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

Comment author: jkaufman 21 May 2013 09:25:09PM 2 points [-]

Hope it goes well! I'll be playing some North Carolina contra dances in mid-July.

Comment author: jkaufman 21 May 2013 09:08:04PM 1 point [-]

Given a choice between beer and steak, John chooses the steak. Given a choice between steak and ice cream, John chooses the ice cream. Given a choice between ice cream and beer, John chooses the beer.

Does this really happen? Can money be pumped out? For example, offer John the opportunity to pay $0.05 to upgrade his beer for a steak, then $0.05 to upgrade that to an ice cream cone, then $0.05 to upgrade that to a beer. Run forever. I think if you actually did this you'd find that of the three there actually is one that John would prefer to have.

Comment author: jkaufman 20 May 2013 11:47:24AM 1 point [-]

If you're getting $90 glasses then to spend $2500 over ten years you need to go through nearly 30 pairs. That sounds high.

Comment author: jkaufman 18 May 2013 05:24:24AM *  4 points [-]

$250 a year for glasses seems high given that my $90 glasses have been fine since 2008. I do have an extra pair ($40, not titanium framed) for backup, and should get new ones to update my prescription, but $250/year?

If you hate glasses then lasik might be worth it, but I doubt it's cheaper for many people.

Comment author: jkaufman 18 May 2013 05:20:43AM 0 points [-]

$1000/month is doable even in a relatively expensive place like Boston.

Comment author: jkaufman 18 May 2013 03:56:23AM 0 points [-]

People who get good at this can control the rate but not the individual beats. And definitely can't do the long beats that morse code would require.

Comment author: jkaufman 18 May 2013 03:23:30AM 5 points [-]

I like the Giving What We Can norm of "give 10% of income when you have it and 1% of your spending money otherwise". That's 1% of whatever you have for eating out, going to the movies, etc. While 1% is small, it keeps you in the habit of giving, makes you think about where to give, and demonstrates to yourself and others that you're committed.

I suspect that asking your parents if you could be more frugal and they would donate the difference would just strain your relationship to little gain.

Comment author: jkaufman 16 May 2013 06:04:55AM 0 points [-]

Only $10K.

Comment author: jkaufman 14 May 2013 09:39:26PM *  0 points [-]

"skeptical of anything that lets me get duplicated as being a consciousness transfer"

The ideas in the post are all functional. Whether there's a consciousness transfer or not, they all are reasons that a given person emulated at real time speed could have the output of someone much more intelligent and focused.

EDIT: this was unclear. Less "a given person emulated at real time speed" and more "per emulated-person-hour".

The impact of whole brain emulation

4 jkaufman 14 May 2013 07:59PM

At some point in the future we may be able to scan someone's brain at very high resolution and "run" them on a computer. [1] When I first heard this as a teenager I thought it was interesting but not hugely important. Running people faster or slower and keeping backups came immediately to mind, and Wikipedia adds space travel, but those three by themselves don't seem like they change that much. Thinking speed doesn't seem to be major limiting factor in coming up with good ideas, we generally only restore from backups in cases of rare failure, and while space travel would dramatically affect the ability of humans to spread [2] it doesn't sound like it changes the conditions of life.

This actually undersells emulation by quite a lot. For example "backups" let you repeatedly run the same copy of a person on different information. You can find identify a person when they're at their intellectual or creative best, and give them an hour to think about a new situation. Add in potentially increased simulation speed and parallelism, and you could run lots of these ones looking into all sorts of candidate approaches to problems.

With emulations you can get around the mental overhead of keeping all your assumptions about a direction of thought in your mind at once. I might not know if X is true, and spend a while thinking about what should happen if it's true and another while about what if it's not, but it's hard for me to get past the problem that I'm still uncertain about X. With an emulation that you can reset to a saved state however, you could have multiple runs where you give some emulations a strong assurance that X is true and some a strong assurance that X is false

You can also run randomized controlled trials where the experimental group and the control group are the same person. This should hugely bring down experimental cost and noise, allowing us to make major and rapid progress in discovering what works in education, motivation, and productivity.

(Backups stop being about error recovery and fundamentally change the way an emulation is useful.)

These ideas aren't new here [3] but I don't see them often in discussions of the impact of emulating people. I also suspect there are many more creative ways of using emulation; what else could you do with it?


[1] I think this is a long way off but don't see any reasons why it wouldn't be possible.

[2] Which has a big effect on estimates of the number of future people.

[3] I think most of these ideas fo back to Carl Schulman's 2010 Whole Brain Emulation and the Evolution of Superorganisms.

I also posted this on my blog

View more: Next