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

Comment author: Thomas 21 July 2014 02:33:29PM *  3 points [-]

I have devised a software which is able (among other things) to construct 3D crosswords.

I don't consider it AI, but "stupid".

Even so, (English) 3D crosswords without black fields are currently very rare, to nonexistent.


Comment author: Thomas 21 June 2014 07:22:59AM 1 point [-]

CATE has another weapon. Humans who are ready to gladly serve her. For a real God is much better, than an imaginary one.

Comment author: Thomas 16 June 2014 10:43:47AM 0 points [-]

Intelligence and security. This combination already has some other, well established meaning.

Comment author: James_Miller 01 June 2014 09:20:25PM 30 points [-]

"Do what you love" / "Follow your passion" is dangerous and destructive career advice. We tend to hear it from (a) Highly successful people who (b) Have become successful doing what they love. The problem is that we do NOT hear from people who have failed to become successful by doing what they love. Particularly pernicious problem in tournament-style fields with a few big winners & lots of losers: media, athletics, startups. Better career advice may be "Do what contributes" -- focus on the beneficial value created for other people vs just one's own ego. People who contribute the most are often the most satisfied with what they do -- and in fields with high renumeration, make the most $. Perhaps difficult advice since requires focus on others vs oneself -- perhaps bad fit with endemic narcissism in modern culture? Requires delayed gratification -- may toil for many years to get the payoff of contributing value to the world, vs short-term happiness.

Marc Andreessen

Comment author: Thomas 02 June 2014 11:40:51AM 12 points [-]

It looks like that ANY advice from highly successful people might be dangerous, since they are only a small minority of those, who also tried those same things. Most of them much less successfully.

Comment author: chaosmage 28 May 2014 04:36:20PM -1 points [-]

If you're going to identify with anything, you might as well identify with everything. So what? How is that scary? Some people have had beliefs extremely similar to that since before written history, and it drove them (what we call) religious, but not outright nuts.

Comment author: Thomas 28 May 2014 07:13:14PM -1 points [-]

If you're going to identify with anything, you might as well identify with everything.

Only with some conscious system like human or maybe some animal. Or with a conscious computer, or software if you want.

Comment author: ete 28 May 2014 03:57:36PM 0 points [-]

Could you unpack that? In particular, what do you mean by co-incarnation?

It's potentially related to some things I'm hoping on writing later on in the series, but I'm not sure if you mean the same thing.

Comment author: Thomas 28 May 2014 07:09:37PM *  0 points [-]

what do you mean by co-incarnation

I am a today re-incarnation of yesterme. Tomorrow, I'll be a re-incarnation of today-me.

It works this way, very well. I could even die and be recreated, there is no natural law against that. That would be a proper reincarnation, wouldn't it be? I mean, Alcor promises it.

Well, but I could also be split into two or more. Those would be co-incarnations.

How else should we call it?

Comment author: Slider 28 May 2014 05:56:08PM -1 points [-]

Why exclude the unconcious?

And you still have the very analog problem of separating different incarnations. I guess the plus side is you can be content when experience doesn't neatly factor into multiple agents instead of treating it as a problem.

Comment author: Thomas 28 May 2014 06:58:46PM *  -1 points [-]

Who said anything about separation?

The consciousnesses operates inside a mental architecture, memories, emotions around it, whatever those surroundings might be.

A techno-telepathic link should be enlightening. The narrow bandwidth between brains we have now, creates this illusion of uniqueness and of dependence of certain memories.

It's counter-intuitive, but no absolute up-down direction -- is also counter-intuitive!

Comment author: Slider 26 May 2014 09:14:50PM 1 point [-]

It would still be nice to show the fly the way out of the bottle instead of saying that it is in one.

Comment author: Thomas 27 May 2014 06:03:33AM -3 points [-]

You are right. However, there would be too many downvotes and this branch would sink. The probable truth is just too bizarre.

Comment author: Thomas 25 May 2014 07:37:31AM *  3 points [-]

The root of the problem is, that concepts like "the same thing" are ill defined in every day vocabulary. So, pretty much everyone is confused when asked the above questions.

Will I be the same, even after I forget everything? In fact, I have already forgotten much of the data. And I certainly don't invoke all my existing memories to identify myself as myself.

The basic definitions people have, are flawed.

Comment author: Thomas 12 April 2014 07:49:31AM -1 points [-]

Might be interesting, but it is rather trivial for now. Decades ago, some more advanced projects have been undertaken.

MIRI should be on the cutting edge of AI progress, at least it perceives itself as such, but this is far from an edge.

View more: Next