I operate by Crocker's rules.
I try to not make people regret telling me things. So in particular:
- I expect to be safe to ask if your post would give AI labs dangerous ideas.
- If you worry I'll produce such posts, I'll try to keep your worry from making them more likely even if I disagree. Not thinking there will be easier if you don't spell it out in the initial contact.
Thanks, edited. If we keep this going we'll have more authors than users x)
Thanks, edited. Performance is not the only benefit, see https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MHqwi8kzwaWD8wEQc/would-you-like-me-to-debug-your-math?commentId=CrC2
Account settings let you set mentions to notify you by email :)
The action space is too large for this to be infeasible, but at a 101 level, if the Sun spun fast enough it would come apart, and angular momentum is conserved so it's easy to add gradually.
Can this program that you've shown to exist be explicitly constructed?
I'd like to do either side of this! Which I say in public to have an opportunity to advertise that https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MHqwi8kzwaWD8wEQc/would-you-like-me-to-debug-your-math remains open.
Hang up a tear-off calendar?
(You can find his ten mentions of that ~hashtag via the looking glass on thezvi.substack.com. huh, less regular than I thought.)
Zvi's AI newsletter, latest installment https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LBzRWoTQagRnbPWG4/ai-93-happy-tuesday, has a regular segment Pick Up the Phone arguing against this.
What is going to be done with these numbers? If Sleeping Beauty is to gamble her money, she should accept the same betting odds as a thirder. If she has to decide which coinflip result kills her, she should be ambivalent like a halfer.