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

Comment author: jmh 14 February 2018 06:11:52PM 1 point [-]

As alway some interesting views and thinking get found here. Some of the statements I think I would push back on are: The median is confused. Well, I think it would be more accurate to say EVERYONE is confused if only because we're so limited in both our knowledge and any ability to observe so much of our reality on earth. Forget the metaphysical and philosophical/religous elements. Also, when suggesting confusion about somethings as complex as "the world" I'm not entirely sure there is a good common denominator to define not confused.

I think the characterization of most religous people as above -- and I'll cast it in the worst interprestation here -- as blindly hoping something will save them from bad shit and give them good things is just wrong. I've personally known a bunch of very religous people who are as rational or more rational than most athiests I've met. And, given that we simply don't know, strict atheism (as in a rejection of the monogod concept as reality) is as much a statementof faith and any belief in such an entity. But at least the religious will own their posistion as one of faith. Too many atheists will rebell against the acusation they, in the end, are makes statement based on the faith in their logic. Now, to be fair, more than a few "ateists" are really agnostics who simply say they don't find the arugements for a god convincing and use that as their day-to-day but acept they could be wrong. Why bring up this? It goes back to the assumption about who is and is not confused about the world.

What assumptions are loaded into the overal story here?

Comment author: Fallibilist 10 December 2017 06:27:57AM 0 points [-]

I would be happy to rewrite the first line to say: An entity is either a UKC or it has zero -- or approximately zero -- potential to create knowledge. Does that help?

Comment author: jmh 12 December 2017 01:13:36PM 0 points [-]

Well it's better than jumping to unsupported conclusion I suppose that should help at some level. Not sure it really helps with regard to either 1 or 2 in my response but that's a different matter I think.

Comment author: Fallibilist 06 December 2017 09:55:12PM 0 points [-]

Note the "There is no such thing as a partially universal knowledge creator.". That means an entity either is a UKC or it has no ability, or approximately zero ability, to create knowledge. Dogs are in the latter bucket.

Comment author: jmh 08 December 2017 02:31:08PM 0 points [-]

That conclusion -- "dogs are not UKC" doesn't follow from the binary statement about UKC. You're being circular here and not even in a really good way.

While you don't provide any argument for your conclusion about the status of dogs as UKC one might make guesses. However all the guess I can make are 1) just that and have nothing to go with what you might be thinking and 2) all result in me coming to the conclusion that there are NO UKC. That would hardly be a conclusion you would want to aim at.

Comment author: jmh 06 December 2017 06:34:16PM *  1 point [-]

"Critical Rationalism says that an entity is either a universal knowledge creator or it is not. There is no such thing as a partially universal knowledge creator. So animals such as dogs are not universal knowledge creators — they have no ability whatsoever to create knowledge"

From what you say prior to the quoted bit I don't even know why one needs to say anything about dogs. The either universal knowledge creator (UKC) or not is largely (or should this be binary as well?) a tautological statement. It's not clear that you could prove dogs are or are not in either of the two buckets. The status of dogs with regard to UKC certinaly doesn't follow from the binary claim statement.

Perhaps this is a false premise embedded in your thinking that helps you get to (didn't read to the end) some conclusion about how an AI must also be a universal knowledge creator so on par with humans (in your/the CR assessment) so humans must respect the AI as enjoying the same rights as a human.

Comment author: jmh 06 December 2017 06:18:26PM 0 points [-]

Not sure I have anything to add to the question but do find myself having to ask why the general presumption so often seems to be that of AI gets annoyed at stupid people and kills humanity.

It's true that we can think of situation where that might be possible, and maybe even a predictable AI response, but I just wonder if such settings are all that probable.

Has anyone ever sat down and tried to list out the situations where an AI would have some incentive to kill off humanity and then assess how reasonable thinking such a situation might be?

Comment author: jmh 16 November 2017 07:20:24PM 0 points [-]

While not addressing the question of a role for AI I often find myself thinking we should get away for the frequent trading of financial assets and make them a bit more like the trading of mutual funds. Does all the intra-day trades really give more information or just add noise and the opportunity for the insiders to make money off retail (and even some institutional) investors?

