= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
What is Magic besides some form of superintelligence, or at least the remnants of superintelligence? The strongest evidence is that magic-users and even creators don't really have to understand how the spells actually work in order to use them. There is information entering the system from somewhere, and it's enough information to accurately interpret the vague wand movements and sounds of humans and do sufficiently amazing things without too many chaotic side-effects. Even the chaotic side-effects are usually improbably harmless. It's like an almost-Friendly, or perhaps a broken previously-Friendly, AI. Possibly the result of some ancient Singularity that is no longer explicitly remembered.
In response to
comment
by
on
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 20, chapter 90
In response to
comment
by
on
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 20, chapter 90
Here's another, roughly isomorphic statement:
What is Gravity besides some form of superintelligence, or at least the remnants of superintelligence? The strongest evidence is that engineers and even physicists don't really have to understand how gravity actually works in order to use it. There is information entering the system from somewhere, and it's enough information to accurately detect when an object is unsupported or structurally unstable. And the chaotic side-effects tend to be improbably harmful. It's like an almost-Friendly, or perhaps a broken previously-Friendly, AI. Possibly the result of some ancient Singularity that is no longer explicitly remembered.
Even God can quote Bayes when it suits him.
That would require Him to exist. ;)
I find it rather irritating when someone does this every time I use the words "soul" or "God" in a rhetorical context.
I believe in neither, but both words have their uses.
In response to
What's your hypothetical apostasy?
I don't think you've understood what hypothetical apostasy is meant to be.
They're meant to be against your current views. If you currently want to cure aging, as your most cherished belief, your hypothetical apostasy should be against SENS. So you definitely wouldn't want to put it into practice! (Unless you were convinced by it and changed your mind, in which case you'd now need a new hypothetical apostasy - your old one is now no longer hypothetical.
They're meant to be private. If your utmost goal is to help the Greens win, writing a public, very convincing list of reasons why the Blues are right could be disasterous!
Actually, I think the issue is a misunderstanding of what apostasy is in the first place.
In response to
comment
by
on
[LINK] Open Source Software Developer with Terminal Illness Hopes to Opt Out of Death
Eh, they're trying multiple ways of preservation to see what works best. We can't test which ones allow the best cyro-recoveries, but I don't see how it's de-facto not science.
Science means:
Come up with a testable hypothesis
Design an experiment to test it
Perform the experiment
Statistically evaluate the outcome and determine if it is evidence in favor or against the hypothesis
Communicate the results to the scientific community
Science most definitely does not mean: "Let's try something random today and see what happens".
This is the core difference between scientific research and pre-scientific empiricism.
but stating that it's "factually false" that they do ANY research seems an overly strong claim.
The don't do any scientific research on their human corpses. They did some research on non-human animals in the past, but AFAIK, they didn't publish much.
In response to
comment
by
on
[LINK] Open Source Software Developer with Terminal Illness Hopes to Opt Out of Death
Science most definitely does not mean: "Let's try something random today and see what happens".
That does seem to be how mathematics works, though.
Yes, but why run it on a computer at all? It doesn't seem likely to do you any good that way.
It is a hypothetical situation of unreasonably high security that tries to probe for an upper bound on the level of containment required to secure an AI.
In response to
Isolated AI with no chat whatsoever
Suppose you make a super-intelligent AI and run it on a computer. The computer has NO conventional means of output (no connections to other computers, no screen, etc).
Why would you do that though?
If an isolated AI can easily escape in any circumstance, it really doesn't make sense to train gatekeepers.
I don't recall a single post of mine that is related to rationality more than tangentially. Should I leave?
Replace "tangentially" with "about as much as basically any other thing".
Being "tangentially related to rationality" is not the true rejection.
Actually, it is; while the post is clogged with outdated ideas and plays fast and loose with the meaning of existence, I wouldn't want to see a slew of actually sound arguments about basic set theory clogging up Discussion, either.
I think three posts is enough for something only tangentially related to rationality.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Here's another, roughly isomorphic statement:
Never mind, I see your point, although I still disagree with your conclusion on the grounds of narrative plausibility and good writing.