= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
This forum is as close as there is to a FAI discussion group. SL4 is very much (brain-)dead at the moment. There aren't even a lot of people who are known to be specifically attacking the FAI problem -- one can name Yudkowsky, Herreshoff, maybe Rayhawk, others keep quiet. Drop me a mail, I may have some suggestions on what to study.
Whatever happened to Nick Hay, wasn't he doing some kind of FAI related research?
"And what is it about selfishness exactly that is so bad?"
It's fine and dandy in me, but I tend to discourage it in other people. I find that I get what I want faster that way.
Now give me some cash.
He may have, for his own reasons, not been happy with the ease with which he achieved something great. His selfishness at this point is not for the fact that he may still be able to contribute to the field and yet he chooses not to but for the fact that he will be happier if he had to work harder on something before achieving greatness. That is his value system. I think his choice is justifiable.
Sure, but it's also reasonable for him to think that contributing something that was much harder would be that much more of a contribution to his goal (whatever those selfish or non-selfish goals are), after all, something hard for him would be much harder or impossible for someone less capable.
How utterly selfish of him.
I don't see how this reveals his motive at all. He could easily be a person motivated to make the best contributions to science as he can, for entirely altruistic reasons. His reasoning was that he could make better contributions elsewhere, and it's entirely plausible for him to have left the field for ultimately altruistic, purely non-selfish reasons.
And what is it about selfishness exactly that is so bad?
In response to
Rationality Quotes November 2009
Just a few centuries ago, the smartest humans alive were dead wrong about damn near everything. They were wrong about gods. Wrong about astronomy. Wrong about disease. Wrong about heredity. Wrong about physics. Wrong about racism, sexism, nationalism, governance, and many other moral issues. Wrong about geology. Wrong about cosmology. Wrong about chemistry. Wrong about evolution. Wrong about nearly every subject imaginable.
And this is a great follow up:
"Very recently - in just the last few decades - the human species has acquired a great deal of new knowledge about human rationality. The most salient example would be the heuristics and biases program in experimental psychology. There is also the Bayesian systematization of probability theory and statistics; evolutionary psychology; social psychology. Experimental investigations of empirical human psychology; and theoretical probability theory to interpret what our experiments tell us; and evolutionary theory to explain the conclusions. These fields give us new focusing lenses through which to view the landscape of our own minds. With their aid, we may be able to see more clearly the muscles of our brains, the fingers of thought as they move. We have a shared vocabulary in which to describe problems and solutions. Humanity may finally be ready to synthesize the martial art of mind: to refine, share, systematize, and pass on techniques of personal rationality."
In response to
Rationality Quotes November 2009
"But goodness alone is never enough. A hard, cold wisdom is required for goodness to accomplish good. Goodness without wisdom always accomplishes evil." - Robert Heinlein (SISL)
In response to
How to test your mental performance at the moment?
During a sleep experiment, I used to record my mental performance by a simple arithmetic game. Start with a 3 digit number, subtract 9, then 8, then 7...so on. Time yourself in the task. If the result is ±3 seconds to my average score, means I am quite active.
That reminds me of "counting doubles" from Ender's Game: 2, 4, 8, 16 ... etc until you lose track.
In response to
A Less Wrong singularity article?
==Re comments on "Singularity Paper"== Re comments, I had been given to understand that the point of the page was to summarize and cite Eliezer's arguments for the audience of ''Minds and Machines''. Do you think this was just a bad idea from the start? (That's a serious question; it might very well be.) Or do you think the endeavor is a good one, but the writing on the page is just lame? --User:Zack M. Davis 20:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
(this is about my opinion on the writing in the wiki page)
No, just use his writing as much as possible- directly in the text of the paper. Whole articles/posts in sequence for the whole paper would be best, or try to copy-paste together some of the key points of a series of articles/posts (but do you really want to do that and leave out the rich, coherent, consistent explanation that these points are surrounded in?)
My comments may seem to imply that we would essentially be putting together a book. That would be an AWESOME book... we could call it "Intelligence Explosion".
If someone ended up doing a book like that, they might as well include a section on FAI. If SIAI produces a relevant FAI paper, that could be included (or merged) into the FAI section
SEE THIS:
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes - link error