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

Comment author: RomeoStevens 03 May 2017 06:19:01PM *  11 points [-]

Having spent years thinking about this and having the opportunity to talk with open minded, intelligent, successful people in social groups, extended family etc. I concluded that most explicit discussion of the value of inquiring into values and methods (scope sensitivity and epistemological rigor being two of the major threads of what applied rationality looks like) just works incredibly rarely, and only then if there is strong existing interest.

Taking ideas seriously and trusting your own reasoning methods as a filter is a dangerous, high variance move that most people are correct to shy away from. My impression of the appeal of LW retrospectively is that it (on average) attracted people who were or are under performing relative to g (this applies to myself). When you are losing you increase variance. When you are winning you decrease it.

I eventually realized that what I was really communicating to people's system 1 was something like "Hey, you know those methods of judgment like proxy measures of legitimacy and mimesis that have granted you a life you like and that you want to remain stable? Those are bullshit, throw them away and start using these new methods of judgment advocated by a bunch of people who aren't leading lives resembling the one you are optimizing for."

This has not resulted in many sales. It is unrealistic to expect to convert a significant fraction of the tribe to shamanism.

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 04 May 2017 05:49:36PM 0 points [-]

My impression of the appeal of LW retrospectively is that it (on average) attracted people who were or are under performing relative to g (this applies to myself). When you are losing you increase variance. When you are winning you decrease it.

This also applies to me

Comment author: turchin 17 April 2017 08:07:09AM 0 points [-]

I think that there are a multipandemic of computer viruses, but most of them now are malware which is not destroying data, and they are in balance with antivirus systems. However in early 1990s loosing data because of virus was common, and any computer user has experienced computer virus infection at least once.

"Nearly 1 million new malware threats released every day" http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/14/technology/security/cyber-attack-hacks-security/

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 18 April 2017 05:25:27PM 0 points [-]

I think that there are a multipandemic of computer viruses, but most of them now are malware which is not destroying data, and they are in balance with antivirus systems.

Well............ I don't know about this. If it's "in balance" and not actually destroying the hosts then it's not really a pandemic in the sense that you were using above. (Where it kills 99.999% of hosts!)

Comment author: turchin 15 April 2017 11:17:12AM 1 point [-]

I oversimplified to illustrate the idea of the multipandemic - that is many pandemics could happen simultaneously, either deliberately or because of explosion of bad biohacking, like it happened with computer viruses. Many pandemic will interact non-lineary, competing for dissemination ways, but their interaction could make also situation worse, as they could potentiate one another.

Anthrax probably could be made human transmittable by means of genetic manipulation.

I wrote long article about it, now under send it to Risk Analysis

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 16 April 2017 10:25:15PM 0 points [-]

But then why have we not seen a multipandemic of computer viruses?

Mostly (I assert) because the existence of an epidemic of virus A doesn't​ (on net) help virus B to spread.

Parasites which parasitize the same host tend to be in competition with each other (in fact as far as I am aware sophisticated malware today even contains antivirus code to clean out other infections); this is especially true if the parasites kill hosts.

I think a multipandemic is an interesting idea, though, and worthy of further investigation 👍

Comment author: turchin 24 February 2016 02:40:19PM 1 point [-]

Ok, lets me be a devil advocate. The map is about future possible biowepaons created using genetic engineering, not exiting.

Lets imagine that a rogue country created 100 different pathogens with 50 per cent lethality each which seems to be possible with current technologies. These pathogens include different variants of flu, smallpox, anthrax and so on, total 100 species.

Than the rogue country send 200 letters with mixture of all these pathogens in each large city in world.

In result there will be multipandemic with mortality 1- (0.5 power 100) = 0,99999... Such multipandemic would wipe out most of humanity and survivors will die of starvation.

By playing with incubation periods and different environment carriers, as well as adding artificial fungi infections which are known to wipe out species, this rogue country could make such multipandemic very difficult to stop. The map include many more ideas how make such multipandemic even stronger. All these means that we should take such possibility seriously and invest in its prevention.

