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

Comment author: handoflixue 07 November 2014 11:18:33AM 0 points [-]

Does contact information exist for the San Francisco one, or is that one aimed entirely at people already active in the local community? It's a city I visit occasionally, and would love it if I could attend something like this :)

Comment author: ChrisHallquist 19 January 2014 09:47:50AM 0 points [-]

I'm not that young--I graduated collect four years ago. If I inherited ~30k, it would go into a generic early start on retirement / early start on hypothetical kids' college fund / maybe downpayment on a condo fund. Given that I'd just be holding on to it in the short-term anyway, putting it in a cryonics fund doesn't actually strike me as completely crazy. Even in that case, though I think I'd get the insurance anyway, so I'd know the inheritance money could be used for anything I needed for when said need arose. Also, I understand that funding through insurance can avoid legal battles over the money.

Comment author: handoflixue 20 January 2014 05:01:31AM 0 points [-]

The average college graduate is 26, and I was estimating 25, so I'd assume that by this community's standards, you're probably on the younger side. No offense was intended :)

I would point out that by the nature of it being LIFE insurance, it will generally not be used for stuff YOU need, nor timed to "when the need arises". That's investments, not insurance :)

(And if you have 100K of insurance for $50/month that lets you early-withdrawal AND isn't term insurance... then I'd be really curious how, because that sounds like a scam or someone misrepresenting what your policy really offers :))

Comment author: [deleted] 09 January 2014 02:44:00AM 1 point [-]

High-functioning in terms of IQ or in terms of ability to get things done?

(Has anyone come up with a motivation enhancer? Nicotine used to work for me, but not anymore.)

Comment author: handoflixue 20 January 2014 02:11:11AM 0 points [-]

"Has anyone come up with a motivation enhancer?"

Vyvanse (perscription-only ADD medication) is... almost unbelievably awesome for me there. I suspect it only works if your issue is somewhere in the range of ADD, though, as it doesn't do anything for my motivation if I'm depressed.

I've found that in general, "sustained release" options work a LOT better for motivation. Caffeine helps a tiny bit, but 8-hour sustained-release caffeine can help a lot. My motivation seems to really hate dealing with peaks and valleys throughout the day. Oddly, if I take Vyvanse one day, then skip it the next, my motivation completely crashes, but this doesn't seem to affect the value of Vyvanse for giving me very motivated days - it's the ups and downs within a day, not my long-term variation, that seems to disrupt motivation.

Comment author: MugaSofer 17 January 2014 02:07:26AM *  -1 points [-]

I think there is a significant (>= 50%) probability that they don't: there have been anecdotal allegations of mis-behavior, at least one company (the Cryonics Institute) has policies that betray gross incompetence or disregard for the success of the procedure ( such as keeping certain cryopatients on dry ice for two weeks ), and more generally, since cryocompanies operate without public oversight and without any mean to assess the quality of their work, they have every incentive to hide mistakes, take cost-saving shortcuts, use sub-par materials, equipment, unqualified staff, or even outright defraud you.

Woah, really? This seems ... somewhat worse than my estimation. (Note that I am not signed up, for reasons that have nothing to do with this.)

it is plausible that before revival tech becomes available, radical life extension becomes available, and therefore people stop signing up for cryonics. Cryocompanies might be required to go on for many decades or centuries without new customers. It's unclear that they could remain financially viable and motivated in this condition.

This is a good point that I hadn't heard before.

Comment author: handoflixue 19 January 2014 09:26:35AM 0 points [-]

http://www.alcor.org/cases.html A loooot of them include things going wrong, pretty clear signs that this is a novice operation with minimal experience, and so forth. Also notice that they don't even HAVE case reports for half the patients admitted prior to ~2008.

It's worth noting that pretty much all of these have a delay of at LEAST a day. There's one example where they "cryopreserved" someone who had been buried for over a year, against the wishes of the family, because "that is what the member requested." (It even includes notes that they don't expect it to work, but the family is still $50K poorer!)

I'm not saying they're horrible, but they really come off as enthusiastic amateurs, NOT professionals. Cryonics might work, but the modern approach is ... shoddy at best, and really doesn't strike me as matching the optimistic assumptions of people who advocate for it.

Comment author: handoflixue 19 January 2014 08:59:09AM 0 points [-]

It's easy to get lost in incidental costs and not realize how they add up over time. If you weren't signed up for cryonics, and you inherited $30K, would you be inclined to dump it in to a cryonics fund, or use it someplace else? If the answer is the latter, you probably don't REALLY value cryonics as much as you think - you've bought in to it because the price is spread out and our brains are bad at budgeting small, reoccurring expenses like that.

