You are risking to oversaturate the AGI research market relative to other life-changing potential technologies, such as engineered life extension or organizational mechanism design.
Such oversaturation may result in two or more internally consistent but poorly compatible AI Safety theories (e.g. distillation-amplification vs. agent foundation), which will end up in two different friendly AI and the the war for correct friendliness will start.
On thought, my response is that no circular argument can possibly be rational so the question of if rationality is binary is irrelevant. You are mostly right, though for some purposes rational/irrational is better considered as a binary.
"Better" isn't a function of the real world anyway- I'm appealing to it because most people here want to be rational, not because it is objectively better.
What do you mean by "rational" is not a binary?
For an agent that can die or become fully unconscious, a complete and accurate bridge hypothesis should include conditions under which a physical state of the world corresponds to the absence of any introspection or data. I'll talk about a problem along these lines for AIXI in my next post.
It's similar to a physical hypothesis. You might update the hypothesis when you learn something new about death, but you of course can't update after dying, so any correct physical or mental or bridging belief about death will have to be prospective.
I'm not sure about the 'single correct' part, but yes, you can have hypotheses about the link between an experience in another agent and the physical world. In some cases it may be hard to decide whether you're hypothesizing about a different agent's phenomenology, or about the phenomenology of a future self.
You can also hypothesize about the link between unconscious computational states and physical states, in yourself or others. For instance, in humans we seem to be able to have beliefs even when we aren't experiencing having them. So a fully general hypothesis linking human belief to physics wouldn't be a 'phenomenological bridge hypothesis'. But it might still be a 'computational bridge hypothesis' or a 'functional bridge hypothesis'.
I'll talk about this a few posts down the line. Indexical knowledge (including anthropics) doesn't seem to be a solved problem yet.
Well yea that possible, and given that I do generally suck at introspection even plausible. However, is it relevant? If I don't experience experiencing something, then in what sense is it me experiencing it and not some other entity that may or may not be residing in the same brain?
They are at least fairly comparable to the format in Kurzweil's self-assessment, and so useful for putting the high accuracy ratings reported there into perspective.
4AnthonyC
Estimate the complexity in bits of each prediction? ;)
I am not sure my "rewards" are decreasing in a long term. First, I learn where to find the more interesting stuff (my filters improve). Second, more interesting stuff is created (the internet expands). For example recently my "rewards" were pretty low and I felt like I will stop procrastinating online... and then I found LW.
I agree with the "read-only" mode, because being a part of community gives its own "rewards". This is how I reduced my addiction to the website I spent a lot of time previously -- I have noticed that I spend more time writing than reading (and that my estimates of the writing time are even worse than my estimates of reading time), so I decided to stop writing. After a few weaks, reading felt much less interesting.
But the meaning is not obvious to an uninitiated, not the way it is in English.
1Prismattic
I think the loan word is better anyway, but if you were going to do something in Russian, I'd go with "дальше от заблуждения" or something, rather than word-for-word "менее неправильно", менее неверно", or "менее ошибочно".
1Dr_Manhattan
Loan-word is clearly the praviliniy (correct) choice in this case. Loan words are actually good signaling IMO - here is something from another language that's cool enough to adopt.
Bugmaster addresses this in a previous discussion of the idea. (Nothing is anonymous enough if the authorities come a-knocking, essentially.) Personally I'm still not sure how much of this approach is sheer paranoia, but better safe than sorry, I guess.
Asserting that qualia are ontologically basic appears to be assuming that an aspect of mind is ontologically basic, i.e. dualism. So it's only not having done the logical chain myself that would let me set a a probability (a statement of my uncertainty) on it at all, rather than just saying "contradiction".
2JoshuaZ
I don't know. Probably very low, certainly less than 1%.
If they're not informed, that would be rape by deception. I would say that that should be illegal at any age, although I would imagine it wouldn't be nearly as bad as being forced.
What exactly do they need to be informed about? They can get diseases from it, I guess. I'm pretty sure putting someone in danger like that without warning them would be illegal without anything specific about pedophilia.
That too. There should be a term for pedophelia and hebephilia. Especially considering that pedophelia is commonly used to mean those two and ephebophilia.
By explanation I don't mean I want you to explain what your claim means (" I'm referring to..."). I mean I want you to explain why you believe your claim. Jargon is of secondary importance - it just takes a few google searches to understand. Also, I don't really care what seems weird to you. I do find it interesting why something seems weird to you, as long as you make some sort of sense :D
Yeah, calling people insane is not a good start. Using language that most of your audience won't understand is also a problem. The bigger problem, though, is that you don't seem to be saying anything useful to me even when I put some effort into understanding the jargon - you just make claims without providing explanations.
That's a good question. I didn't really think about it when I read it, because I am personally completely dismissive of and not scared by haunted houses, whereas I am skeptical of cryonics, and couldn't afford it even if I did the research and decided it was worth it.
I'm not sure it can be, but I'm not sure a true rationalist would be scared by a haunted house. The only thing I can come up with for a rational utility function is someone who suspended his belief because he enjoyed being scared. I feel like this example is far more related to irrationality and innate, irrepressible bias than it is rationality.
You are risking to oversaturate the AGI research market relative to other life-changing potential technologies, such as engineered life extension or organizational mechanism design.