"I don't even see how one would start to research the problem of getting a hypothetical AGI to recognize humans as distinguished beings."
I'm still not convinced that human beings should be treated as a special case, as opposed to getting the AGI to recognize sentient beings in general. It's easy to imagine ways in which either strategy could go horribly wrong.
Here are some other links that are relevant to this post:
Andrew Hay's dependency graphs of Eliezer's LW posts
A Java applet for browsing through these dependency graphs Warning: This will take a long time to load, and may crash your browser
A Java applet for browsing through the concepts in the LW wiki Warning: This will take a long time to load, and may crash your browser
All of these graphs are out of date now.
TrailMeme is awesome, thanks for posting this!
If TrailMeme had a tool to import/export to/from a file, then I might have volunteered to create a script to generate trails for the LW sequences.
Creating these trails manually would be tedious, but probably worthwhile.
But I'm not volunteering to do this myself, at least not any time soon, sorry.
If you want one they can be obtained on collarme.com, Or So I've Heard.
Well bother. They all seem to be sex slaves. Which is great and all but I was hoping to branch out a bit and recruit some manual labour as well...
sorry if this squicks anyone here, but...
Not all of these people are sex slaves. Many of them are "service slaves".
I, personally, want to be a service slave, aka "minion", to someone whose life is dedicated to reducing x-risks.
The main purpose of this arrangement would be to maximize the combined effectiveness of me and my new master, at reducing x-risks. I seem to be no good at running my own life, but I am reasonably well-read on topics related to x-risks, and enjoy doing boring-but-useful things.
And I might as well admit that I would enjoy being a sex slave in addition to being a service slave, but that part of the arrangement is optional. But if you're interested, I'm bisexual, and into various kinds of kink.
Adelene Dawner has generously offered to help train me to be a good minion. I plan to spend the next few months training with her, to gain some important skills, and to overcome some psychological issues that have been causing me lots of trouble.
I haven't set up a profile on callarme.com for myself yet.
Existential Risks
More specifically, topics other than Friendly AI. Groups other than SIAI and FHI that are working on projects to reduce specific x-risks that might happen before anyone has a chance to create a FAI. Cost/benefit analysis of donating to these projects instead of or in addition to SIAI and FHI.
I thought the recent post on How to Save the World was awesome, and I would like to see more like it. I would like to see each of the points from that post expanded into a post of its own.
Is LW big enough for us to be able to form sub-groups of people who are interested in specific topics? Maybe with sub-reddits, or a sub-wiki? Regular IRC/Skype/whatever chat meetings? I still haven't thought through the details of how this would work. Does anyone else have ideas about this?
random trivia: I recently noticed that "The concept of cached thoughts is the most useful thing I learned from Less Wrong" is now a cached thought, in my mind.
I would like your interpretation of EDTSD, except it doesn't explain gur nofrapr bs lbhe jvsr be gur ryringbe ynql nsgre lbh whzc. V'z cerggl fher vg'f abg n cbfvgvir raqvat.
I realize that this is kinda stretching the limits of plausibility, but maybe...
obgu lbhe jvsr naq gur ryringbe ynql jrer arire erny va gur svefg cynpr. V zrna, vg znxrf frafr gung gur ryringbe ynql vfa'g erny, fvapr fur unf 4gu-jnyy-oernxvat xabjyrqtr, ohg vs gur thl'f jvsr vf vzntvanel, gura gung zrnaf ur'f ernyyl penml, naq qrfcrengryl arrqrq gurfr qernzf gb fanc uvz bhg bs gur penmvarff. Gur ynpx bs pnef ba gur svany qnl pbhyq or rkcynvarq ol gur bgure pnef nyfb orvat vzntvanel, be ol gur thl orvat fb yngr gung qnl gung ur pbzcyrgryl zvffrq ehfu ubhe. Npghnyyl, guvf pbhyq rkcynva gur nofrapr bs uvf jvsr gbb, znlor ur jnf fb yngr gung qnl gung uvf jvsr naq gur ryringbe ynql jrer nyernql fbzrcynpr ryfr.
