All of Lethalmud's Comments + Replies

It looks childish to me. its looks the same as x-treme.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XMakesAnythingCool

I guess its just me, and its of no real consequence. But it seems to trivialize such a serious subject as existential risk.

4arromdee
Since you invoked TV Tropes, there's a TV Tropes fork at https://allthetropes.orain.org/wiki/ . It gets rid of the censorship at TV Tropes and also uses mediawiki, which makes things work better--you have real categories, it is possible to edit sections, etc.
6Robin
Can you think of another five letter description? The shorter the term, the easier of a time people will have remembering it and thus the meme will spread faster than a longer term.

Why?

I'm curious, how did you use rationality to develop fashion sense?

What do we get if we Taboo socialism?

0TheAncientGeek
Detail
Lethalmud-10

Funny, this quote is almost exactly similar to one in "The Praise of Folly" by Erasmus. That whole book is an argument against rationality.

It helped me very much to follow utility "have (and enjoy) a date" instead of "find a relationship".

In my experience bicycling is much safer. I have been cycling more or less everyday since I was at least since I was 8. and have never been in a life-threatening accident. however, while traveling by car, I have been in 2 or 3 potential life threatening crashes. But this will be very dependent of location culture and personal variables.

If a FAI would have a utility function like "Maximise X while remaining Friendly", And the UFAI would just have "Maximise X". Then, If the FAI and a UFAI would be initiated simultaneously, I would expect them both to develop exponentially, but the UFAI would have more options available, thus have a steeper learning curve. So I'd expect that in this situation that the UFAI would go FOOM slightly sooner, and be able to disable the FAI.

Carrots have no measurable positive effect on eyesight. Otherwise, good quote.

Lumifer170

Carrots have no measurable positive effect on eyesight.

Even for someone who is suffering from a clinical-grade Vitamin A deficiency?

Unless you have plot armor.

2VAuroch
Since his primary goal is to make Batman kill him, it's hard to say he has plot armor.
Lethalmud200

As a side note, never take pills from strange people in empty werehouses who found you on the internet.

6simplicio
Especially not in werehouses, no.
Vaniver310

That depends, how were their reviews on Silk Road? :P

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

Being able to design stupid things is an important skill for any designer. Steering away from it tends to reduce your process to cached thoughts.

2savageorange
Upvoted, but I feel that it could be more clear: You're focused on the idea of "Make new mistakes instead of trying to repeat previous successes", right? That is, commit new stupidities instead of old stupidities or old successes.
9JoshuaZ
How is that quote a spoiler? Also, how long does a work need to be out before spoilers are no longer an issue? Is it ok if I tell you that Macbeth dies at the end?

This is interesting. When I first discovered LW, I was reading The Praise of Folly by Erasmus. He argues, among other things, that all emotions and feelings that make life worthwhile are inherently imbedded in stupidity. Love, friendship optimism and happiness require foolishness to work. Now is it very hard to compare a sixteenth century satirical piece with a current rational argument, but I have observed that intelligence and stupidity don't seem to be mutually exclusive. From where comes your assumption that intelligent, rational people can't be stupid... (read more)

That is an awfull fate. RIP mana burn deck..

I don't understand why you assign a lower probability to the possibility of an infinite regress of causality, than to the possibility of a non casual event or casual loop.

So you are saying that, to change your mode of behavior, all one has to do is create a judging context? That would actually make you very easy to manipulate..

Or, that because most of time travel in popular media make no sense whatsoever, people assume it must be very difficult.

Well, maybe you fell asleep halfway that thought, and thought the last half after you woke, without noticing you slept.

2ygert
That doesn't answer it. You still had the thought, even with some time lapse. But even if you somehow say that doesn't count, a trivial fix which that supposition totally cannot answer would be "There is some entity [even if only a simulation] that is having at least a portion of this thought".
Lethalmud-10

Elezier, do you believe that someday humans could create an AI and put that AI in a simulated enviroment that accurately simulated all the observations humanity made until now?

If you do, what further observations would that AI have to make to arrive at the belief that they were created by an intelligent entity?

3khafra
If we assume that humanity has gained access to effectively infinite computing power, and has put AIXItl or something similar into a copy of the universe, simulated at whatever level unifies quantum mechanics and gravitation into a coherent, leakproof framework, AIXItl would have an extremely small belief that it was inside a simulation. Only if the simplest unification of quantum mechanics and gravity turns out to be "we're in a simulation," would a hyperintelligent AI in a perfect simulation of our universe come to the belief that it's in a simulation. So, the epistemically perfect AI would come to an incorrect decision. This does not imply a flaw in its method for forming beliefs; it merely implies the tautology that there is no way to find out what there is no way to find out.

Do those studies have a placebo group?

I notice I am confused.