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

Comment author: MrMind 25 May 2017 12:51:18PM 0 points [-]

Isn't this a fundamental logical error? They're trying to show that the Bohmian interpretation is correct by constructing a classical model that exhibit quantum behavior, but we already know that Bohmian interpretation, since it's an interpretation, already has all the feature of quantum mechanics.

Comment author: whpearson 23 May 2017 07:55:47PM 0 points [-]

I think we need an association for AGI safety.

I'm poking around using some prototyping tools to try and get something to explain my thoughts about what it might do.

https://www.weld.io/agi-safety-association

Feedback welcome on the content (warning presentation is bad, do not let operations people near the frontend!)

Comment author: MrMind 25 May 2017 12:35:56PM 0 points [-]

Differences with MIRI?

Comment author: Miller 25 May 2017 06:20:58AM *  0 points [-]

Prediction is intelligence. Why is there not more discussion about stock picks here? Is it low status? Does everyone believe in strong forms of efficient market ?

(edited -- curious where it goes without leading the witness)

Comment author: MrMind 25 May 2017 12:30:39PM 1 point [-]

My interpretation of the general sentiment is that market prediction, for it to be remarkably fruitful, has long escaped the possibility for a single individual who is not already blessed by a crapload of money.

Comment author: James_Miller 24 May 2017 01:08:45AM *  1 point [-]

In what kind of two "person" game would a human have the greatest advantage over a computer? Let's make the game entirely self-contained with objective scoring, no manipulation of real-world objects, and no advantage for knowing real world facts. How far away is "go" from such a game?

Comment author: MrMind 25 May 2017 12:28:05PM 0 points [-]

How about Dixit?

Comment author: Lumifer 17 May 2017 03:45:07PM 0 points [-]

That's an example of high profit since profit = price - cost of production.

Comment author: MrMind 18 May 2017 02:38:56PM 0 points [-]

Right, I wasn't thinking in terms of fixed price.

Comment author: Elo 17 May 2017 11:20:00PM 0 points [-]

Step 1. Optimal rationality
Step 2. Easy weight loss with the cico model

Comment author: MrMind 18 May 2017 02:29:53PM 0 points [-]

Step 1. Optimal rationality

Easy peasy.

Comment author: ChristianKl 17 May 2017 02:58:26PM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure on what it specifically means the word "anti-advice", but if it's along the line of excluding possibly useless models, then sure, it's anti-advice but it's still useful.

The paragraph you wrote has the potential to make a reader believe they have less agency about weight loss and thus be less motivated to do the straightforward actions that the CICO model recommends.

While you claim to steelman you don't provide any arguments for which you believe that isn't the case and why believing no-CICO would be better for someone who wants to lose weight.

Comment author: MrMind 18 May 2017 02:28:37PM 0 points [-]

The paragraph you wrote has the potential to make a reader believe they have less agency about weight loss

Well, if that's true, then we as rationalist should embrace that.

While you claim to steelman you don't provide any arguments

Because the argument is complex and because I'm not sufficiently invested. I was suggesting a possibility in the landscape of possible counter-arguments.

why believing no-CICO would be better for someone who wants to lose weight

This is straightforward: because some people with low agency might obtain better results acting on other inputs, as per Viliam iron deficiency.

Comment author: qmotus 17 May 2017 10:01:07AM 0 points [-]

(I'm not convinced that the universe is large enough for patternism to actually imply subjective immortality.)

Why wouldn't it be? That conclusion follows logically from many physical theories that are currently taken quite seriously.

Comment author: MrMind 17 May 2017 04:17:07PM 0 points [-]

Such as? Subjective immortality isn't implied by MWI without further cosmological assumptions.

Comment author: cousin_it 16 May 2017 05:17:51PM *  1 point [-]

You're right that rich people can create value for themselves, I'm not arguing against that. But I often see claims that rich people must've given a lot to others, and poor people must've not given enough. That's what I'm arguing against. It's possible that many rich people are rich because they're giving mostly to themselves, and many poor people are poor because they give more than they receive. That strikes against the idea that the market is fair.

Comment author: MrMind 17 May 2017 04:13:48PM 0 points [-]

But I often see claims that rich people must've given a lot to others, and poor people must've not given enough

But that's a different claim from what you've argued originally. Perfect free markets are perfect allocators, not perfect distributors, and an easy example is a utility monster.

Comment author: Lumifer 16 May 2017 05:44:09PM 1 point [-]

Well, let's take a look at how the markets work.

Step one is value production. There are entities (people and organizations) which produce tradeable value. That ability is not limited to "rich people" -- anyone can do it.

Step two is you offer the value you created to the market. The transactions are voluntary, so each purchaser of your goods gains from that exchange (that's called a "consumer surplus" in economics). This way the value of the good = price + consumer surplus.

Price, in turn, is production cost + profit, so

value = production cost + producer's profit + consumer surplus

Rich people are rich (in this stylized context) because they collected a lot of profit. That could be because the profit was high or because the volume of sales was high -- or both, of course. But note that the consumer surplus is always positive. Each and every transaction results in gains for the consumer.

Now, the easiest way to be poor is not to produce anything of value. No profit, no consumer surplus, no nothing. In this case, sure, the non-producing poor are poor because they do not produce. Tyler Cowen has a term, "ZMP workers", that is, Zero Marginal Productivity workers. They exist.

But, of course, that's not the only way to be poor. You can be highly productive and someone might take all the surplus away from you. Such people also exist (and their plight has been well explored by e.g. Karl Marx).

Comment author: MrMind 17 May 2017 03:10:08PM *  0 points [-]

That could be because the profit was high or because the volume of sales was high

Or because the cost of production was comparably very small, for example externalizing some factors (cfr. the classic example of a factory that saves by not installing filters but pollutes the air).

View more: Next