I don't understand much of this, and I want to, so let me start by asking basic questions in a much simpler setting.
We are playing Conway's game of life with some given initial state. An disciple AI is given a 5 by 5 region of the board and allowed to manipulate its entries arbitrarily - information leaves that region according to the usual rules for the game.
The master AI decides on some algorithm for the disciple AI to execute. Then it runs the simulation with and without the disciple AI. The results can be compared directly - by, for example, count...
almost every researcher in CS flaunts copyright, posting their papers on their own websites
Many journals explicitly allow you to distribute a "preprint" of your journal articles on your personal website. For example, the Elsevier policy states that authors retain:
the right to post a pre-print version of the journal article on Internet websites including electronic pre-print servers, and to retain indefinitely such version on such servers or sites for scholarly purposes
Another way of saying this (I think - Vladimir_M can correct me):
You only have two choices. You can be the kind of person who kills the fat mat in order to save four other lives and kills the fat man in order to get a million dollars for yourself. Or you can be the kind of person who refuses to kill the fat man in both situations. Because of human hardware, those are your only choices.
I don't mean to imply that the kind of person who would kill the fat man would also kill for profit. The only observation that's necessary for my argument is that killing the fat man -- by which I mean actually doing so, not merely saying you'd do so -- indicates that the decision algorithms in your brain are sufficiently remote from the human standard that you can no longer be trusted to behave in normal, cooperative, and non-dangerous ways. (Which is then correctly perceived by others when they consider you scary.)
Now, to be more precise, there are actu...
There are three things you could want:
You could want the extra dollar. ($6 instead of $5)
You could want to feel like someone who care about others.
You could genuinely care about others.
The point of the research in the post, if I understand it, is that (many) people want 1 and 2, and often the best way to get both those things is to be ignorant of the actual effects of your behavior. In my view a rationalist should decide either that they want 1 (throwing 2 and 3 out the window) or that they want 3 (forgetting 1). Either way you can know the truth and still win.
Here is a presentation that was used in a similar setting before.
I recommend trying to cover less than you currently plan. Just one or two big ideas should be more than enough.
Donating to VillageReach signals philanthropic intention and affords networking opportunities with other people who care about global welfare who might be persuaded to work against x-risk
Also, donating to VillageReach saves people's lives, and those people will have agency and abilities and may very well contribute to existential risk reduction.
Nowadays, however, the class system has become far harsher and the distribution of status much more skewed. The better-off classes view those beneath them with frightful scorn and contempt, and the underclass has been dehumanized to a degree barely precedented in human history.
How do you measure this kind of thing? Do you have a citation?
I'm not sure I believe you. By "non-wage costs and risks" do you mean things like health benefits, or lawsuit liability, or what? I can think of a lot of productive uses for cheap labor.
There's a bunch of trash and graffiti in my city. There's lots of unemployed people whose labor cleaning it up would be worth, say, a euro an hour.
I'm pretty sure we've talked about similar things before - the closest thing I could find after a quick search is a list of math prerequisites.
A suggestion: to make this concrete, we could identify specific courses on MIT's open coarse project. Then people could actually "get" this degree in some sense.
I'll start with the obvious: Math 18.05, Introduction to Probability and Statistics.
This looks very much like an ultimatum game, with Player A playing the proposer (how much of her $500,000 will she share?) and Player B as the responder (his role is to either accept or decline).
I'm not sure it's controversial, but I disagree very slightly on the margin. All your points are good. However, if
I have already read some papers from an author, and
I trust that their abstracts are honest representations of their work, and
I am not relying on their work as a basis for my own, but just pointing it out to my readers
I will cite it after just reading the abstract.
A perfectly clear, logical, honest, and readable account of your work is often ipso facto unpublishable: what is required is writing according to unofficial, tacitly acknowledged rules that are extremely hard to figure out on your own.
This has not been my experience. My experience with journal editors and reviewers has been that they want a clear and readable account, but it probably varies a great deal from field to field.
Your point about brand names and networks, however, is very well taken.
Because you don't want to pad your bibliography and give the impression you know more about the topic than you really do. Also, the body may not match the abstract, the body may poorly substantiate its claims in the abstract, you should understand any document you're relying on to make your point, etc.
Why is this controversial?
Edit: In fairness, some people do intend "efficient scholarship" to mean "cite any paper with an abstract that looks like it agrees with you and hope no one asks questions", but I don't think that's what lukeprog means.
This is interesting because my initial response is to disagree, but I don't think I have good reasons or evidence.
To drastically oversimplify: You seem to be saying that intelligence is primary and social skills are learned. You're born smart or dumb, and if you're smart, you over-analyze social situations and become afraid.
My initial reaction is the opposite: Social skills are primary, intelligence is learned. You are born with or without good social skills, and if you don't have them, you read a lot (by yourself) and hack computers or whatever, so that you become smart.
There are several colleges that do this, calling it the block plan. The ones I know of are Cornell College, Colorado College, and Quest University.
I don't really know anything about your situation, your wife, your relationship. So please don't take anything I say very seriously. Desrtopa may be right, and I certainly didn't want to imply that you weren't already a good husband.
I'm really glad to hear you're in marriage counseling. That will be more helpful than anything I say.
As far as not trying to change her: you've got lots of time. If she gets thirsty, she'll let you know. What I'm advising against is trying to deconvert her so that you feel better, which is what I read (rightly or wrongly) in the line I quoted in the grandparent.
I think my emotional satisfaction would dramatically increase if she were to deconvert.
This is hard for her, too.
Your roles and responsibilities to your wife are entirely different from the responsibility you've described to your own conscience to be true and follow the evidence and so on. The strategies we're discussing on this thread, though interesting and maybe useful, are probably not things you want to use with your wife, who already knows you well and knows the story.
My advice is pretty much the opposite of Desrtopa's. Don't talk about your que...
There was a very interesting discussion of exactly this question (at least as it relates to the mathematics community) on mathoverflow recently.
A couple nitpicks: The author of the book of Hebrews is not known, and this book is not normally attributed to Paul even in Christian tradition.
Also, your second quote appears to be from the New Revised Standard Version, not the New International Version that you cite.
Many teachers, in my experience, don't notice when students are confused or bored -- or maybe they notice but don't care
Or they notice, and care to some extent, but have other things to worry about. Like a pressure to cover a certain amount of material, or a fear of boring one group of students while they slow down for another, or a (maybe partly justified) belief that the students who are confused and bored just aren't trying.
There is an enormous (far too enormous for its value to the world, in my opinion) literature on the unexpected hanging paradox (also known as the surprise exam paradox) in the philosophy and mathematics literature. The best treatments are:
Timothy Y. Chow, The surprise examination or unexpected hanging paradox, American Mathematical Monthly 105 (1998) pp. 41-51. (ungated)
Elliot Sober, To give a surprise exam, use game theory, Synthese 115 (1998) pp. 355-373. (ungated)
Have you tried this? Does it work?
A: worked on me. I thought, "Okay, I realized I don't know that much about my religion. What's the deal?" So during church I'd actually read the bible. It didn't take long.
B: Well, I once was on a discussion board that was primarily for evangelical Christians. In the natural course of discussion, I mentioned the tribe of Benjamin. You know, the one with clearly-God-sanctioned mass murder and rape.
Some of them came up with some pretzel logic justifications. The rest of them backed away quietly.
Incidents like that were a big contributing factor to why the site was shut down.