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

Comment author: Lumifer 21 March 2017 04:18:09PM 0 points [-]

By the way, is there a rationalist equivalent of the seven deadly sins?

Comment author: MrMind 22 March 2017 11:26:48AM 0 points [-]

If there is, I don't know them. Or you could just reverse the Virtues, or use a list of bias.. Those that I mentioned seemed to me the worst possible enemies of effectiveness.

Comment author: dogiv 20 March 2017 06:58:18PM 0 points [-]

The idea that friendly superintelligence would be massively useful is implicit (and often explicit) in nearly every argument in favor of AI safety efforts, certainly including EY and Bostrom. But you seem to be making the much stronger claim that we should therefore altruistically expend effort to accelerate its development. I am not convinced.

Your argument rests on the proposition that current research on AI is so specific that its contribution toward human-level AI is very small, so small that the modest efforts of EAs (compared to all the massive corporations working on narrow AI) will speed things up significantly. In support of that, you mainly discuss vision--and I will agree with you that vision is not necessary for general AI, though some form of sensory input might be. However, another major focus of corporate AI research is natural language processing, which is much more closely tied to general intelligence. It is not clear whether we could call any system generally intelligent without it.

If you accept that mainstream AI research is making some progress toward human-level AI, even though it's not the main intention, then it quickly becomes clear that EA efforts would have greater marginal benefit in working on AI safety, something that mainstream research largely rejects outright.

Comment author: MrMind 22 March 2017 11:07:09AM 0 points [-]

But you seem to be making the much stronger claim that we should therefore altruistically expend effort to accelerate its development.

This is almost the inverse Basilisk argument.

Comment author: Bound_up 20 March 2017 11:49:25PM 0 points [-]

Suppose there are 100 genes which figure into intelligence, the odds of getting any one being 50%.

The most common result would be for someone to get 50/100 of these genes and have average intelligence.

Some smaller number would get 51 or 49, and a smaller number still would get 52 or 48.

And so on, until at the extremes of the scale, such a small number of people get 0 or 100 of them that no one we've ever heard of or has ever been born has had all 100 of them.

As such, incredible superhuman intelligence would be manifest in a human who just got lucky enough to have all 100 genes. If some or all of these genes could be identified and manipulated in the genetic code, we'd have unprecedented geniuses.

Comment author: MrMind 21 March 2017 08:20:44AM 0 points [-]

Well, yes. You have re-discovered the fact that a binomial distribution resembles, in the limit, a normal distribution.

Comment author: Lumifer 20 March 2017 05:37:48PM 0 points [-]

I want to call this Pac-man in spaaaace :-D

You're a ball eating dots and you're navigating a complex gravitational terrain where you hope to slingshot yourself around particular gravity wells to get to where you want to go.

It's merely rocket science :-)

The only question remains, who's going to be Blinky, Pinky, Inky and Clyde?

Comment author: MrMind 21 March 2017 08:07:53AM 0 points [-]

Uhm... Sloth, Addiction, Envy and Ignorance?

Comment author: lifelonglearner 20 March 2017 09:25:39PM 0 points [-]

Yes, if I gave that impression, I apologize. I don't think that this does a good job of modeling global preference modifications.

I'm not well versed with the idea of potential in this context, so from my mindset, "attractor" seemed like the best term. Do you mean potential in the electrical sense? (The short answer here is that I'm not well-versed in domain knowledge.)

Comment author: MrMind 21 March 2017 08:07:05AM 1 point [-]

Yes, potential as used in physics: a quantity spreaded in space which gradient determines force (electric potential is just one the three potential in nature).

Comment author: MrMind 20 March 2017 04:43:41PM *  1 point [-]

The second and third point as Bayesian slogans:

2 - motivated prediction is not evidence!

3 - measure calibration!

I'm still searching a good slogan for the first.

Comment author: MrMind 20 March 2017 04:39:39PM 0 points [-]

I don't see how Attractor Theory explains global modifications of preference. For instance:

the set of things that feel desirable to me after running a marathon may differ greatly from the set of things after I read a book

might be true but it's not warranted by a simple model of an attractor, which modifies only your local preferences.

Also, why use the term 'attractor', which has a very specific connotation? Does the concept conveys differences that aren't alreay covered by a well of potential?

Comment author: MrMind 20 March 2017 04:33:55PM 0 points [-]

Two typos: "Choose actions such that their meta-level effects on my by" should be "...effects on me" and the paragraph that starts with "Moving from one Attractor to a disparate one" is repeated twice.

Open thread, Mar. 20 - Mar. 26, 2017

3 MrMind 20 March 2017 08:01AM

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "

Comment author: niceguyanon 16 March 2017 02:24:53PM *  3 points [-]

I am reading Expecting Better, a book about evidence based pregnancy and in it, there are passages about the high rates of C-sections and why it might be. The conclusion was that one medical intervention, whether by drugs or over-monitoring, usually leads to another and another and you end up with a C-section. Non C-section births have better outcomes. So you want to avoid it if you can. The book also mentions that the use of a doula can reduce rates of C-sections to less than 10% from modern U.S. rates of 30%. That is very impressive. Why and how?

I interviewed a professional doula and just asked quite plainly how does her service provide such a dramatic decrease in C-sections. Her personal experience if she is to be believed, is in line with the 10% figure. Her answer is that by being an advocate for the mother and delaying any unnecessary medical intervention in the delivery room, and by providing a calm and coping environment for the mother, she is able to have better outcomes. This means not bringing the mother to the hospital too early.

The way she described it was that the delivery room is a high stress situation where there are doctors and nurses who are supposed to be doing something, and when nothing is happening, they tend to make things happen, when the right thing to do is just wait. Doulas often go to your home before you are in active labor and bring you to the hospital no earlier than you have too. This is the key, by going to the hospital too early you are increasing your chances of having some medical intervention.

So the take away is that there is good evidence that doulas are effective and do so by:

  • timing the right time to go to the hospital
  • preparing a mother to be calm and mentally strong
  • advocating for a mother in the delivery room for more time, before intervention
Comment author: MrMind 17 March 2017 03:35:26PM *  2 points [-]

Non C-section births have better outcomes. So you want to avoid it if you can.

This is highly suspicious to me. Do C-sections follow or cause worse outcomes?

View more: Next