All of k64's Comments + Replies

Late to the party here, but I thought I'd share my experience in case it is helpful data to anyone.  I've been dumb luck, the clear eyed-fool, and the chosen one at different points.  Here's what it felt like internally:
Dumb luck - 
What I said: "I haven't tested for statistical significance yet, but the correlation is just so dang uncanny.  I'm looking into how I can test if it's actually significant, but I'm hopeful that I've actually stumbled on to something."  
The situation: I had only conjectures for how I was achieving success... (read more)

It don't get the impression you're making an effort to understand my position.

Ok, well first let me correct that misconception: I am definitely making an effort to understand.  Knowledge is the only thing I get out of this.  If you feel I'm being insincere about any specific point, feel free to ask about it.  But I think the difficulty in communication really just shows exactly that: real communication is difficult.
 

You misunderstand me completely. I was criticizing your description.

I interpreted your initial "That makes it sound like I... (read more)

Oh, that's really interesting.  I don't think that you should feel bad about liking someone who makes you feel less judged.  I think most people actually have emotional reasons behind their decisions, and knowing your own just makes you self-aware.  And, for as much as the president affects our daily lives, maybe feeling less judged isn't that tiny compared to the other theoretical benefits of having the right candidate in office.
That said, based on your Kavanaugh story, I do feel like I was missing something.  As you point out, it does... (read more)

Wow, this is the most interesting reply I've gotten yet, because of just how much I agree with!  I'm also a centrist.  I also don't want one party to gain too much power.  And "since most things are actually pretty well tuned, incautious changes usually make things much worse" is such an articulate way of expressing exactly what one of my biggest political concerns is.  I may steal that line!
Ok, so to respond, it seems like the main points are:
Media lies
Don't want drastic changes
Trump had a successful presidency
Other candidates are unim... (read more)

I'd like to push back against the idea that empirical observations are more reliable than theoretical arguments.
1. Did you say this because you have empirical data showing that empirical data is more reliable, or do you believe it should be more reliable on theoretical grounds?
2. Here's a reductio ad absurdum: Empirically, a terrible pandemic started under Trump's presidency and 0 pandemics have emerged under the Biden/Harris administration.  Thus, relying on empirical observation, we should vote for Harris to avoid another pandemic.  
3. Empirica... (read more)

I appreciate you sharing your perspective!  My first question for you is, are these the actual reasons you support Trump, or are these the arguments for him you'd present?  What I mean is that, as someone who doesn't support Trump, I have plenty of arguments I can give for why he's a poor candidate, but if I'm honest, my direct reason for not wanting to vote for him is a strong negative association I've built with him over the past 8 years.  Now, why do I have that negative association?  Well, hard to know 100%, but I suspect it's his d... (read more)

Sure, I'll attempt a steelman.  I don't know how well I'll do, and the purpose of this question is to help me understand so I could do better, but why not have a before/after version.  So here's my initial attempt at a steelman (I guess it ended up being more "honest" than a normal steelman, more like "channeling" a rational Trump supporter.)

Ok, is Trump actually a genius?  No.  Is he the smartest, most moral, or otherwise flawless candidate?  No.  But I don't need a role model to be President, I need someone who will create c... (read more)

I really like the framing of establishment/anti-establishment.  I think that there are a lot of people who weren't on those sides who got pulled into one side or the other because of their left/right affiliation, but I think that is a really good explanation of the "core" appeal - the one that was there in the 2016 primaries.  It would also explain why I reject Trump.  I'm not anti-establishment or discontent.  I am generally trusting and not suspicious of others.  Combine that with my education level, and the "Big brother is out to get us" shtick Trump gives in his rambling style was never going to appeal to me.  

Thanks for this!  So, you mainly support him because he doesn't make you feel judged?  
Also, would you tell me more about what the Kavanaugh thing means to you?  

For me, a candidate's claim of what they will do is sufficient when they have unilateral control over doing it.  For instance, I believe a claim to sign or veto a specific type of bill.  I don't tend to believe that they will make the economy good, avoid recession, close all the tax loopholes, etc.  
Do you:
a) believe candidates when they claim they will be successful at things not entirely in their control
b) believe Trump but not others (like Kamala) when they claim they'll do things not entirely in their control
c) think that a Russia-Ukrain... (read more)

Why do you believe that Trump will negotiate a peace?

My ideas aren't really formalized, but I'm imagining that NormalUtilityFunction would be based on just the external state of the universe and that the full utility function with pausing would just add the arguably internal states of (paused) and (taking actions).

Thank you for this answer -  I really like it!  I'm trying to wrap my head the last 2 paragraphs.  

2nd to last paragraph:
Ok, so you're saying that it could choose to self-pause unless it was in the highest-scoring world?  I'm conceptualizing a possible world as an (action,result) pair, from which it could calculate (action, E[result]) pairs and then would choose the action with the highest E[result], while being paused would also provide max(E[result]).  So are you saying it would limit the possible actions it would take?  Tha... (read more)

Ok, so basically, we could make an AI that wants to maximize a variable called Utility and that AI might edit its code, but we probably would figure out a way to write it so that it always evaluates the decision on whether to modify its utility function according to its current utility function, so it never would - is that what you're saying?

Also, maybe I'm conflating unrelated idea here - I'm not in the AI field - but I think I recall there being a tiling problem of trying to prove that an agent that makes a copy of itself wouldn't change its utility func... (read more)

Ok, so if we programmed an AI with something like:

Utility=NumberOfPaperClipsCreated
While True:{
TakeAction(ActionThatWouldMaximize(Utility))
}

Would that mean its Utility Function isn't really NumberOfPaperClipsCreated?  Would an AI programmed like that edit its own code?