Random thought: maybe there could have been disproportional gains got by getting Said to involve more humor in his messaging and branding him the official Fool of Lesswrong.com?
It seems the community indeed gets service out of Said shooting down low quality communication, and limiting that form of communication socially to his specific role maybe would have insulated the wider social implications, so that most value would have been preserved each way, maybe?
I notice I am most confused on the Expansion -> KABOOM 70%.
I have been in a model that Expansion would be limited within Ukraine, annexed territories including Crimea included. Therefore I have (completely subjectively) estimated Expansion -> KABOOM to 1/1000 or lower?
It seems to me that as Russia has moved its nuclear weapon submarines from Crimea to Russian mainland port, that this could be a shared model also in Russia.
MaxTegmark:
The point is that 1) after omicron recedes, there won't be much infection going around for a while, local spread should go near zero; and 2) if you get infected from your own previous illness, it is guaranteed your body has defeated that specific pathogen (variants, mutations) and should – given you still have immunity as you have recovered – be able to defeat it again, better than random other person's variant. Your own previous illness should be safer for you than random other person's random illness.
So if I don't get ill but remain immunonaive aside vaccine, surely then I will just enjoy my infection-free life until the next wave. But if I get infected, and there is not likely new vaccine doses available, I have interest on keeping my immunity against infection high with repeated infections the body has learned to repel. That way the next wave in around 2022-08 should have much lower probability to give me an actual infection.
Thanks! In case more boosters will be allowed, indeed then of course one should not expose oneself to live virus on purpose. So the usage decision is a separate from storage decision, as in potential usage time we will likely have much better information on if or when we will get permission for new vaccine doses.
One notable point is that if you have survived the virus before, the frozen virus is the exactly same virus, variant etc, because it is taken from you. Therefore I would understand your body should have a good immunity against that specific virus given your body beat it already.
I am considering to freeze my saliva if/when I get omicron, in order to later inject the frozen covid+ saliva into my nose some 6-12 weeks from recovery in order to boost my immunity against covid for longer. What do you people see as ups and downs of this approach?
The main reason for this is that I presume here in Finland they may limit covid vaccine availability after third dose, as both here and for instance in UK some people in medical community have talked that vaccinations after booster should be limited for some reason. If there are further boosters available, those seem clearly preferable over infection.
Rationale is that since your body... (read 250 more words →)
A friend offered that page 7 of white paper could maybe be used to deduce that Radvac would prevent Covid with ~40%.
This would mean the decision boundaries would get to p(Covid)*40% > 0.01 <=> p(Covid) > 0.01/0.40 <=> p(Covid) > 0.025 so then you would need your chance to get Covid to be over 2.5% for the use to be net beneficial.
If we also presume a 80+ year old person who has 25% probability of death given Covid, then it becomes
p(RV works)*p(get Covid)*p(Covid harm) > p(RV harm) <=> p(Covid)*40%25% > 1/10000 <=> p(Covid) > 0.0001/(0.40.25) = 0.001
so for them the chance to get Covid before official vaccination would need to be over 0.001 for it to be net beneficial with these boundary conditions.
I made a little different, simplified take on the matter:
For Radvac to be net useful, it needs that following is true: p(RV prevents Covid)*p(user gets Covid [is exposed to Covid such that it would lead to infection])*p(Covid causes long term harm) > p(RV causes long term harm)
p(RV harm) is currently from the RV paper likely less than 1/10000, cited example is Pandemrix that caused long term harm of narcolepsy with 1/16000 if you had Swedish or Finnish genome. p(Covid harm) is high in old people, where you can die with up to 25% probability, but for most of young people around here long Covid would seem to dominate and that seems to be maybe... (read more)
Thanks for the info. This conflicts with the specification of
A new instance of your class will be initialized in each round.
which I interpreted to mean that there exists exactly 1 instance of the class per round.
The model you propose makes sense though, I guess my mental model of the thing was mistaken.
You are not peeking at the game engine, you can just message this the same as you can message cooperation (2, 0, 2 code etc).
You also do not need to save any information over instances - all of your bots on a round are running on the same instance. If any of your ForetellerBots observes SignalBot, then SignalBot has not dropped. SignalBot's existence is in itself the flag.
Does this open a security hole of future prediction like Spectre etc?
Some bots could have a thing where they remember if they have met certain another bot (SignalBot) in the game. If they haven't, they decide that the game setup carries certain preset information.
If the bots find out later in the game that the preset condition would be true, then they coordinate so that SignalBot causes infinite loop and gets disqualified and the game restarted. Now the game will miss SignalBot, causing the others to use this information to deduce the signalled information.
Tl;dr:
Givens: In some cases Left is best strategy. Otherwise Right is best strategy.
I would like to bring forward from 2017 the paper from Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, done with cooperation of Global Priorities Project and Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford
Existential Risk Diplomacy and Governance, 1.1.4 Artificial Intelligence, page 9
... (read more)