Lyyce
16
6
20
Lyyce has not written any posts yet.
Lyyce has not written any posts yet.
Maybe the Placebo effect, all medications have affect the patient (even if it does nothing) so you can not prove a medicament does not work without a control group using Placebo to make the claim falsifiable.
I'm not sure an intelligence explosion can happen without significant speed or computational power improvements.
I guess it boils down to what happens if you let human-level intelligence self-modify without modifying the hardware (a.k.a how much human intelligence is optimised). Until now the ratio results to computational power used in significantly in favor of humans compared to I.A but the later is improving fast, and you don't need an I.A to be as versatile as human. Is there any work on what the limit on optimisation for intelligence?
It looks like a nitpick since hardware capacity is increasing steadily and will soon exceed the capacities of the human brain, but it is a lot easier to prevent intelligence explosion by putting a limit on the computational power.
Found the ideas in the article nicely organised, and the paragraph about how EA is financed was a good idea.
Reading it left me a very different feeling compared to your older articles who tended to push my "crank detector" buttons, is that just you "improving" your style (by my standard) or rather an adaptation to a different venue?
Idea that might or might be relevant depending on how smart / advanced your group is.
You could introduce some advanced statistical methods and use it to derive results from everyday life, a la Bayes and mammography.
If you can show some interesting or counter intuitive results (that you can't obtain with intuition) it would give the affective experience you want, and if they want to do scientific research, the more they know about statistics the better.
Statistics are also a good entry door for rationalist thinking.
I am aware that very negative consequences are possible, even likely, especially if you go the whole way (aka save everyone at any cost). My stance is that the current situation is not optimal, and that trying incremental / small scale changes to see whether it makes the situation any better (or worse). Admittedly the ways it could go wrong are multiples.
If you give incentives to unproductive people to become productive, but you don't give incentives to productive people to remain productive, the winning strategy for people is to have swings of productivity.
If working people can afford more luxury that non-working one, this gives incentive to people starting being productive and staying... (read more)
Do you think that trying could have considerable costs? Russia tried communism, that... didn't turn out well.
It could, incremental changes, or doing it on a smaller case would mitigate the costs. A "partial" basic income already exist in several European countries, where even when not contributing to society you are given enough to subsist. The results are not too bad so far.
Why new? That's precisely how the current equilibrium works (where advantages == money).
You are right, it would just be different jobs having the most value
... (read more)Why capitalistic? In your black-and-white picture that would be true for all human societies except for socialist ones. Under capitalism you could at least live off your capital
Maybe if you'd give subsistence to everyone (basic income for example) and let people produce in exchange for "more", the system would still be viable.
And do you have reasons to believe that would be so -- besides "maybe"?
No, that's why I'd like to see it tried. Nordic countries seems to be headed in that direction, we'll see how it goes.
... (read more)Well, until their toilet clogged and stayed clogged because most plumbers became painters and the rest just went fishing. And until they got sick and found out that the line to see one of the few doctors left is a couple of months. And until the buses stopped running because being a
In the context of a capitalist society there is a common assumption that "the market" will automagically generate the supply
In the current system people produce goods for their subsistence. Maybe if you'd give subsistence to everyone (basic income for example) and let people produce in exchange for "more", the system would still be viable.
The advantages are nobody left out, more flexibility in your work, people doing what they like (more artist and stuff), not having to work to survive (that counts for some). It would increase the happiness of the persons concerned The disadvantages are a net loss of production compared to the current systems and the producers of good being worse off.... (read more)
Thank you for the feedback. Unfortunately it looks like I have not been able to express myself clearly.
It was not supposed to explain anything but rather gives one point I find not stressed enough, I am aware that it does not sum up politics or gives a full distinction between political side.
That's true if you live in solidly blue or red state, but then why not vote for a third party candidate more aligned to your convictions? Or not voting at all, saving time?