= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I develop a vector drawing program. It seams to have a good balance between archivability and ambition for me. So far it has 80% of the functionality i use of Inkscape. Currently i'm struggling with getting the performance from barely usable to smooth.
This relates to a theoretical question which is more interesting to me: are "individual extrapolated volitions" in/compatible with a "collective extrapolated volition" (a la CEV)? Are there "natural classes" of individuals who, in collection, form their own coherent extrapolated volition which is compatible among themselves, but incompatible with others extrapolated volitions, e.g. men vs. women, smart people vs. dumb people, individualists vs. collectivists, all of humanity happens to be compatible, or every person individually is incompatible with everyone else...? In other words, how much natural coherence is there among individual extrapolated volitions, and how much would CEV require to sacrifice individual extrapolated volitions for the collective extrapolated volition?
If it happened to work out that the entire collective of humanity could have a coherent extrapolated volition in which no individual extrapolated volition is sacrificed, that would be perfect and would relieve these uncomfortable questions. If that's not the case - should be proceed with CEV anyway? Or is it possible we may want to favor one group over another?
In response to
comment
by
on
Why a Human (Or Group of Humans) Might Create UnFriendly AI Halfway On Purpose
Of course we want to favor the group we are part of. Otherwise our CEV wouldn't differ.
Um, those last three probabilities add up to 110%.
they don't exclude each other.
In response to
Rationality Quotes December 2011
Il est dans la nature humaine de penser sagement et d'agir d'une façon absurde.
English translation: It is human nature to think wisely and to act in an absurd fashion.
Anatole France, Le livre de mon ami (1885)
I can't see how this is a rationality quote. This would imply that humans have a hard time controlling their actions. How else could someone who thinks wisely act in an absurd fashion? Isn't rationality about how to overcome that humans don't think wisely?
In response to
Reconstructing visual experiences from brain activity evoked by natural movies. [link]
Fascinating. Three things leap out at me:
That is remarkably text-like without actually being text. Makes sense that reading would produce more distinct activity.
I would have expected more details on the faces, considering how much processing power is assigned to the task.
What's below the elephant is ground, what's above it is sky. Right? It's like the fMRI went "Hey, brain, what color is sky?" "Blue." "And what color is ground?" "Uh, green?"
In response to
comment
by
on
Reconstructing visual experiences from brain activity evoked by natural movies. [link]
I would have expected more details on the faces, considering how much processing power is assigned to the task.
The results are obtained by mixing 100 other movies together so it is not surprising that there are no details.
View more: Prev
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
So what's the motivation? What's it for that Inkscape doesn't do?
I want a UI that suits me better. Concretely this means: More keyboard shortcuts. Dragging the mouse only changes the selection. In Inkscape it also moves paths which can get annoying. Non destructive boolshe operations, makes shading way easier.