LESSWRONG
LW

All of dejb's Comments + Replies

Mini advent calendar of Xrisks: nuclear war
dejb10

The point non-programmers tend to miss here is that lack of testing doesn't just mean the model is a a little off. It means the model has no connection at all to reality, and either outputs garbage or echoes whatever result the programmer told it to give. Any programmer who claims such a model means something is committing fraud, plain and simple.

This really is a pretty un-bayesian way of thinking - the idea that we should totally ignore incomplete evidence. And by extension that we should chose to believe an alternative hypothesis (''no nuclear winter') with even less evidence merely because it is assumed for unstated reasons to be the 'default belief'.

Reply
0ewbrownv
An uncalibrated sim will typically give crazy results like 'increasing atmospheric CO2 by 1% raises surface temperatures by 300 degrees' or 'one large forest fire will trigger a permanent ice age'. If you see an uncalibrated sim giving results that seem even vaguely plausible, this means the programmer has tinkered with its internal mechanisms to make it give those results. Doing that is basically equivalent to just typing up the desired output by hand - it provides evidence about the beliefs of the programmer, but nothing else.
Most Likely Cause of an Apocalypse on December 21
dejb10

I think that the most likely doomsday scenario would be somebody/group/thing looking to take advantage of the notability of the day itself to launch some sort of attack. Many people would be more likely to panic and others would initially be suspicious of reports of disasters. The system would less be able to deal effectively with threats. It might represent the best chance for an attacker to start WW3.

Reply
2012 Less Wrong Census/Survey
dejb140

I took it and did most of the bonus questions.

Reply
Verifying Rationality via RationalPoker.com
dejb00

Thanks for pointing this out. I can't believe I didn't actually read the adjacent words. It does however serve to underscore the commercial value represented by this post and the associated project. Online gaming is an area that has some unique constraints on marketing, especially in the US and because of this it's valid to have an increased suspicion of spam. It may be a good idea to have a think about the appropriate level of commerciality in articles before someone finds a clever and entirely reasonable way to link transhumanism with 'Buy Viagra Online'

Reply
2Marius
I would claim that the problem with spam is not the commercial value but rather the fact that it is off-topic. If someone really does have a clever and reasonable way to link transhumanism with the purchase of viagra, I would be curious to read it and would likely upvote it. There may be some difference between the promotion of for-profit and not-for-profit ventures, but it is difficult to see. Information about a for-profit cryogenics enterprise would be far more interesting to many of us than a plea to improve the financial standing of the ICRC. I have not noticed any non-profits currently resorting to spam - but if one does, I see no reason it should be treated any differently than a commercial spam.
Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans)
dejb30

as your post stands, you may be attributing qualities to Friendly AIs, that apply only to Solitary Friendly AIs that are in complete control of the world.

Just to extend on this, it seems most likely that multiple AIs would actually be subject to dynamics similar to evolution and a totally 'Friendly' AI would probably tend to lose out against a more self-serving (but not necessarily evil) AIs. Or just like the 'young revolutionary' of the first post, a truly enlightened Friendly AI would be forced to assume power to deny it to any less moral AIs.

Philoso... (read more)

Reply
6DanielLC
Why would a Friendly AI lose out? They can do anything any other AI can do. They're not like humans, where they have to worry about becoming corrupt if they start committing atrocities for the good of humanity.
Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People
dejb80

You could phrase it as, "This seems like an amazing idea and a great presentation. I wonder how we could secure the budgeting and get the team for it, because it seems like it'd be a profitable if we do, and it'd be a shame to miss this opportunity."

"This seems like a fantastic example of how to rephrase a criticism. I wonder how it could be delivered in a way that also retained enough of the meaning, because it seems like it would work well if it did, and it'd be a shame not to be able to use it. "

Does this just come of as sarcasm to people of higher intelligence. I guess you've got to alter your message to suit the audience.

Reply
7TheOtherDave
Either the switch from "we can't get the budget or the resources!" to "how can we get the budget and the resources?" retains the essential meaning, or it doesn't. Only the original speaker can know that for sure. If it does, then I'd say the restatement is better. Not just because it's polite, but because it's efficient: we can now focus our energies on brainstorming ways to secure the funding and the resources to implement a good idea. If it doesn't -- that is, if the original speaker didn't think it was a worthwhile opportunity in the first place and doesn't actually care about the funding or the resources -- then I agree with you that the proposed restatement is a bad one... but the original wording kinda sucked, too. (Not least of which because it offered a false rejection.) The speaker in that case would have done better to think clearly about their actual reasons for rejecting the idea, and then construct a polite expression of those reasons. Just because you're being rude doesn't mean you're communicating efficiently.
Defeating Ugh Fields In Practice
dejb21

I (intermittently) use nicotine lozenges as a stimulant while exercising.

I'm curious as to whether you've ever been an addicted cigarette smoker before? For those of us who have I suspect the risks of a total relapse to smoking (as opposed to other delivery methods) would be too great. I can image it could be effective though.

Reply
4wedrifid
I have never smoked a cigarette. Nor have I ever had a remote tendency towards addiction to any substance. That is even one of the reasons I gave when describing why this is an effective technique for me personally. I am more at risk of becoming addicted to discussing substances on the internet than the substances themselves. Absolutely. The habit of smoking is ingrained for life, that particular power of nicotine over memory at work. And I'm not talking about the habit of getting yourself a nicotine fix. It is a habit of physically getting a cigarette, lighting it, putting it in your mouth and sucking on it. Adding a nicotine trigger back into that would be absolutely insane.