= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Since you said the quote itself was absurd I thought you were saying the post was an internally flawed strawman meant for the purpose of satire, but you meant something else by that word.
I'm the one who said that. Just to make it clear, I do agree with your first comment: taken literally, the quote doesn't make sense. Do you get it better if I say: "It is easy to achieve your goals if you have no goals"? I concede absurd was possibly a bit too strong here.
If someone didn't value any world-states more than any others, I'm not sure that a Way would actually exist for them, as they could do nothing to increase the expected utility of future world-states. Thus, it doesn't seem to really make sense to speak of such a Way being easy or hard for them.
Am I missing something?
I think you're over analyzing here, the quote is meant to be absurd.
On the biological side, is there any evidence that we have reached an equilibrium? (I'm asking genuinely)
On one hand, evolution appears to work in a punctuated manner, meaning that individual components of evolutionary systems are usually at equilibrium.
On the other hand, brain volume in our ancestors rose smoothly from 3 million years ago to the present.
On the other other hand, some Neanderthals had larger brains than modern humans.
Higher levels of human intelligence result in a lower expected social utility for some other species (we are better at hunting them). It does not result in lower expected social utility for humans as we are generally good to other humans. Higher levels of individual intelligence have brought us the great achievements of human kind with very few downsides.
You can't simply assert that. It's an empirical question. How have you tried to measure the downsides?
You can't simply assert that. It's an empirical question. How have you tried to measure the downsides?
It seems so obvious to me that I didn't bother... Here's some empirical data: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html . Anyways, if you really want to dispute the fact that we have progressed over the past few centuries, I believe the burden of proof rests on you.
In response to
Applause Lights
can convey new information to a bounded rationalist
Why limit it to bounded rationalists?
If anything, the reason we don't see a rapid rise of intelligence among human beings
What about the Flynn effect?
I also strongly doubt the claim that human intelligence has stopped increasing. I was just offering an alternative hypothesis in case that proposition were true. Also, OP was arguing that intelligence stopped increasing at an evolutionary level which the Flynn effect doesn't seem to contradict (after a quick skim of the Wikipedia page).
In response to
Intelligence as a bad
However, humans and human societies are currently near some evolutionary equilibrium.
I think there's plenty of evidence that human societies are not near some evolutionary equilibrium. Can you name a human society that has lasted longer than a few hundred years? A few thousand years?
On the biological side, is there any evidence that we have reached an equilibrium? (I'm asking genuinely)
It's very possible that individual intelligence has not evolved past its current levels because it is at an equilibrium, beyond which higher individual intelligence results in lower social utility.
The consensus among biologists seems to be that social utility has zero to very little impact on evolution. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection
In fact, if you believe SIAI's narrative about the danger of artificial intelligence and the difficulty of friendly AI, I think you would have to conclude that higher individual intelligence results in lower expected social utility, for human measures of utility.
Higher levels of human intelligence result in a lower expected social utility for some other species (we are better at hunting them). It does not result in lower expected social utility for humans as we are generally good to other humans. Higher levels of individual intelligence have brought us the great achievements of human kind with very few downsides. The concern with AGI is that it might treat humans as humans treat some other species.
If anything, the reason we don't see a rapid rise of intelligence among human beings is that it does not provide much evolutionary benefit. In modern societies, people don't die for being dumb (usually) and sexual selection doesn't have much impact since most people only have child with a single partner.
Furthermore, this study is definitely flawed since it's quite obvious that individual intelligence has done a great deal lot more good for society than bad. Is there even an argument about this?
The study itself isn't modelling all aspects of society, just a very limited set of PD situations. That society has on the whole benefited from intelligence is due primarily to inventions and discoveries, which have no analog in PD, Maybe if one had a version where the more previous rounds of cooperation there have been the higher then payoff of cooperation in future rounds one might have something that approached that.
Saying that the study was flawed was indeed a bit strong. What I really meant is that OP's conclusion was wrong (individual intelligence = bad for society).
In response to
Intelligence as a bad
This suggests that intelligence is an externality, like pollution.
This sentence doesn't really make sense. Intelligence in itself is not a "cost imposed to a third party" (externality's definition)... Perhaps you mean intelligence leads to more externalities?
Furthermore, this study is definitely flawed since it's quite obvious that individual intelligence has done a great deal lot more good for society than bad. Is there even an argument about this?
In response to
Disputing Definitions
One way to get around the argument on semantics would be to replace "sound" by its definition.
...
Albert: "Hah! Definition 2c in Merriam-Webster: 'Sound: Mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air).'"
Barry: "Hah! Definition 2b in Merriam-Webster: 'Sound: The sensation perceived by the sense of hearing.'"
Albert: "Since we cannot agree on the definition of sound and a third party might be confused if he listened to us, can you reformulate your question, replacing the word sound by its definition."
Barry: "OK. If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, does it cause anyone to have the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing?"
Albert: "No."
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
-- Lion Kimbro, "The Anarchist's Principle"
Forgive my stupidity, but I'm not sure I get this one. Should I read it as "[...] it's probably for the same reasons you haven't done it yourself."?