= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
*People (realistically) believe that being the Gatekeeper is easy, . . .
*correcting first sentence
In response to
AIs and Gatekeepers Unite!
People (realistically) believe that the being the Gatekeeper, and being the AI is terribly hard (or impossible, before it was shown to simply be terribly hard in most cases).
Imagine though that we've got a real transhuman/AI around to play with, or that we ourselves are transhuman. Would this paradigm then be inverted? Would everybody want to be the AI, with only the extremely crafty of us daring to be (or to pretend to be) Gatekeeper?
If Eliezer's claim is correct - that anyone can be convinced to let the AI out - then the true test of ability should be to play Gatekeeper. The AI's position would be trivially easy.
... perhaps.
In response to
How Many LHC Failures Is Too Many?
Just to make sure I'm getting this right... this is sort of along the same lines of reasoning as quantum suicide?
It depends on the type of "fail" - quenches are not uncommon. And also their timing - the LHC is so big, and it's the first time it's been operated. Expect malfunctions.
But if it were tested for a few months before, to make sure the mechanics were all engineered right, etc., I guess it would only take a few (less than 10) instances of the LHC failing shortly before it was about to go big for me to seriously consider an anthropic explanation. If it's mechanically sound and still miraculously failing every time the dials get turned up high, it's likely enough to consider.
"After observing empirically that the LHC had failed 100 times in a row, would you endorse a policy of keeping the LHC powered up, but trying to fire it again only in the event of, say, nuclear terrorism or a global economic crash?"
Not sure what is meant by that.
In response to
Psychic Powers
"If the 'boring view' of reality is correct, then you can never predict anything irreducible because you are reducible."
Maybe I missed this yesterday, or in another reductionism post, but doesn't that imply that there is no fundamental level of reality - nothing which is not reducible to something else? It could also be that I'm just not understanding what you mean.
In response to
Living in Many Worlds
Why tell readers that their other selves in other worlds are dying of cancer, so they should really think about cryonics, and then go on and make a post like this?
If I can't even get a glimpse of these other worlds, and my decisions don't alter them, why would that make utilitarianism seem more valid (it isn't)?
In response to
Class Project
I love these quasi-futuristic exchanges you've come up with. They're really helpful for putting your other posts into perspective - not just facts, but what facts mean for the way we should look at the world.
In response to
A Broken Koan
"There is no time. At most, this is true in the same sense that there is no flag, there is no wind, there is no mind."
It's true in the sense that time is a static dimension.
View more: Prev
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
In general, beliefs require evidence.
In general? Which beliefs don't?
Think of what it would take to deny evolution or heliocentrism
Or what it would take to prove that the Moon doesn't exist.
As for listing common memes that were spawned by the Dark Side - would you care to take a stab at it, dear readers?
Cultural relativity. Such-and-such is unconstitutional. The founding fathers never intended... (various appeals to stick to the founding fathers original vision) Be reasonable (moderate) Show respect for your elders It's my private property _____ is human nature. Don't judge me. _____ is unnatural and therefore wrong. _____ is natural and therefore right. We need to switch to alternative energies such as wind, solar, and tidal. The poor are lazy The entire American political vocabulary (bordering on Orwellian) Animal rights
.. much more.