Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: sarahconstantin 30 January 2017 05:59:06PM 3 points [-]

I check, using desktop, vote and comment occasionally, click through some links.

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 28 January 2017 05:38:00PM 1 point [-]

I might wonder if there are things humans can do with concepts and symbols and principles, the traditional tools of the “higher intellect”, the skills that show up on highly g-loaded tasks, that deep learning cannot do with current algorithms. ... So far, I think there is no empirical evidence from the world of deep learning to indicate that today’s deep learning algorithms are headed for general AI in the near future.

I strongly agree, and I think people at Deepmind already get this because they are working on differentiable neural computers.

Another key point here is that hardware gains such as GPUs and Moore's law increase the returns to investing time and effort into software and research.

Comment author: sarahconstantin 28 January 2017 07:00:07PM 0 points [-]

Yep! I want to distinguish between "deep learning by itself is probably not general intelligence" (which I believe) and "nobody is making progress towards general intelligence" (which I'm uncertain about and definitely don't think is safe to assume.)

[Link] Performance Trends in AI

9 sarahconstantin 28 January 2017 08:36AM
Comment author: NancyLebovitz 24 January 2017 07:37:05AM 0 points [-]

Might nicotine be doing a little mental good for people who aren't schizophrenics?

Comment author: sarahconstantin 25 January 2017 09:24:10AM 0 points [-]

it's one of the few effective cognitive enhancers, so yes, except for the fact that people with a tobacco addiction are less intelligent than baseline when they haven't smoked in a while, so it may be a wash except for quite occasional users.

Comment author: sarahconstantin 24 January 2017 02:00:36AM *  1 point [-]

Yep! this is important. You can't make everything evidence-based. Some empirical questions have to be decided by heuristic, by theory, by analogy, or sometimes "shrug, flip a coin."

An important corollary is that "this isn't evidence-based" isn't always a damning insult. It's good to know what is and isn't evidence-based, but sometimes you have to make decisions without good empirical evidence.

Comment author: sarahconstantin 24 January 2017 01:55:18AM 0 points [-]

Yep, it works. Don't take cigarettes away from schizophrenics!

[Link] Life Extension Possibilities

7 sarahconstantin 24 January 2017 01:54AM
Comment author: hairyfigment 12 January 2017 01:04:45AM 1 point [-]

She does eventually give an example of what she says she's talking about - one example from Facebook, when she claimed to be seeing a pattern in many statements. Before that she objects to the standard use of the English word "promise," in exactly the way we would expect from an autistic person who has no ability to understand normal humans. Of course this is also consistent with a dishonest writer trying to manipulate autistic readers for some reason. I assume she will welcome this criticism.

(Seriously, I objected to her Ra post because the last thing humanity needs is more demonology; but even I didn't expect her to urge "mistrusting Something that speaks through them," like they're actually the pawns of demons. "Something" is very wrong with this post.)

The presence of a charlatan like Gleb around EA is indeed disturbing. I seem to recall people suggesting they were slow to condemn him because EA people need data to believe anything, and lack any central authority who could declare him anathema.

Comment author: sarahconstantin 12 January 2017 07:01:10AM 2 points [-]

Hi, I wrote the post.

I think that it's actually fine for me to use spooky/mystical language to describe human behavior. I'm trying to hint very broadly at subjective impressions, and provoke readers to see the same things I do. I have the rough sense of something spooky going on in the zeitgeist, and I want to evoke that spooky feeling in my readers, so that some of them might say "I see it too." That's exactly the right use case for magical thinking.

There are degrees of certainty in making accusations. If you have hard evidence that somebody did a seriously bad thing, then that's one kind of situation. I'm not making any of those kinds of claims. (There was hard evidence that Gleb did a seriously bad thing, but that's not original to me, and that was dealt with before.)

What I'm doing is more like the sort of thing that goes on when, say, a journalist/blogger might accuse EA of being a movement full of "nerdy white males" and insinuating that this is associated with certain stereotypical biases, and maybe pulling a quote or two to support the claim. It's a "hey, this smells funny" kind of deal. It's about pattern-matching and raising suspicion and smearing it around a bit.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 22 December 2016 09:01:02PM *  3 points [-]

A surprising number of 'spiritual practices' have turned out to stimulate the vagus nerve/affect its baseline tone. This is also probably one of the pathways by which cardiovascular conditioning affects health (vagus nerve innervates the heart). I had thought that the vagus nerve also innervates the diaphragm, which would explain how breathing exercises could affect it, but it turns out that's the phrenic nerve.

Comment author: sarahconstantin 03 January 2017 08:33:41PM 1 point [-]

Deep breathing does stimulate the vagus nerve though, if I understand correctly. How much the heart rate changes after a period of deep breathing is a standard test of vagal nerve function. People with autonomic dysfunction can't slow their heart rate through deep breathing.

[Link] Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

3 sarahconstantin 28 December 2016 06:26PM

View more: Next