= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Have you read That Alien Message?
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) and the existence of sufficiently avaricious and gullible lab techs to bribe (possible).
I was thinking in terms of "how could an AI rule humanity indefinitely" rather than "how could an AI wipe out most of humanity quickly." Oops. The second does seem like an easier task.
How exactly would the order to abandon the internet get out to everyone? There are almost no means of global communications that aren't linked to the internet in some way.
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 here is so confident that FAI --> doom that I was wondering if there was some obvious and likely successful method of seizing control of physical resources that everyone else already knew and I had missed.
If the AI can talk itself out of a box then it demonstrates it can manipulate humans extremely well. Once it has internet access, it can commandeer resources to boost its computational power. It can analyze thousands of possible exploits to access "secure" systems in a fraction of a second, and failing that, can use social engineering on humans to gain access instead. Gaining control over vast amounts of digital money and other capital would be trivial. This process compounds on itself until there is nothing else left over which to gain control.
That's a possible avenue for world domination. I'm sure that there are others.
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.
In response to
"Stupid" questions thread
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?
Yeah. I think she doesn't like the ideally of continually trying to improve stuff... so it does appear to be contrary to satisficing, though perhaps on a meta-level. Like, if something's not working in her life, she'll go and fix it, but she doesn't operate from a perspective of continual growth. Ongoing growth, absolutely: Dweck-wise, she definitely has a growth mindset... but there's no sense of "how can I make today marginally better than yesterday" etc...
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.
Chapter 61: Proofreading (I think)
Albus looked at her, his face as expressionless as Severus's, now; and she remembered, with a shock, that Albus's *own* - "It is the best reason I can possibly imagine for removing Bellatrix from Azkaban,"
Albus's own what, exactly?
I'm guessing it's that Albus's own father was committed to and died in Azkaban.
Yeah, but that only matters from a self-assessment standpoint if the causal graph is wealth --> score <-- ability, whereas for an uncoached entrant it's almost purely wealth --> ability --> score.
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.
Do we know he is still alive? We know he was alive late enough for him to overlap with Voldemort. Is there any canon that says he is alive by the beginning of book 1?
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.
In response to
The Irrationality Game
I think that there are better-than-placebo methods for causing significant fat loss. (60%)
ETA: apparently I need to clarify.
It is way more likely than 60% that gastric bypass surgery, liposuction, starvation, and meth will cause fat loss. I am not talking about that. I am talking about healthy diet and exercise. Can most people who want to lose weight do that deliberately, through diet and exercise? I think it's likely but not certain.
Short term or long term? If long, how long?
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Smarthinking pays about $12/hr for online tutoring work, done from home. For English, this implies reading essays of high school and college students and sending feedback according to highly standardized procedures that they train you in. ("Your essay should open with a thesis statement", etc.) They also do math, science and computer tutoring, but I know less about how they work. You choose how many hours a week you want to work and which hours (e.g., Monday 10-4) but they have to be the same each week (you are allowed skip some occasionally and just not get paid from them).
With 20 hrs/week it would only give about half of your targeted income, which might be too far. But if you think you'd find tutoring easy/fun and have problems finding customers out on your own (which would obviously pay more), you might give it or another company like it a try. (ETA: I think the company keeps for itself half of what the students pay, and certainly hiring a personal tutor must be more expensive than paying for anonymous, standardized online feedback. So getting a few students to hire you for personal lessons might give you enough to get close to your target. You would have to save for the summer though.)
Is the pay strictly by hours or by work produced? Is it possible to make more than $10-$12/hr by e.g. reading the essays faster?