My argument is pretty much entirely on the "expense" side of things, but I would also point out that you probably want to unpack your expectations from cryonics: Are you assuming you'll live infinite years? Live until the heat death of the universe? Gain an extra 200 years until you die in a situation cryonics can't fix? Gain an extra 50 years until you die of a further age limit?

When I see p(cryonics) = 0.3, I tend to suspect that's leaning more towards the 50-200 year side of things. Straight-up immortal-until-the-universe-ends seems a LOT less likely than a few hundred extra years.


Where'd that $30K figure come from?

You've said you're young and have a good rate on life insurance, so let's assume male (from the name) and 25. Wikipedia suggests you should live until you're 76.

$50/month * 12 months/year * (76-25 = 51 years) = $30,600.

So, it's less that you're paying $50/month and more that you're committing to pay $30,000 over the course of your life.


What else could you do with that same money?

Portland State University quotes ~$2500/semester for tuition. 3 semesters/year and 4 years/degree ~= $30K. Pretty sure you can get loans and go in to debt for this, so it's still something you could pay off over time. And if you're smart, do community college for the first two years, get a scholarship, etc., you can probably easily knock enough off to make up for interest charges.

Comment author: somervta 17 January 2014 02:14:55AM 0 points [-]

I assumed otherwise because of :

If the rate of learning of an AGI is t then is it correct to assume that the rate of learning of a FAI would be t+x where x > 0,

Which says the FAI is learning faster. But that would make more sense of the last paragraph.

I may have a habit of assuming that the more precise formulation of a statement is the intended/correct interpretation, which, while great in academia and with applied math, may not be optimal here.

Comment author: handoflixue 19 January 2014 08:42:01AM 1 point [-]

Read "rate of learning" as "time it takes to learn 1 bit of information"

So UFAI can learn 1 bit in time T, but a FAI takes T+X

Or, at least, that's how I read it, because the second paragraph makes it pretty clear that the author is discussing UFAI outpacing FAI. You could also just read it as a typo in the equation, but "accidentally miswrote the entire second paragraph" seems significantly less likely. Especially since "Won't FAI learn faster and outpace UFAI" seems like a pretty low probability question to begin with...

Erm... hi, welcome to the debug stack for how I reached that conclusion. Hope it helps ^.^

Comment author: BenLowell 22 November 2013 11:27:09AM 31 points [-]

If possible, I'm interested in how unique the passwords were.

Comment author: handoflixue 22 November 2013 05:44:34PM 2 points [-]

Second that :)

Comment author: TeMPOraL 22 April 2013 01:17:22PM 1 point [-]

I delay Google'ing to the last possible moment on purpose. It's by figuring out stuff by yourself that you really learn :).

In response to comment by TeMPOraL on Learned Blankness
Comment author: handoflixue 12 May 2013 07:40:03AM 1 point [-]

I guess I learn better from manuals than from random experimentation :)

Comment author: [deleted] 22 March 2013 06:05:20PM 6 points [-]

Aumann was, in short, wrong, because Aumann Updating is based on the belief that two individuals -can- share evidence. Evidence is incompletely transferable.

I don't care to respond to the rest of your post, but I feel I should point out that saying a theorem is wrong because the hypotheses are not true is bad logic.

Comment author: handoflixue 22 March 2013 06:15:03PM 0 points [-]

saying a theorem is wrong because the hypotheses are not true is bad logic.

If the objection is true, and the hypothesis is false, that seems like a great objection! If, on the other hand, he provided no evidence towards his objection, then it seems that the bad logic is in not offering evidence, not attacking the hypothesis directly.

Am I missing something, or just reading this in an overly pedantic way?

Comment author: [deleted] 11 March 2013 06:24:50PM *  3 points [-]

BTW, this is something I've recently noticed -- the vast majority of statements I'm offended by is of the form “All [people from some group that comprises a sizeable fraction of the human population, and doesn't include the speaker] are [something non-tautological and unflattering].” (I am more offended if the group happens to include me, but not very much.) But remove the universal quantifier and, no matter how large the group is and how unflattering the thing is, the statement will lose almost all of its offensiveness in my eyes.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Don't Get Offended
Comment author: handoflixue 11 March 2013 06:28:22PM -1 points [-]

Internally I am generally the same, but I've come to realize that a rather sizable portion of the population has trouble distinguishing "all X are Y" and "some X are Y", both in speaking and in listening. So if someone says "man, women can be so stupid", I know that might well reflect the internal thought of "all women are idiots". And equally, someone saying "all women are idiots" might just be upset because his girlfriend broke up with him for some trivial reason.

View more: Next