Posts
Wiki Contributions
Yes (though OTOH conversely there are also things that many Europeans struggle to afford but Americans take for granted, e.g. air conditioning)
Note that there are plenty of things that count as "working hours" when white-collar workers do them but not when blue-collar workers do them.
Yep, the first thing I thought after reading "this isn't actually possible to achieve in the real world" was "Yes it is! See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_hypnosis, or that time I played in a concert while blackout drunk and I can only actually remember playing half of the set list." The second thing I thought was "But did I actually have no qualia, or do I just not remember them?" The third thing I thought was "Is there any way I could possibly tell, even in principle? If there isn't, doesn't that mean that there's no actual difference between qualia and the formation of memories of qualia?"
1
1Am I the only one who, upon reading the title, wondered "do they mean arguments that conscious AIs would be better than unconscious AIs, or do they mean arguments that existing AIs are conscious?"
Would you apply that to other examples of loss leaders too? When I buy a Ryanair ticket with no priority boarding, a randomly assigned seat and no luggage and don't buy anything on the plane, should I feel guilty because if everybody paid as little as me the flight wouldn't be net profitable for Ryanair? If not, what's the difference?
I would instead choose a relatively light ‘this is not allowed’ where in practice we mostly look the other way
That is very seldom a good idea, for reasons detailed in https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1209794.html (if euthanasia is outlawed, only outlaws will euthanize their patients) https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/04/formalist-manifesto-originally-posted/ (any circumstance where the actual norms don't match the ostensible norms can lead to uncertainty and/or disagreements on what exactly the former are, and you don't want that)
Multiplying all this together gets you to a 1 in 80 million chance of all this stuff happening under the null hypothesis, which is highly significant.
Not until you work out the chance of all this stuff happening under alternate hypotheses, and the prior probabilities of alternate hypotheses, and the prior probability of the null hypothesis.
(I asked random.org for 10 random bytes and I got 02 c8 c2 30 60 b3 2e 93 a6 e9 . The chance of this happening under the null hypothesis is 1 in 1.2×10^24
In Richard Owen's place I would have called them "dragons" rather than "dinosaurs". I mean, we didn't rename atoms once we found out they didn't look much like Democritus or Dalton imagined them and the etymological meaning of their name doesn't actually apply to them...