lmnop

No, but I read it just now, thank you for linking me. The example takeover strategy offered there was bribing a lab tech to assemble nanomachines (which I am guessing would then be used to facilitate some grey goo scenario, although that wasn't explicitly stated). That particular strategy seems a bit far-fetched, since nanomachines don't exist yet and we thus don't know their capabilities. However, I can see how something similar with an engineered pandemic would be relatively easy to carry out, assuming ability to fake access to digital currency (likely) ... (read more)

Government orders the major internet service providers to shut down their services, presumably :) Not saying that that would necessarily be easily to coordinate, nor that the loss of internet wouldn't cripple the global economy. Just that it seems to be a different order of risk than an extinction event.

My intuition on the matter was that an AI would be limited in its scope of influence to digital networks, and its access to physical resources, e.g. labs, factories and the like would be contingent on persuading people to do things for it. But everyone her... (read more)

Worst case scenario, can't humans just abandon the internet altogether once they realize this is happening? Declare that only physical currency is valid, cut off all internet communications and only communicate by means that the AI can't access?

Of course it should be easy for the AI to avoid notice for a long while, but once we get to "turn the universe into computronium to make paperclips" (or any other scheme that diverges from business-as-usual drastically) people will eventually catch on. There is an upper bound to the level of havoc the AI can wreak without people eventually noticing and resisting in the manner described above.

What are concrete ways that an unboxed AI could take over the world? People seem to skip from "UFAI created" to "UFAI rules the world" without explaining how the one must cause the other. It's not obvious to me that superhuman intelligence necessarily leads to superhuman power when constrained in material resources and allies.

Could someone sketch out a few example timelines of events for how a UFAI could take over the world?

Could you elaborate on the difference between continual and ongoing growth? Dweck-style growth mindset seems similar to LW-style life optimization on a practical level to me.

I'm guessing it's that Albus's own father was committed to and died in Azkaban.

whereas for an uncoached entrant it's almost purely wealth --> ability --> score.

And coaching can't make up a large part of the score difference, either. There's more than 100 points discrepancy on Critical Reading or Math alone between the lowest and highest income groups, whereas coaching only creates improvements of 30 points in Reading and Math combined.

In book 7, Voldemort visits Grindelwald at Nurmengard in order to interrogate him about the location of the Elder Wand, and then kills him. So Grindelwald was definitely alive in book 1.

Short term or long term? If long, how long?

Eliezer's points about equality and symmetry may be true across the population

I don't even think it's true across the population. How many women do you know who primarily read books, watch movies, read news articles and listen to music created by men? And how many of the opposite? For the 100 top grossing films of 2007, there were 3 female directors and 109 male directors involved. (Off the top of my head) the ratio of news articles written by men vs women is something like 7:1. Women probably have a better understanding of the "male perspective" than men have of the "female perspective," just from the different levels of exposure.

But if we can't measure the cultural factors and account for them

We can't directly measure them, but we can get an idea of how large they are and how they work.

For example, the gender difference in empathic abilities. While women will score higher on empathy on self report tests, the difference is much smaller on direct tests of ability, and often nonexistent on tests of ability where it isn't stated to the participant that it's empathy being tested. And then there's the motivation of seeming empathetic. One of the best empathy tests I've read about is... (read more)

But if we can't measure the cultural factors and account for them

We can't directly measure them, but we can get an idea of how large they are and how they work.

For example, the gender difference in empathic abilities. While women will score higher on empathy on self report tests, the difference is much smaller on direct tests of ability, and nonexistent on tests of ability where it isn't stated to the participant that it's empathy being tested. And then there's the motivation of seeming empathetic. One of the http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111... (read more)

You may not be aware that lots of people who criticize women's preferences seem to consider themselves, or men in general, entitled to female sexual attention, and they show insufficient regard for women's body sovereignty and self-determination. If you want to evaluate women's preferences, could you explain how we can do this in a way that respects women's autonomy? What kind of benefits might women accrue from attempting to change their preferences, and if not, they why should they attempt to do so merely to satisfy men's preferences?

I like this respo... (read more)

However, the idea that the general standards of discussion here represent a threatening and hostile environment for women, which is supposedly the main reason why they're few in number, seems to me completely disconnected from reality.

Not the general standards of discussion, no. But the standards of discussion for some of the speculation on sex relations, especially when related to the PUA subculture, seem to create an unpleasant environment for women who are otherwise quite happy with the general standards of discussion. Therefore, it seems reasonable ... (read more)

That's just not the kind of belief a decent person would hold, so concluding that he might consider women's safety unimportant communicates that he is a bad person. Now he's been made to feel he's such a bad person that he can't even emotionally participate in this topic anymore.

At least two people on the other side of the discussion have assured komponisto that they don't consider him a "bad person" here and here. Besides saying this upfront before each criticism, can you think of some other ways that we might minimize the real or perceived i... (read more)

I'm confused. The data you present shows that women are more picky about personality, and men are more picky about looks. But what (of your data) indicates that "the difference between minimum or maximum percentile attractiveness of the mates you are aiming for, and your own percentile attractiveness, is greater for women"? You can break personality into several separate traits, yes, but you can break looks into several separate traits too, so it isn't clear that women have more requirements on more traits.

You write as if women were some unspeakably fearful, brittle, and paranoid creatures who undergo apoplectic shocks at the slightest whisper that interferes with their delicate sensibilities. Frankly, if I were a woman, I would take offense at that. You're basically proclaiming women congenitally incapable of rationally addressing claims they find unpleasant, instinctively reacting with a shock-and-offense emotional ploy instead.

I think people generally dislike and avoid spending time in environments they perceive as anywhere on the scale from unwelcomin... (read more)

Thank you for the pointer! Yes, I started using the site after reading HP:MoR, although I'd read some articles from it before that.

I doubt komponisto feels that great right now, and I don't think he deserves to continue to be villified after clarifying his original problematic comment.

From the karma scores on his clarifying comments, I think many people here understand his perspective and support it. To say that he's been villified is a pretty severe exaggeration.