I will be there!

If anyone would like to suggest interesting topics for us to talk about.

In other news, we (IERFH) finished translating GHO website, check it out http://www.globalhappiness.com/br

You have not considered the failure mode called "Defeated by Evolution"

Other than that, it is a great really short summary. Why don't you do the same to Part2? :)

As you can see here I've had more than my fair share of philosophy readings for this life. Besides, Bostrom himself advises that you read his newer stuff.

To clarify: In an unknown language; Think that six words in a row can mean anything. 20 words with two repetitions, almost anything. 2000 words with 400 repetitions, much less (there are fewer structures in the world that could correspond to that structure) and so on. So a whole library has very few allowable interpretations, even if in an unknown language. Some words though have a less than clear meaning. People use them meaning slightly different things, or vastly different things. 'God' is an exemplar word in that regard. Many people use it. but it still could be so many different things. If you had to pick up one thing, people would be left. If an AGI had to pick up one meaning, it would be doing the wrong thing. Instead of actually considering the reference of each separate token of the word 'god', it would misascribe the same meaning for all instances. This would increase coherence of the CEVed people, but it would not be a precise extrapolation of them.
God is a mongrel concept

If they knew more, saw the possibilities and understood more about the world I would be surprised if they would choose a >path that diverges so greatly with your own This is not so simple to assert. You have to think of the intensity of their belief in the words of allah. Their fundamental wordview is so different from ours that there may be nothing humane left when we try to combine them.

I think that you're conflating "evolution" with "more ancient drives" In this specific case I was using this figure of speech, yes. I mean't that we would be extrapolating drives that matter for evolution (our ancient drives) but don't really matter to us, not in the sense of Want to Want described in 4c.

We can do better if we take this kind of problem in consideration. If there is too much of what Eliezer calls spread and muddle, we may end up just evolving faster. I don't think blind faster evolution would be on top of anyone's list of desires.

http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/aez/brazilians_unite_and_what_is_ierfh_portuguese/ I responded some of the questions asked here in this topic. I also counted the number of brazilians we know of in Less Wrong.

Time and Place Fine for me.

Karma Balance here.

Vote up here if you would like Troubles With CEV not upgraded to Main. Comment below for Karma Balance.

Karma Balance here.

HI, Vote up here if you would like Troubles With CEV upgraded to Main.