= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I defy this data too!
In response to
List of potential cognitive enhancement methods
How would lucid dreaming help? I've heard mentions on the site before but I don't really get it. I'm interested because it seems like a way to effectively be alive longer but I don't see how it can make you smarter.
Piotr Woźniak doesn't seem to think lucid dreaming is worth pursuing.
Though speaking from my personal experience, it's pretty fun, and for that you don't have to be good at it; my control was pretty limited (flying is easy).
In response to
The promise of connected science
A vaguely related essay I found through HackerNews: http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2011/11/theory-and-why-its-time-psychology-got.html . It is also a good piece about why theories are important in science in general.
This feels like it should be a separate post to me.
The conservative assumption is that AGI is easy, and FAI is hard.
I don't know if this is actually true. I think FAI is harder than AGI, but I'm very much not a specialist in the area - either area. However, I do know that I'd very much rather overshoot the required safety margin by a mile than undershoot by a meter.
"FAI" here generally means "Friendly AGI", which would make "FAI is harder than AGI" trivially true.
Perhaps you meant one of the following more interesting propositions:
- "(The sub-problem of) AGI is harder than (the sub-problem of) Friendliness."
- "AGI is sufficiently hard relative to Friendliness, such that by the time AGI is solved, Friendliness is unlikely to have been solved."
(Assuming even the sub-problem of Friendliness still has prerequisite part or all of AGI, the latter proposition implies "Friendliness isn't so easy relative to AGI such that progress on Friendliness will lag insignificantly behind progress on AGI.")
In response to
Attempt to explain Bayes without much maths, please review
This is (morbidly) fascinating, please keep at it.
In response to
Q&A with new Executive Director of Singularity Institute
What is your information diet like? (I mean other than when you engage in focused learning.) Do you regulate it, or do you just let it happen naturally?
By that I mean things like:
- Do you have a reading schedule (e.g. X hours daily)?
- Do you follow the news, or try to avoid information with a short shelf-life?
- Do you significantly limit yourself with certain materials (e.g. fun stuff) to focus on higher priorities?
- In the end, what is the makeup of the diet?
- Etc.
Inspired by this question (Eliezer's answer).
In response to
Scholarship: How to Do It Efficiently
I couldn't find a better place for this, but today I learned this tip:
A book's table of contents shows you its structure, but don't forget to skim the index too, to get a second look at how its content is distributed.
In response to
Rationality Quotes November 2011
If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?
- American proverb
In response to
Rationality Quotes November 2011
In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is surrender to them. When you think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualizing you probably hunt about until you find the exact words that seem to fit it. When you think of something abstract you are more inclined to use words from the start, and unless you make a conscious effort to prevent it, the existing dialect will come rushing in and do the job for you, at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning. Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one's meaning as clear as one can through pictures and sensations.
~ Orwell
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
~ Mencius Moldbug