision-making/ Basically, if you care about other parts of the universe/multiverse and these parts contain agents that are decision-theoretically similar to you, you can cooperate with them via superrationality. For example, let's say I give most moral weight to utilitarian considerations and care less about, e.g., justice. Probably other parts of the universe contain agents that reason about decision theory in the same way that I do. Because of orthogonality ( https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Orthogonality_thesis ), many of these will have other goals, though most of them will probably have goals that arise from evolution. Then if I expect (based on the empirical study of humans or thinking about evolution) that many other agents care a lot about justice, this gives me a reason to give more weight to justice as this makes it more likely (via superrationality / EDT / TDT / ... ) that other agents also give more weight to my values.

Comment author: MakoYass 08 September 2017 08:32:07AM *  1 point [-]

Aye, I've been meaning to read your paper for a few months now. (Edit: Hah. It dawns on me it's been a little less than a month since it was published? It's been a busy less-than-month for me I guess.)

I should probably say where we're at right now... I came up with an outline of a very reductive proof that there isn't enough expected anthropic measure in higher universes to make adhering to Life's Pact profitable (coupled with a realization that patternist continuity of existence isn't meaningful to living things if it's accompanied by a drastic reduction in anthropic measure). Having discovered this proof outline makes compat uninteresting enough to me that writing it down has not thus far seemed worthwhile. Christian is mostly unmoved by what I've told him of it, but I'm not sure whether that's just because his attention is elsewhere right now. I'll try to expound it for you, if you want it.

Comment author: MakoYass 27 July 2017 02:32:33AM *  4 points [-]

It's good to see stories like this.

The notes about the impact on your sexuality are interesting. For a while I've been modelling fetishes as expressions of needs that've been displaced to fantasies and basal drives, unable to manifest in higher-minded consciously orchestrated virtue aspirations. They're the needs we find hard to admit to, problems we can't imagine finding a realistic solution to anywhere in the world (like we literally don't know what it would look like, it seems impossible, or, when we try to imagine it, the solution seems deeply undesirable). But they're deep needs, deep hungers. They wont go away. So the system shoves them into another place, a place where they can thrive as just fantasies, to keep them alive, to keep our attention on them, to keep us from giving up on them completely, however long it takes us to find our way to a realistic solution.

Your experiences seem to agree with that model. It has an interesting implication: fetishes are supposed to go away once the needs have been fulfilled, as they're mostly just a reflection of an unhealthy relationship with one's hungers. We've both experienced that. Heal the relationship, learn to perceive the solution in a healthy way, you can no longer exploit the displacement for pleasure. If instead you sustain the indulgence, that may make you very comfortable with retaining the neurosis, staying blind to the solution.

An example of where I would expect that to happen very easily is... Join a large, thriving, relatively long-lived community of people who harbor a memeplex that is exceptionally good at maintaining and amplifying your particular displaced hunger, maintaining the solution's indulgent, fantastical displacement. That is, join a kink community. It's not hard to imagine that there's a risk there, that they will have a cultural parasite for you, a culture that has feeds on and propagates through only people who are profoundly stuck in the neurotic conceptualization, something that will have been optimized to prevent you from getting to a place where you can see the solution in a realistic way. If it didn't defend its constituents from coming to recognize their cure, they would have spread it around among themselves, and the culture would have died. So, inevitably, we will be left only with...

Comment author: MakoYass 03 May 2017 03:50:59AM 0 points [-]

Competition and Capitalism Are Antonyms

~Peter Thiel

Comment author: MakoYass 28 April 2017 12:36:16AM *  0 points [-]

The moral, for me, is that you would never entrust your future to a thought process narrow enough to pass through the heads of nine suits in the space of an hour. At some point, some person or model will have to carry out an effulgence of inarticulably intricate, nuanced computations that you'll never understand, and you're going to have to learn to just trust its conclusions.

Comment author: Ritalin 26 April 2017 01:08:39PM 2 points [-]

Why do you get up in the morning?

Comment author: MakoYass 27 April 2017 02:34:56AM 3 points [-]

There's a genuine value misalignment there. Sleeping(me) genuinely wants to stay in bed for as long as possible and doesn't give a shit about the amount of time it's wasting nor the fact that oversleeping is coincident with dementia, heart disease. Waking(me) has no desire to get back into bed and really wishes Sleeping(me) had given in sooner. Sometimes Waking(me) will set in motion devices to undermine Sleeping(me) on the next morning. A thing called an "alarm clock", techniques such as moving the alarm clock away from the bed to force a transition. It's a neverending war.

Comment author: ChristianKl 24 April 2017 04:23:06PM 1 point [-]

I wouldn't necessarily say separate systems but a tulpa is something much more complex than a simple voice. If you get a decent trance state you can get a voice with a simple suggestion.

A tupla takes a lot more work.

Comment author: MakoYass 25 April 2017 03:37:48AM 0 points [-]

Note, all of the auditory hallucinations Jaynes reports are attributed to recurring characters like Zeus, personal spirits, Osiris, they're always more complex than a disembodied voice as well.

Comment author: ChristianKl 24 April 2017 08:57:20AM 2 points [-]

A tulpa is a lot more than a hallucinated voice. People hearing voices in their heads is quite common.

Comment author: MakoYass 24 April 2017 09:14:40AM *  0 points [-]

Mm, you're right, they may be a completely separate systems, though I'd expect there to be some coincidence.

Comment author: MakoYass 24 April 2017 08:40:49AM 0 points [-]

When I was reading about Julian Jayne's bicameral minds, I wondered whether the speaking social id might be the new tool of tools that needs to be hammered into alignment. There is an air gap there. The social constructs and borrowed goals the front-end freely infects itself with would be kept from contaminating whatever cognition the backend had taken up, and the backend would retain control over the frontend by shouting at it very loudly and forbidding it from using the critical thinking against it.

Though I don't think this bicameral safety architecture could be applied to AI alignment, heheh. I don't even think it should go much further than modern day computers. It would even seem anachronistic at the computers-with-direct-brain-interfaces level.

Comment author: MakoYass 24 April 2017 08:37:09AM 2 points [-]

I've been aware of the conflict between the old machinery and the logos since I was very young. I get a strong sense there's something halfway sapient back there that can sort of tell when parts of the logos' volition are aligned with the old machinery. Very often, I'll find I can override an instinct only once I've undergone a negotiation process and expressed/consolidated an understanding and respect of the instinct's evolutionary purpose.

In this theory of development, as the intelligence understands more and more of their intended purpose as a component of a living thing, they gain access to more introspective powers, more self-control.

It would be interesting to hear others' opinions on this.

View more: Next