= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I have tried this. Mixed results.
In response to
comment
by
on
[FINAL CHAPTER] Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 122
In response to
comment
by
on
[FINAL CHAPTER] Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 122
I definitely find that I can handle more of what life throws at me when I've brushed my hair.
In response to
Rationality: From AI to Zombies
One of the most common complaints about the old Sequences was that there was no canonical default order, especially for people who didn't want to read the entire blog archive chronologically.
I was tricked into doing this. Years ago someone posted an ebook claiming to be the Sequences, but was actually just every single Yudkowsky blog post from 2006 to 2010 -_-
It took until noticing that only Yudkowsky's side of the FOOM debate was in there that I realized what had happened
It wasn't meant as a trick! Organising them would have been very hard.
I see nine stones, not ten.
Three at the back, three at the front, one to one side, one standing up... the question is whether it's standing on one stone or two.
In response to
Rationality: From AI to Zombies
The cover is incorrect :(
EDIT: If you do not understand this post, read essay 268 from the book!
In response to
Open thread, Mar. 9 - Mar. 15, 2015
The sequences eBook, Rationality: From AI to Zombies, will most likely be released early in the day on March 13, 2015.
This has been published! I assume a Main post on the subject will be coming soon so I won't create one now.
Unless I am much mistaken, the Pebblesorters would not approve of the cover :)
http://lesswrong.com/lw/hpe/how_should_eliezer_and_nicks_extra_20_be_split/ ?
edit: no, I don't think that's it. I think I do remember the post you're talking about, and I thought it included this anecdote, but this isn't the one I was thinking of.
edit 2: http://lesswrong.com/lw/jgv/even_odds/ is the one I was thinking of.
Great—thanks! (Thanks to badger below too)
I don't think there is any quadcopter that can fly for more than 30 minutes on one battery charge - and that's without mosquito recognition and zapping systems drawing on that same battery.
Right, this sort of thing is only practical given fully automated battery replacement.
In response to
Open thread, Mar. 9 - Mar. 15, 2015
I remember reading an article here a while back about a fair protocol for making a bet when we disagree on the odds, but I can't find it. Anyone remember what that was? Thanks!
I've seen the most recent draft of the PDF eBook and read all Rob's introductions, and I'm much happier recommending this to people than the sequences as they currently exist. I won't be taking my eBook version offline altogether, but I will be putting a big notice at the start saying "Don't read this, read Rationality from AI to Zombies".
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
In Our Own Image: Will artificial intelligence save or destroy us? by George Zarkadakis was published by Random House on 5 March. I haven't read it, but from a search on Google Books, there's no mention of "Yudkowsky" or "MIRI", while "Bostrom" only appears once, in a discussion of the Simulation Argument. I nearly gave up at that point, but then I thought to search for "Hawking", and indeed, there is a discussion of the Hawking/Tegmark/Russell/Wilczek letter; this seems to me to be evidence on how carefully the author looked into the issue before writing the paragraphs dismissing it. In summary: *sigh*.
Edit: The author was aware of MIRI in 2013.