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 14 April 2017 09:06:13PM 1 point [-]

AFAIK Anthrax is not human transmissible. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax

In result there will be multipandemic with mortality 1- (0.5 power 100) = 0,99999

I don't think that's what would actually happen. Most likely, there would be a distribution over transmission rates. Some of your pathogens would be more infectious then others. The most infectious one or two of them would quickly outpace the transmission of all the others. It would be extremely hard to balance them so that they all had the same transmission rate.

The slower ones could be stranded by the deaths and precautions caused by the faster ones.

Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 03 April 2017 08:10:26PM 7 points [-]

to buy a seat on OpenAI’s board

I wish we lived in a world where the Open Philanthropy Project page could have just said it like that, instead of having to pretend that no one knows what "initiates a partnership between" means.

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 03 April 2017 08:50:44PM 2 points [-]

That world is called the planet Vulcan.

Meanwhile, on earth, we are subject to common knowledge/signalling issues...

Comment author: dogiv 28 March 2017 07:54:37PM 2 points [-]

Does anybody think this will actually help with existential risk? I suspect the goal of "keeping up" or preventing irrelevance after the onset of AGI is pretty much a lost cause. But maybe if it makes people smarter it will help us solve the control problem in time.

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 01 April 2017 09:49:28AM 0 points [-]

It has been fairly standard LW wisdom for a long time that any kind of human augmentation is unhelpful for friendliness.

I think that we should be much less confident about this, and I welcome alternative efforts such as the neural lace.

Comment author: Viliam 24 March 2017 10:56:38PM 0 points [-]

But are they personally harmed in some way when the things are broken? At least enough to compensate for the bonuses they get when you add the new features earlier? Maybe in their incentive landscape such behavior is optimal.

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 01 April 2017 09:46:57AM 0 points [-]

I'm not 100% sure what the incentives for such people are, but it is a very small company.

Actually yesterday this came to bite them and we now have a serious problem because my "fix this underlying system" advice was rejected.

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 19 March 2017 11:42:06AM 2 points [-]

We had this problem at work quite a few times. Bosses are reluctant to let me do something which will make things run more smoothly, they want new features instead.

The when things break they're like "What! Why is it broken again?!"

In response to LessWrong Discord
Comment author: username2 14 March 2017 05:13:43PM 5 points [-]

Can we please not push a closed source electron based app with no options for encryption on the community ? We already have a irc channel which is on a non-tor friendly network and a slack which is practically the same thing when it comes to the frontend stack with a few differences when it comes to features. (I may be wrong about slack)

Why not go for something based on the matrix protocol which currently has support for bridges for both irc and slack ? Why must we fragment the community another time based on a temporary popular chat application which gained traction just because gamers jumped on it like they jumped on gamergate ?

https://matrix.org/blog/2017/03/11/how-do-i-bridge-thee-let-me-count-the-ways/

It even has a meme app for those afraid of their computers based on.. you guessed it, electron. Why of course we're going to write our desktop applications in javascript and css and use a whole copy of a browser as a runtime for it.

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 14 March 2017 09:57:20PM 0 points [-]

no options for encryption on the community

I've heard the CIA, the FBI and the Illuminati are all onto us. Strong encryption is not negotiable.

Why not go for something based on the matrix protocol

Maybe not everyone is ready to take the red pill?

In response to The Semiotic Fallacy
Comment author: The_Jaded_One 22 February 2017 05:43:38PM 2 points [-]

Call this kind of reasoning the semiotic fallacy: Thinking about the semiotics of possible actions without estimating the consequences of the semiotics.

But you could equally well write a post on the "anti-semiotic fallacy" where you only think about the immediate and obvious consequences of an action, and not about the signals it sends.

I think that rationalists are much more susceptible to the anti-semiotic fallacy in our personal lives. And also to an extent when thinking about global or local politics and economics.

For example, I suspect that I suffered a lot of bullying at school for exactly the reason given in this post: being keen to avoid conflict in early encounters at a school (among other factors).

View more: Next