No. Still throughout most history it was the exception to live much longer than child bearing age (14-30).

Two people, if you count random lesswrongers, and ~300, if you count self-reporting in the last tulpa survey (although some of the reports in that survey are a bit questionable.

Life expectancy used to be very low, but it was driven by child and infant mortality more than later pestilence and the like.

No (it was still in the 30's in some parts of the world as recently as the 20th century).

in http://intelligenceexplosion.com/2012/engineering-utopia/ you say "There was once a time when the average human couldn’t expect to live much past age thirty."

this is false, right?

(edit note: life expectancy matches "what the average human can expect to live to" now somewhat, but if you have a double hump of death at infancy/childhood and then old age, you can have a life expectancy of 30 but a life expectancy of 15 year olds of 60, in which case the average human can expect to live to 1 or 60 (this is very different from "can't expect to live to >30") . or just "can expect to live to 60" if you too don't count infants as really human)

Ah, I see, thanks. I have to agree with PhilipL that applying the template to a possible future event turns the original meaning upside down. Unless maybe if you subscribe to Eliezer's idiosyncratic timeless "block universe" view.

the search-inference framework seems obviously silly

The search-inference framework matches my introspective account of how I make most of my decisions. It also seems to match my professional experience in numerical optimization. For example, we have four trucks and fifty deliveries to make; which deliveries go in which truck, and what order should they be delivered in? We write out what a possibility looks like, what our goals are, and how a program can go from one possibility to other (hopefully better) possibilities, and when it should stop looking and tell us what orders to give the drivers. Does it clash with your experience of decision-making?

neglecting simple concepts such as "system 1 does thinking"

It's not clear to me what you mean by "System 1 does thinking." Could you unpack that for me?

i've recently started reading this book, but the search-inference framework seems obviously silly, neglecting simple concepts such as "system 1 does thinking"

what is up with this?

In that case, I pre-commit that if I win, I'll spend it on something leisure-related or some treat that I otherwise wouldn't be able to justify the money to purchase.

I co-operated; I'd already committed myself to co-operating on any Prisoner's Dilemma involving people I believed to be rational. I'd like to say it was easy, but I did have to think about it. However, I stuck to my guns and obeyed the original logic that got me to pre-commit in the first place.

If I assume other people are about as rational as me, than a substantial majority of people should think similarly to me. That means that if I decide that everyone else will co-operate and thus I can defect, there's a good chance other people will come to the same conclusion as well. The best way to go about it is to pre-commit to co-operation, and hope that other rational people will do the same.

Thanks for the chance to test my beliefs with actual stakes on the line :)

Alas, I fear that the very presence of such a notepad would eliminate whatever feature it is of showers that make them such frequent idea-generators.