Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: MaryCh 15 November 2017 12:32:57PM 0 points [-]

It is still too improbable. Any kid in the wild is a free gift to the predator. Not just a baby, or a toddler.

My friend who studies wolves is quite adamant that it is simply impossible, unless you count cases where a child spent a few days in their company, because wolves often leave their toys for later.

Comment author: entirelyuseless 15 November 2017 03:15:51PM 0 points [-]

unless you count cases where a child spent a few days in their company

There are many cases where the child's behavior is far more assimilated to the behavior of the animals than would be a credible result of merely a few days.

Comment author: MaryCh 14 November 2017 09:17:19AM 0 points [-]

The moral was that it is wrong to use an obviously false claim to prove wrong something nobody believes in anyway... by NE, I mean "something so awfully outside of everyday experience that either it is totally made up, or a scientifically-minded person should look into it and see where it leads".

Comment author: entirelyuseless 14 November 2017 02:20:04PM 0 points [-]

I thought you were saying that feral children never existed and all the stories about them are completely made up. If so, I think you are clearly wrong.

Comment author: turchin 13 November 2017 11:29:26AM *  0 points [-]

This is our accepted chapter in the edited volume "AI Safety and Security" (Roman Yampolskiy, ed.), CRC Press. Forthcoming, 2018

Comment author: entirelyuseless 13 November 2017 03:04:33PM 0 points [-]

People are weakly motivated because even though they do things, they notice that for some reason they don't have to do them, but could do something else. So they wonder what they should be doing. But there are basic things that they were doing all along because they evolved to do them. AIs won't have "things they were doing", and so they will have even weaker motivations than humans. They will notice that they can do "whatever they want" but they will have no idea what to want. This is kind of implied by what I wrote here: except that it is about human beings.

In response to comment by rkyeun on Reductionism
Comment author: TheAncientGeek 10 November 2017 10:31:22AM 2 points [-]

That observation runs headlong into the problem, rather than solving it.

Comment author: entirelyuseless 10 November 2017 02:05:13PM 0 points [-]

Exactly. "The reality is undecatillion swarms of quarks not having any beliefs, and just BEING the scientist." Let's reword that. "The reality is undecatillion swarms of quarks not having any beliefs, and just BEING 'undecatillion swarms of quarks' not having any beliefs, with a belief that there is a cognitive mind calling itself a scientist that only exists in the undecatillion swarms of quarks's mind."

There seems to be a logic problem there.

Comment author: Dagon 04 November 2017 07:28:54PM 0 points [-]

When you say "ability to explain", I hear "communicate a model that says what will happen (under some set of future conditions/actions)".

There is no such thing as "why" in the actual sequence of states of matter in the universe. It just is. Any causality is in the models we use to predict future states. Which is really useful but not "truth".

Comment author: entirelyuseless 05 November 2017 11:28:55PM 0 points [-]

I hear "communicate a model that says what will happen (under some set of future conditions/actions)".

You're hearing wrong.

Comment author: Dagon 04 November 2017 04:34:45AM 1 point [-]

Almost certainly not. I take this as confirmation that “understand” is the key misleadingly-simple word in your quote.

Comment author: entirelyuseless 04 November 2017 05:45:42PM 0 points [-]

Not at all. It means the ability to explain, not just say what will happen.

Comment author: entirelyuseless 28 October 2017 03:12:37PM 0 points [-]

"If advanced civilizations destroy themselves before becoming space-faring or leaving an imprint on the galaxy, then there is some phenomena that is the cause of this."

Not necessarily something specific. It could be caused by general phenomena.

Comment author: SquirrelInHell 25 October 2017 09:57:40AM 0 points [-]

Are there a lot of people in the rationalist community who think that conscious thought and decision making can't do major things?

It's not that they think it cannot do major things at all. They don't expect to do be able to do them overnight, and yes "major changes to subconscious programming overnight" is one of the things I've seen to be possible if you hit the right buttons. And of course, if you can do major things overnight, there are some even more major things you find yourself being able to do at all, and you couldn't before.

Comment author: entirelyuseless 25 October 2017 01:43:40PM 0 points [-]

This might be a violation of superrationality. If you hack yourself, in essence a part of you is taking over the rest. But if you do that, why shouldn't part of an AI hack the rest of it and take over the universe?

Comment author: entirelyuseless 24 October 2017 12:50:33PM 0 points [-]

I entirely disagree that "rationalists are more than ready." They have exactly the same problems that a fanatical AI would have, and should be kept sandboxed for similar reasons.

(That said, AIs are unlikely to actually be fanatical.)

Comment author: Lumifer 23 October 2017 04:08:05PM *  0 points [-]

insulin

The idea that insulin drives obesity was popular for a while (did Gary Taubes start it?) but I thought it didn't fare too well when tested against reality (see e.g. this and this)

Two arguments he tries to make from common sense

That's not common sense, that's analogies which might be useful rhetorically but which don't do anything to show that his view is correct.

carbohydrates are relatively new to humanity's diet, at least in significant quantities

I don't know about that. Carbs are a significant part of the human diet since the farming revolution which happened sufficiently long time ago for the body to somewhat adapt (e.g. see the lactose tolerance mutation which is more recent).

Besides, let's consider what was the situation, say, 200 years ago. Were carbs a major part of diet? Sure they were. Was there an "obesity epidemic"? Nope, not at all.

If you want to blame carbs (not even refined carbs like sugar, but carbs in general) for obesity, you need to have an explanation why their evil magic didn't work before the XX century.

You are thinking of a situation where they are not allowed to eat at all.

No, I'm not. For any animal, humans included, there is non-zero intake of food which will force it to lose weight.

If you do not want to starve, you will have to eat more.

"Starve" seems to mean exactly the same thing as "lose weight by calorie restriction", but with negative connotations.

And I don't know about modified rats, but starving humans are not fat. Feel free to peruse pictures of starving people.

Comment author: entirelyuseless 24 October 2017 01:48:49AM 0 points [-]

but I thought it didn't fare too well when tested against reality (see e.g. this and this)

I can't comment on those in detail without reading them more carefully than I care to, but that author agrees with Taubes that low carb diets help most people lose weight, and he seems to be assuming a particular model (e.g. he contrasts the brain being responsible with insulin being responsible, while it is obvious that these are not necessarily opposed.)

That's not common sense, that's analogies which might be useful rhetorically but which don't do anything to show that his view is correct.

They don't show that his view is correct. They DO show that it is not absurd.

Carbs are a significant part of the human diet since the farming revolution which happened sufficiently long time ago for the body to somewhat adapt (e.g. see the lactose tolerance mutation which is more recent).

Lactose intolerance is also more harmful to people. Gaining weight usually just means you lose a few years of life. Taubes also admits that some people are well adapted to them. Those would be the people that normal people would describe by saying "they can eat as much as they like without getting fat."

If you want to blame carbs (not even refined carbs like sugar, but carbs in general) for obesity, you need to have an explanation why their evil magic didn't work before the XX century.

He blames carbs in general, but he also says that sweeter or more easily digestible ones are worse, so he is blaming refined carbs more, and saying the effects are worse.

No, I'm not. For any animal, humans included, there is non-zero intake of food which will force it to lose weight.

Sure, but they might be getting fat at the same time. They could be gaining fat and losing even more of other tissue, and this is what Taubes says happened with some of the rats.

"Starve" seems to mean exactly the same thing as "lose weight by calorie restriction", but with negative connotations.

No. I meant that your body is being damaged by calorie restriction, not just losing weight.

And I don't know about modified rats, but starving humans are not fat.

He gives some partial counterexamples to this in the book.

View more: Next