Just played EDTSD, and had a much lower opinion of it than One Chance.
rot13: Cerggl zhpu rirel ryrzrag V unir na bcvavba nobhg jnf fhcrevbe va Bar Punapr. Gur cybg bs "lbhe gvzr vf ehaavat bhg, jung qb lbh qb jvgu fpnepr erfbheprf, naq guvf vf erny sbe lbh orpnhfr bs gur zrgntnzr" vf n ybg zber nccrnyvat gb zr guna gur cybg bs "lbh'er n pbecbengr qebar jubfr yvsr vf hapunatvat hagvy lbh xvyy lbhefrys." Gur zhfvp va BP jnf n ybg zber rzbgvbanyyl nssrpgvat (rfcrpvnyyl jura vg punatrq). Juvyr gur tencuvpf bs RQGFQ jrer funecre, V'ir tbg n ybg zber nssvavgl gb gur byq-fpubby tencuvpf guna funec synfu tencuvpf. Ohg rira orlbaq zl ovnf/cersrerapr, gur tencuvpf va BP pbzzhavpngrq n ybg zber, or vg nccyrf ba gur tebhaq be gur tenlvat bs crbcyr be oevtug erq. Cerggl zhpu gur bayl cneg bs RQGFQ gung nssrpgrq zr ivfhnyyl jnf gur jnyx gb lbhe phovpyr, jurer vg rkcnaqrq bhg gjvpr.
Wbua'f qrpvfvba gb fgbc jrnevat uvf pbng fgehpx zr n ybg zber guna "Uz, V unir sbhe fgrcf yrsg, jung unccraf vs V tb gb jbex anxrq?"
Zl vagrecergngvba bs "Rirel qnl gur fnzr qernz" jnf gung rirel qnl rkprcg sbe gur ynfg qnl jnf n qernz, naq gur ynfg qnl jnf ernyvgl. Naq gung gur thl jub lbh frr whzc ng gur raq vfa'g lbh, vg'f gur ynfg bs gur bgure rzcyblrrf, naq rirelbar ryfr va gur pbzcnal unq nyernql whzcrq, nf n erfhyg bs rvgure gur pbzcnal snvyvat (lbh fnj gur tencu?), be gurve bja fgerff, be obgu. Naq gung gur ernfba jul lbh'er abg whzcvat nybat jvgu gurz vf orpnhfr lbh unq guvf frevrf bs qernzf va juvpu lbh rkcyberq nyy bs gur cbffvoyr bcgvbaf, vapyhqvat fhvpvqr, naq orpnzr cflpubybtvpnyyl pncnoyr bs abg whzcvat.
Nf sbe "Bar Punapr", V tbg gur orfg raqvat, ohg nffhzrq gung vg jnf gur frpbaq-jbefg raqvat bhg bs n cbffvoyr guerr, hagvy V ernq gur YJ pbzzragf. V gubhtug gung gur tnzr jnf enaqbzyl chavfuvat zr sbe tbvat gb gur ebbs ba gur frpbaq qnl vafgrnq bs tbvat qverpgyl gb gur yno. V nyfb fhfcrpgrq gung zl cebterff ng gur yno zvtug unir orra fybjrq qbja nf n erfhyg bs orvat oheag bhg, naq gung V fubhyq unir gnxra ng yrnfg bar bs gur bccbeghavgvrf gb gnxr gvzr bss sebz jbex, gb nibvq oheavat bhg. Naq vg jnf naablvat gung gur tnzr qvqa'g fubj nal qrgnvyf nobhg jung jrag ba va gur yno.
Maybe. The disadvantage is lag time, of course. Discount rate for Singularity is very high. Assume that there are 100 years to the singularity, and that P(success) is linearly decreasing in lag time; then every second approximately 25 galaxies are lost, assuming that the entire 80 billion galaxies' fate is decided then.
25 galaxies per second. Wow.
I'm surprised that noone has asked Roko where he got these numbers from.
Wikipedia says that there are about 80 billion galaxies in the "observable universe", so that part is pretty straightforward. Though there's still the question of why all of them are being counted, when most of them probably aren't reachable with slower-than-light travel.
But I still haven't found any explanation for the "25 galaxies per second". Is this the rate at which the galaxies burn out? Or the rate at which something else causes them to be unreachable? Is it the number of galaxies, multiplied by the distance to the edge of the observable universe, divided by the speed of light?
calculating...
Wikipedia says that the comoving distance from Earth to the edge of the observable universe is about 14 billion parsecs (46 billion light-years short scale, i.e. 4.6 × 10^10 light years) in any direction.
Google Calculator says 80 billion galaxies / 46 billion light years = 1.73 galaxies per year, or 5.48 × 10^-8 galaxies per second
so no, that's not it.
If I'm going to allow my mind to be blown by this number, I would like to know where the number came from.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Well, yeah, but that's Garfield.
Which reminds me of an observation I've made: Consider that almost anything you can do to Garfield makes it funnier. (See: the Garfield Randomizer, Garkov, Garfield Minus Garfield, Garfield As Garfield, Lasagna Cat, Realfield, Square Root Of Minus Garfield, etc.) This does not work on things that are merely unfunny. In the same way that reversed stupidity is not intelligence, reversed unfunniness is not humour. This means that Garfield is not merely unfunny, but antifunny.
There's also this: Arbuckle: Garfield through Jon's eyes