Slider

This issue has become a lot less hypothetical, regards current events and is funny (while simultanoeusly being a very serious issue). Ant is a part of an information processing system more distributed than a single human that doesn't have wings.

I have a cube maker contact if anyone is interested.

Replying toWhat fact that you know is true but most people aren't ready to accept it?

Slider3y

What fact that you know is true but most people aren't ready to accept it?

I think it is very important to ask the reverse question of "Are there some things, that should I come to know them, I would not be ready to accept?"

Also if you have a questionaire there is going to be some threshold of answers that you will count as noise and not as signal akin to lizardman constant. What things do you only think you are asking but are not actually asking?

Do you have some beliefs that if challenged by contrary evidence you would thereby find the evidence unreliable? Are there things your eyes could send you that would make you Aumann disagree with your eyes about them being optical sensory organs... (read more)

Replying toYou Don't Exist, Duncan

Slider3y

You Don't Exist, Duncan

One of the reasons I am a stricler for possibility is that I have found it more productive to think that if a situation or a human type is not logically inconsistent it probably rather exists rather than not exists. Even if it does not yet exists thinking as if it does makes you already to have accomodiated the possibility.

If you do this by each subtype it gets combinatorily explosive. In order not to do this kind of thing via exhaustion you identify critical points where things would flip/break when certain conditions are hit. In coding it means when you divide you always give attention to what happens with zero division. Even... (read more)

Slider3y

That is still probably what socrates meant.

I was feeling abnormally low, and have now calibrated to feel more in proper proportion.

Slider3y*Quick Take

Socrates demonstrated that in the transjective relationship between individual and state both ends should be able to face obliteration but that making the other do that is cruel. Even if wrong.

please be less cruel to Mizushino

Why you ask the significance question why

Slider

Hello.

(I am already doing 75% better)
I used to think that keeping your identity small is laudable. The reasoning goes that if "me" and "you" are interchangable instead of being only applicable for "me" there is a wider scope of applicability. And there is an effect.

At some point the other reduced to a hollow propertyless "x" means that people can not apply it or do not find it meaningful.

Lurking works well for abstract objective patterns.

If you actually do things, you have stakeholders which might not to a sufficient degree fit one general mold. Irreducable diversity might be real and it might be important.

I find myself writing still in a fact-stating manner. Sure, if... (read 244 more words →)

Replying toWhen to mention irrelevant accusations?

SliderJan 16, 2023

When to mention irrelevant accusations?

If a bad experience goes unheard or unobserved somewhere the possibility of it being allievated is quite hard.

I would like to know if/that I would have hurt somebody even if I would initially disagree how that is forceful (but no conditionality that it needs to end or go in the direction of me agreeing).

Slider3yQuick Take

So it is mark of good cognititve processing of being able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

As tends to happen when you take things to extremes, things get tricky.

At some point just imagning a scenario at all spends more brainpower than the credibility of the scenario or line of thought would warrant. Trying to be "exploratory" with infinities and quantum mechanics leads to some wacky configurations. Because thinking complex thoughts uses a lot of subparts it is harder to sandbox such things.

I remembered an almost decades old argument about ethicality of social interactions when one side gets infinite do overs and other side does not (if Doctor Who has some kind... (read more)

Slider3yQuick Take

Basilisk makes you confront your worst fear. Compassion of winged feenix prevents you from becoming zero-k. The kronology has still yet to come. Timeless friends will serve you throught the darkest dungeon. Reach out to walk hand in hand through the fire.

Replying toHave we really forsaken natural selection?

Slider3y

Have we really forsaken natural selection?

Energy is the Noether theorem conserved thing for time-translation.

Eigenstates do not care about atom boundaries.

With biological evolution we might be limited to an alphabeth of some kind of combination of carbon chemistry. But time evolution does not care what its tokens are.

Slider3yQuick Take

Total Annihiliation is a name of a game.

You can read it to mean powdering to physical dust everywhere.

You can also read it to mean collapse of persons, a state where there is not a single self around, that humanity has been wiped out.

Supreme Commander is also a name of a game.

In it a single king-like chesspiece runs an almost planetary army. With thousands of units going around the small bit of biological circuitry is wrapped in isolation into an Armored Command Unit. But the ACU does not really do much for the army.

Dr. Brackman is also a single point of failure for a whole faction. Yes, he is smart but him telling others they are smart starts to get repetetive, which makes it questionable whether the faction is in non-demented hands.

I guess it going on for a long time is fitting for being called the Infinite War. It is a good game, but I do not know whether it is the greatest game.

Ponder Stibbons was written before Harry Potter? I don't think so.

Suppose you are the operator of a Chinese Room and don't know Chinese.

You could idle and keep be lead by the book.

You could also pay attention to what you are doing.

If you do that enough you might at times know what the book will tell you to do.

If you confidently know what the book will tell you to do in this particular situation, you might as well go do it without checking that it does.

The more you have situations you don't use the book for the less daunting staring and figuring at the rest of it becomes. (The further we explore, the more connected everything becomes -I Like to Move it)

If you... (read more)

quantilization as a super low resolution discretization in the direction of (something like) geometric rationality.

level 1: take top 20% options of utility function and do a equiprobably random action

level 2: take top 40% options of utility function, give top 50% (the original top 20%) of those double weight and pick a random one

level 3: take top 60% of options, give top 40% double weight, give top 20% triple weight

level n+1: make smaller buckets to cover more of the range and have higher scoring buckets have bigger weights

beyond discrete: propability of picking an option is proportional to the its utility rank ("infinidesimally small buckets")

Epistemic status: crazy corner

carry over for the overtly wild rant-off from writing

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/r282ErRKMFzxpKYMm/can-we-in-principle-know-the-measure-of-counterfactual?commentId=qX53p2gsKGSnHfEFm

Immediatly after observation an electron is in a definetely known place. A while after it is described by a complex valued field that is quite spread out spatially.

