ewang
247
121
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.
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.
Actually, I think the issue is a misunderstanding of what apostasy is in the first place.
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.
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.
If an isolated AI can easily escape in any circumstance, it really doesn't make sense to train gatekeepers.
Replace "tangentially" with "about as much as basically any other thing".
Actually, it is; while the post is clogged with outdated ideas and plays fast and loose with the meaning of existence, I wouldn't want to see a slew of actually sound arguments about basic set theory clogging up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.
"Signaling" is a term that we've given a more precise definition than the other two.
If you're going to dodge defining existence, please at least clarify your point by telling us which of these things "exist":
a) irrational numbers
b) sets
c) postmodernism
d) the number of Langford pairings of length 100
e) negative numbers
f) quaternions
(And FYI, that’s the proper spelling: "homosexual" is common but wrong, because omo- is the proper Greek prefix.)
One reason gender politics is especially "mind-killing" is that the two least interesting/statistically significant/improbable positions (males are more THIS than females, females more THAT than males) also happen to be the two positions seen as the "strongest".
Sorry, but "this'll probably get down voted, but" just doesn't work here.
It's refreshing to see the non-anastrophic arrangement in the title.
What LessWrong would call the "system" of rationality is the rigorous mathematical application of Bayes' Theorem. The "one thousand tips" you speak of are what we get when we apply this system to itself to quickly guess its behavior under certain conditions, as carrying around a calculator and constantly applying the system in everyday life is rather impractical.
I have done so.
I can better serve you if I continue doing so.
Never mind, I see your point, although I still disagree with your conclusion on the grounds of narrative plausibility and good writing.