Here's another, roughly isomorphic statement:
What is Gravity besides some form of superintelligence, or at least the remnants of superintelligence? The strongest evidence is that engineers and even physicists don't really have to understand how gravity actually works in order to use it. There is information entering the system from somewhere, and it's enough information to accurately detect when an object is unsupported or structurally unstable. And the chaotic side-effects tend to be improbably harmful. It's like an almost-Friendly, or perhaps a broken previously-Friendly, AI. Possibly the result of some ancient Singularity that is no longer explicitly remembered.
I find it rather irritating when someone does this every time I use the words "soul" or "God" in a rhetorical context.
I believe in neither, but both words have their uses.
Actually, I think the issue is a misunderstanding of what apostasy is in the first place.
Science most definitely does not mean: "Let's try something random today and see what happens".
That does seem to be how mathematics works, though.
It is a hypothetical situation of unreasonably high security that tries to probe for an upper bound on the level of containment required to secure an AI.
If an isolated AI can easily escape in any circumstance, it really doesn't make sense to train gatekeepers.
Replace "tangentially" with "about as much as basically any other thing".
Actually, it is; while the post is clogged with outdated ideas and plays fast and loose with the meaning of existence, I wouldn't want to see a slew of actually sound arguments about basic set theory clogging up Discussion, either.
Being "tangentially related to rationality" is not the true rejection.
"Signaling" is a term that we've given a more precise definition than the other two.
If you're going to dodge defining existence, please at least clarify your point by telling us which of these things "exist":
a) irrational numbers
b) sets
c) postmodernism
d) the number of Langford pairings of length 100
e) negative numbers
f) quaternions
(And FYI, that’s the proper spelling: "homosexual" is common but wrong, because omo- is the proper Greek prefix.)
One reason gender politics is especially "mind-killing" is that the two least interesting/statistically significant/improbable positions (males are more THIS than females, females more THAT than males) also happen to be the two positions seen as the "strongest".
Sorry, but "this'll probably get down voted, but" just doesn't work here.
It's refreshing to see the non-anastrophic arrangement in the title.
What LessWrong would call the "system" of rationality is the rigorous mathematical application of Bayes' Theorem. The "one thousand tips" you speak of are what we get when we apply this system to itself to quickly guess its behavior under certain conditions, as carrying around a calculator and constantly applying the system in everyday life is rather impractical.
I have done so.
I can better serve you if I continue doing so.
I've heard another anecdote from someone with ADHD that ritalin helps you focus at the cost of YOUR SOUL.
Nice to have the option, though.
Just wait until "fgebatyl cerqvpgvir" starts working its way into the back of the subject's brain.
I'm not against karma, but it's the reason why the largest subreddits have turned into trash.
I feel that the Big Bang Theory is just another name for "Sheldon Says the Darnedest Things".
1000, because nobody here seems to have an interest in actually participating.
RationalWiki is a wiki because it was made with the sole intent to make fun of Conservapedia.
When I come across a pseudoscience I haven't seen before, I usually go to Google first to check its position with regard to reality.
Then I go to its RationalWiki article for entertainment. This is essential if I don't want to spend the rest of the day fuming at how many people "actually believe in that stuff".
As a Dwarf Fortress player, I'd prefer using "&" to warn about AI hazards rather than "@".
I'd say that the article is arguing, if it is at all about transhumanism, that James Bond is "transhumanizing", rather than transhumanist in itself.
Anyone looking for more information should search for the term "Blue Brain Project", as the project had (under that name) actually achieved something.
What do we do when there is a very tiny (2^-x) chance that THIS random thing has incredibly huge (O(3^^^^3)) importance?
Shooting skeet eight hours a month was excellent training for them. It trained them to shoot skeet.
Joseph Heller, Catch-22
Smoking isn't very rational. That's why some people here who've never smoked chew the gum instead.
It's more of a quantum computing development. Perhaps a more appropriate title would be "Quantum measurements leave Schrodinger's Cat in an ambiguous state while telling us just how ambiguous the state is".
From what I've heard about the demographics here, you might want to ask whether the gum contains nicotine.
If it's not a paradox, that the logic behind it works should never be interesting. How it works is another story.
I've heard that test repeatedly labeled as the "only personality test on the internet that works", but I can't really find many other Myers-Briggs tests.
We generally don't take well to Reddit-style politics. It usually degrades quickly into a "circlejerk", which is what our goal here is to avoid.
The most obvious examples I can think of are the countless amateur mathematicians that tried to square the circle.
If I recall correctly, the concept of "memes" was invented to illustrate the universality of Darwinian evolution in non-genetic systems, rather than as an attempt to explain results or make predictions.
Point already raised and discussed, see below.
Mean 1.69172935902e+16
What use is the mean if anyone can just do something like this?
a million dollars is the mind-killer
So, scope insensitivity?
Click the highlighted up/down hand to remove the vote.
The amount of time it would take to get a reasonable dataset would likely exceed the projected lifespan of the universe, I imagine.
The basilisk is, in short, a piece of information that describes the terrible things that would happen to you if you knew that piece of information.
Similarly, internet usage is indirectly correlated with life expectancy, although the correlation isn't anywhere near strong enough to make reasonable judgments of one from the other.
This isn't Reddit; posts generally should be more than just a link and a quote.
Never mind, I see your point, although I still disagree with your conclusion on the grounds of narrative plausibility and good writing.