There are the [Letter] Advice for High School #1 and [Letter] Advice for High School #2 by lsusr.
Thanks Dagon, I appreciate the concrete feedback.
I'm trying to express that typically people think about systems with very high cognitive power (relative to humans), but it could be interesting/useful to consider what very low cognitive power systems are like. Looking at such extreme cases can inform things such as the type signature of intelligence/agency/etc. The post is me trying to think through this and noticing that low cognitive power systems are hard to characterize, e.g. give a superintelligence the right goal and it can behave like a low cognitive power system.
Everyone today talks about Intelligence, but no one talks about the inverse problem: Stupidity. How stupid can you make a system? And what are the (mis)alignment properties of such a system?
If intelligence is the ability to efficiently achieve goals in a wide range of domains, then stupidity is the lack of such ability. Give a stupid being a goal and it will with great probability fail to achieve it.
Let's look at specific examples. What about a random agent? How stupid is it? Not as stupid as you would think. Give it a multiple choice test and it will average 50%. Let it try out the stock market and watch it beat troves... (read 460 more words →)
Best flashlights (from /r/flashlight): https://zakreviews.com/arbitrary-list-2023.1.html
Aaron Collins for mask reviews
Could someone give some specific examples of both "unwritten rules" and "written rules" of social interaction?
I can't really think of any. I can't tell if it's because I'm just very oblivious or because I've internalized them well enough I never have to explicitly think about them.