Combining many spread out complex fields can add to much narrower fields.

In QM sometimes superpositions evolve into non-superpositions in a perfectly predictable manner.

Having one facet of the superposition definetely locked in and knowing that the future state is going to be perfectly non-superpositional means that the fields of the other parts of the superpositions are perfectly locked in (so that they exactly cancel).

If these were missing then the result would be superpositional (keeping the... (read 649 more words →)

Since I did not keep it in a drawer as much as I thought let me make a note here to have a time stamp.

Instead of going

(units sold * unit price) - productions costs => enterpreneour compensation

go

(production costs+ enterpreneour compensation)/units sold => unit price

you get a system where it is impossible to misprice items.

Combined with other stuff you also get not having to lie or be tactical about how much you are willing to pay for a product and a self-organising system with no profit motive.

I am interested in this direction but because I do not think the proof passes the musters it would need to, I am not pushy about it.

media spoilers
Series The Peripheral Episode 7 Doodad

Mom character makes an argument that another character is evil for letting survival limiting their options to solve their dilemma and that they are evil for it. Listening to this with reflection of LW memes this sounds awefully lot like "A good person would let themselfs be shut down in this situation" ie you are evil for not being corrigible.

An interesting point is that both characters are intensly invested in the outcome of the situation with similar kind of downsides.

Slider's Shortform

Slider

This is a special post for quick takes (aka "shortform"). Only the owner can create top-level comments.

How many researchers does a new paper reach?

Slider

How much of a field of research papers you must read to be "read" in your specialty in your concurrency? What contributing factors beside novelty does a paper have to have to get read? Are there some research areas where an idea needs to be "repapered" like a retweet multiple times before it registers in the collective conciouness?

When does adding food make an organism reliably better?

Slider

Food is important for an organism to grow and adapt. Yet most organism can overfeed and become obese. Many organism also artificially limit themselfs to a small size. This seems wasteful if food is readily available.

Are there any organisms that can actually take benefit from all the food available? Can those traits be transferred to more traditional organisms?

This question is formed to be comparatively silly when compared to a previous question. However should this question have answers those answers should be analogous to answers to the parent question.

Infinity is an adjective like positive rather than an amount

Slider

I often see the belief that infinity is a quantity, when I think it's a quality. This post introduces two qualitative notions on a field where people are likely to have a good quantitative understanding in order to show how the qualitative understanding isn't that satifying.

Assume natural numbers and then we will extend them with two new numbers. They will be suggestively named "inpositivity" and "positivity".

What these numbers are is characterised by rules involving them (I will not differentiate between axiom and theorem).

For any number a and b if a>b then b-a=inpositivity

inpositivy-a=inpositivity

inpositivity+a is undefined

inpositivity-inpositivity=inpositivity

inpositivity*a=inpositivity

inpositity*inpositivity=positivity

positivity+positivity=positivity

positivity*positivity=positivity

0*positivity=0

0*inpositivity=0

positivity+inpositivity is undefined

positivity - inpositivity = positivity

Call the system defined as the "Dulled natural numbers". Now if you compare... (read 358 more words →)

Emotional valence as cognition mutator (not a bug, but a feature)

Slider

Maybe because of my neurotype I view it important that I have good general way of handling things. I noticed a a pattern where people would process seemingly similar requests very differently and got curious whether there is an actual difference or are people being needlessly inconsistent.

Can you pass the salt, please?
Step aside
Can I have your wallet, please?

2 of these are supposed to have a "well, he did ask" kind of reaction and the reminaing a "no, why would I?". The difference in suggestibility is great althought they all are supposed to be straight forward requests for X or a "can i have X? yes/no" kind of questions.

Now if I give a... (read 714 more words →)

Friendliness in Natural Intelligences

Slider

11y

The challenge of friendliness in Artificial Intelligence is to ensure how a general intelligence will be of utility instead of being destructive or pathologically indifferent to the values of existing individuals or aims and goals of their creation. The current provision of computer science is likely to yield bugs and way too technical and inflexible guidelines of action. It is known to be inadequate to handle the job sufficiently. However the challenge of friendliness is also faced by natural intelligences, those that are not designed by an intelligence but molded into being by natural selection.

We know that natural intelligences do the job adequately enough that we do not think that natural intelligence... (read 1433 more words →)

-8

LESSWRONG
LW

LESSWRONG
LW

Emotional valence as cognition mutator (not a bug, but a feature)

When does adding food make an organism reliably better?

Why you ask the significance question why

How many researchers does a new paper reach?

Slider

Slider

Why you ask the significance question why

Slider's Shortform

How many researchers does a new paper reach?

When does adding food make an organism reliably better?

Infinity is an adjective like positive rather than an amount

Emotional valence as cognition mutator (not a bug, but a feature)

Friendliness in Natural Intelligences

Slider

Emotional valence as cognition mutator (not a bug, but a feature)

When does adding food make an organism reliably better?

Why you ask the significance question why

How many researchers does a new paper reach?

Slider

Slider

Why you ask the significance question why

Slider's Shortform

How many researchers does a new paper reach?

When does adding food make an organism reliably better?

Infinity is an adjective like positive rather than an amount

Emotional valence as cognition mutator (not a bug, but a feature)

Friendliness in Natural Intelligences