= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Rape is performed by an individual, not by a class. Does this society not only have the women as strong as the men, but also every individual person as strong as every other individual person? (And for that matter, as powerful as every other individual person--for instance, none are employers, rich people, or law enforcement.)
No, it's just that none of that really matters now, since rape has as much physical or mental consequence in this world as a high-five. They live in a world that went from joking about rape on 4chan to joking about it in the boardroom because everyone was 4chan.
In response to
Interlude with the Confessor (4/8)
Akon seems to be assuming that a male cannot possibly initiate sex, in this sentence:
I can't imagine how boring your sex lives must have been up until then - flirting with a woman, teasing her, leading her on, knowing the whole time that you were perfectly safe because she couldn't take matters into her own hands if you went a little too far -
That suggests some sort of genetic editing. Perhaps they've left the male sex drive in place, so 'rape' is not actually going to be very unpleasant, but given the females a perfect defense, or a consciously-controlled pheromone that must be on for the male to get an erection, or something of this nature.
What happened was genetic egalitarianism. Women are now just as strong as men, and have the same drives and urges as men, and are every bit the rapist as men. And men are now every bit the tease as women were... the scales are now even. And the physical consequences are meaningless. There's no longer any threat of unwanted disease or pregnancy or even injury. There's no reason to be mentally scarred by the action because this humanity knows better.
...so why was it illegal? It doesn't hurt anyone. In their age.
But the elders remember the hurt. And they screamed their rage and the history of profanity.
In response to
That Alien Message
Apropos of this, the Eliezer-persuading-his-Jailer-to-let-him-out thing was on reddit yesterday. I read through it and today there's this. Coincidence?
Anyway, I was thinking about the AI Jailer last night, and my thoughts apply to this equally. I am sure Eliezer has thought of this so maybe he has a clear explanation that he can give me: what makes you think there is such a thing as "intelligence" at all? How do we know that what we have is one thing, and not just a bunch of tricks that help us get around in the world?
It seems to me a kind of anthropocentric fallacy, akin to the ancient peoples thinking that the gods were literally giant humans up in the sky. Now we don't believe that anymore but we still think any superior being must essentially be a giant human, mind-wise.
To give an analogy: imagine a world with no wheels (and maybe no atmosphere so no flight either). The only way to move is through leg-based locomotion. We rank humans in running ability, and some other species fit into this ranking also, but would it make sense to then talk about making an "Artificial Runner" that can out-run all of us, and run to the store to buy us milk? And if the AR is really that fast, how will we control it, given that it can outrun the fastest human runners? Will the AR cause the human species to go extinct by outrunning all the males to mate with the females and replace us with its own offspring?
Call back with that comment when Running, rather than Intelligence, is what allows you to construct a machine that runs increasingly faster than you intended your artificial runner to run.
Because in a world where running fast leads to additional fastness of running, this thing is going to either destroy your world through kinetic release or break the FTL laws and rewrite the universe backwards to have always been all about running.
The (narrative) fact that the leaders of this world believe that magic works isn't a convincing argument that magic works. For most of Earth's history, its leaders have believed in various forms of magic. You're still better off believing in natural causality.
Even if it turns out that there is something that looks like magic before you study it, it ought to look like science by the time you're done formalizing it.
When someone summons me from another dimension, they get a little bit of leeway to tell me it's magic. Because at the very least it must be a sufficiently advanced technology, and until I know better the axiom of identity applies.
It sucks to be in any of the ~ 2**n worlds that are dead. This one is one that has defied the odds thus far and survived. Not only that, of all the worlds currently 'alive', this one is the one that went and summoned the guy that sounds like he's going to win once and for all. Sucks to be in the worlds that summoned Frodo.
In fact, once the dust is out of the way, they will have time to take a closer look at the immortal chick. That immortality should be reproducible.
Worlds where the hero wins, really truly wins, have no more Dust and need no more heroes. Worlds where the hero loses, and the Dust claims all, are no more. Only in worlds where the coin stands on edge does the cycle repeat.
that can happen to someone without them noticing
But Eliezer's original description said this:
suppose a dust speck floated into your eye and irritated it just a little, for a fraction of a second, barely enough to make you notice before you blink and wipe away the dust speck.
It's an essential part of the setup that the disutility of a "dust speck" is not zero.
Let me change "noticing" to "caring" then. Thank you for the correction.
That makes Egan the thing Yudkowsky is the biggest fan of. It does not make Yudkowsky to be Egan's biggest fan.
He'd lose money. 1.01 * 0.99 = 0.9999 < 1. Or in general, (1+x)(1-x)=1-x^2 < 1
And having never taken the first pill, he'd be glad to lose it to take the second pill.
In response to
Schelling fences on slippery slopes
And Ghandi spoke, "I will pay you a million dollars to invent a pill that makes me 1% more pacifist."
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
But I am an intelligence that can only communicate with the environment via input/output channels! And so are you!
How is it that we are able to represent the hypothesis that one can die? I refuse to accept that humans do something that AIXI can't until I see the actual math. (I don't affirm the opposite claim, mind you.)
You are subject to inputs you do not perceive and you send outputs you are neither aware of nor intended to send. You cannot set your gravitational influence to zero, nor can you arbitrarily declare that you should not output "melting" as an action when dropped in lava. You communicate with reality in ways other than your input-output channels. Your existence as a physical fact predicated on the arrangement of your particles is relevant and not controllable by you. This leads you to safeguard yourself, rather than just asserting your unmeltability.