Seem like designing the market to work a bit more like the one often used in the Econ 101 theory -- that Walrasian Auctioneer -- we could have more stable markets that do better at pricing capital assets than today. In other words, take all the order flow see that the prices are to clear and then all trade occurs at that price.

I suspect you'd still see some gaming the system with fake orders (a bit like the algos have been accused of in today's markets) but all systems get gamed.

Comment author: Rossin 05 September 2017 12:35:10AM 2 points [-]

Does anyone have any tips or strategies for making better social skills habitual? I'm trying to be more friendly, compliment people, avoid outright criticism, and talk more about other people than myself. I can do these things for a while, but I don't feel them becoming habitual as I would like. Being friendly to people I do not know well is particularly hard, when I'm tired I want to escape interaction with everyone except close friends and family.

Comment author: jmh 06 September 2017 12:28:38PM 0 points [-]

I'm going to come at this from a different angle than the others, I think. I don't claim it will work or be easy as I really identify with you question -- changing myself should be easy (I control my brain, right? I make my decisions, right?) but find that reinventing me int the person I'd rather be than who I am is a real challenge.

There was another post here on LW, http://kajsotala.fi/2017/09/debiasing-by-rationalizing-your-own-motives/ that I think might have value in this contex as well as the one it takes for the post.

We can all try making our selves to X and though effort and repetition make it something of a habit. I think that works better for the young (no idea of your age). But at some point in life the habits, and especially the mental and emotional (which probably means physiological chemical processes that drive these states) hae become near hardwired. So, what I'll call the brute force approach -- just keep practicing -- faces the problem of relative proportions. Behavoural characteristics we've developed over 20, 30 40 years (or more) will have a lot more weigh than the efforts to act differently for a few years (assuming one keeps up at the change myself routine).

Maybe at some point more effort in looking at "why am I acting like X" is as important just the effort to act differently. Perhaps to develop a new habbit will be easier than changing old habits. But if the new habbit then serves as a feedback into the old habit we setup a type of interupt for the initial impulse to behave in a way we would rather change. That might help break the old habits we don't want but have reinforced to the point they are no longer just habits we display but actually more "who we are".

So, this is off the cuff thinking to so very likely has some gapping holes!

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 02 November 2011 10:09:21PM 0 points [-]

In practice, everyone's motivation is a mixture of all sorts of stuff, and very little is even a utility function...

But in theory, this is how I would define a selfish utility: one that is defined entirely in terms of an index "me". If you have two people with exactly the same selfish utility function, completely identical (except that the "me" is different), then those two utilities are independent of each other.

Comment author: jmh 05 September 2017 11:36:48AM 0 points [-]

Would it be correct to define selfish utility as sociopathic?

Comment author: jmh 30 August 2017 12:08:11PM *  7 points [-]

I think given the scenario, I roll over and go back to sleep. Put simply that's such a silly god I'm not going to pay any attention to it.

Another thought, "exactly as it unfolded" suggests I will have no awareness of any prior loop as I certainly have none now. Moreover, such an awareness necessarily changes how my life would unfold. There simply seems no difference between the two options from a practical perspective for me.

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 14 August 2017 10:59:39AM *  2 points [-]

EDIT: Clarified some things.

Suppose we have a bunch of spherical billiard balls rolling around on an infinite plane. Suppose there is no friction and the collisions are elastic. They don't feel the influence of gravity or any other force except the collisions. At least one ball is moving. Can they ever return to their original positions and velocities?

Comment author: jmh 18 August 2017 03:54:28PM *  0 points [-]

Possibly not a rational answer (so possilbly not living up to the less wrong philosophy!) but given the assumption of an infinite plane I would think the probability is vanishingly small of returning to the original position and velocity.

Something would need to constrain the vectors taken to prevent any ball from taking off in some direction that could be described as "away from the group". Perhaps that could be understood be be on a path for which the the path of no other ball can possible intersect. At that point this ball can will never change it's current velosity and never return to it's oiginal position.

I cannot offer a proof that such a condition must eventually occur in your experimnt but my intuition is that it will. If so that vanishing small probablity that everyting return to some orginal state goes to zero.

View more: Next