Maybe the Placebo effect, all medications have affect the patient (even if it does nothing) so you can not prove a medicament does not work without a control group using Placebo to make the claim falsifiable.
I'm not sure an intelligence explosion can happen without significant speed or computational power improvements.
I guess it boils down to what happens if you let human-level intelligence self-modify without modifying the hardware (a.k.a how much human intelligence is optimised). Until now the ratio results to computational power used in significantly in favor of humans compared to I.A but the later is improving fast, and you don't need an I.A to be as versatile as human. Is there any work on what the limit on optimisation for intelligence?
It looks like a n...
Found the ideas in the article nicely organised, and the paragraph about how EA is financed was a good idea.
Reading it left me a very different feeling compared to your older articles who tended to push my "crank detector" buttons, is that just you "improving" your style (by my standard) or rather an adaptation to a different venue?
Idea that might or might be relevant depending on how smart / advanced your group is.
You could introduce some advanced statistical methods and use it to derive results from everyday life, a la Bayes and mammography.
If you can show some interesting or counter intuitive results (that you can't obtain with intuition) it would give the affective experience you want, and if they want to do scientific research, the more they know about statistics the better.
Statistics are also a good entry door for rationalist thinking.
I am aware that very negative consequences are possible, even likely, especially if you go the whole way (aka save everyone at any cost). My stance is that the current situation is not optimal, and that trying incremental / small scale changes to see whether it makes the situation any better (or worse). Admittedly the ways it could go wrong are multiples.
...If you give incentives to unproductive people to become productive, but you don't give incentives to productive people to remain productive, the winning strategy for people is to have swings of producti
Do you think that trying could have considerable costs? Russia tried communism, that... didn't turn out well.
It could, incremental changes, or doing it on a smaller case would mitigate the costs. A "partial" basic income already exist in several European countries, where even when not contributing to society you are given enough to subsist. The results are not too bad so far.
Why new? That's precisely how the current equilibrium works (where advantages == money).
You are right, it would just be different jobs having the most value
...Why capit
Maybe if you'd give subsistence to everyone (basic income for example) and let people produce in exchange for "more", the system would still be viable.
And do you have reasons to believe that would be so -- besides "maybe"?
No, that's why I'd like to see it tried. Nordic countries seems to be headed in that direction, we'll see how it goes.
...Well, until their toilet clogged and stayed clogged because most plumbers became painters and the rest just went fishing. And until they got sick and found out that the line to see one of the f
In the context of a capitalist society there is a common assumption that "the market" will automagically generate the supply
In the current system people produce goods for their subsistence. Maybe if you'd give subsistence to everyone (basic income for example) and let people produce in exchange for "more", the system would still be viable.
The advantages are nobody left out, more flexibility in your work, people doing what they like (more artist and stuff), not having to work to survive (that counts for some). It would increase the ha...
Thank you for the feedback. Unfortunately it looks like I have not been able to express myself clearly.
It was not supposed to explain anything but rather gives one point I find not stressed enough, I am aware that it does not sum up politics or gives a full distinction between political side.
That's a normative, not a descriptive claim.
Fair enough, this is only my own biased opinion. It is indeed generic, I am still unsure if my position should be "mostly not responsible" or "not responsible at all" depending on which model about free will is correct.
For how long?
Wealth is produced, and the money do not disappear (does it actually? my understanding of economy is pretty basic) when you give it out since they spend it as consumer the same way the people you take it from would do.
I don't see anything "running out" in the few socialist countries out there.
a common argument is
It might well be a common argument, but the correct question is whether it's a valid argument.
I do think it is a valid arguments (I might be wrong of course), many studies have highlighted the effect of education, parents, genes, environment, etc. So I find it unfair to blame someone for its problems since there are too many element to consider to give an accurate judgement.
Using a less sympathetic expression this is also known as the forced redistribution of wealth.
I don't like the idea of forced redistribution of wealth (t...
(for the ideological turing test)
I have tried to make my argument as neutral as possible, giving both sides of the arguments and avoiding depreciating any,
Let's try from both directions then (personally am a leftist).
Left side, I think so, I definitely think societal influence (amongst other things out of the individual power such as genetics) trumps individual choices, I also saw this opinion amongst friends and intellectuals so I am not alone in this, not everybody on the left think like this though.
Right side, my model of the right is not as good as I'd like, but i have seen it expressed in various places. Again it does not concern all the rightists neither is the main point for everyone.
Apparently I have not made my point clear enough. I am indeed simplifying, "everything is due do society" and "everything is due to individuals" are the both ends but you can be anywhere in the spectrum. This is also only one point among others, probably not the main one, defining identity politics (as you told it), and surely not every leftist/rightist will have the view I give him or is even concerned by the concept.
If i take your example about the person on government benefits with no skills, a common argument is that the fact that h...
Sorry but I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about, could you develop your point?
One major difference between left and right is the stance on personal responsibility.
Leftist intellectuals (tends to) think society influence trumps individual capabilities, so people are not responsible for their misfortunes and deserve to be helped. Whereas Rightist have the opposite view (related).
This seems trivial, especially in hindsight. But I hardly ever see it mentioned and in most discussions the right side treat the left as foolish and irrational and the left thinks right people are self-interested and evil rather than simply having a differen...
Group are very fluid entities, and can be defined by pretty much any parameter, which make your statement a bit vague. But even without considering that, there are shortcomings in your theory.
On an individual point of view, being biased towards one group will reduce your own possibilities, it will also reduce the incentives for your group to adapt and better itself. To be fair, it has nothing do with your theory, but still is worth saying imo
Your proposition could also be interpreted has a prisoner dilemna, with each group as a player, not being biased is ...
If one is perfectly rational (omniscience would even be better), yes, otherwise I do not think it is a good idea for a lot of reasons. Just on the top of my head :
It is very hard to be accurate, let alone objective, when analysing "impact on society" or "quality of character", and the result is dependent on the criteria used.
When there is a big variability within a group (race, genre or whatever), statistics are not very useful and you should end up with a better model by getting to know the person.
Anchoring effect : People are bad at u...
I am confused about free will. I tried to read about it (notably from the sequences) but am still not convinced.
I make choices, all the time, sure, but why do I chose one solution in particular?
My answer would be the sum of my knoledge and past experiences (nurture) and my genome (nature), with quantum randomness playing a role as well, but I can't see where does free will intervene.
It feels like there is something basic I don't understand, but I can't grasp it.
I am somewhat new to LW, so I only know the "eternal september" period.
Even tough the contributions and the comments do not have the same quality as the old content, there are still (in my opinion) some interesting posts and discussions, so I'd prefer not archive LW.
The use of LW as focal point would really interest me since I am a bit lost in the diaspora, the other two points are also good and deserve to be implemented.
That's true if you live in solidly blue or red state, but then why not vote for a third party candidate more aligned to your convictions? Or not voting at all, saving time?
I think pwno is proposing that we do it precisely because it doesn't align with our convictions. (He might advise Trump supporters to vote for Clinton.)
I'm sure I remember reading, but can't now find, an anecdote from Eliezer back in the OB days: he was with a group of people at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, where there's this tradition of writing prayers on pieces of paper and sticking them in cracks in the wall, so as a test of the sincerity of his unbelief he wrote "I pray for my parents to die" and stuck that in the wall. Same principle.
(Per... (read more)