If you had asked me at any point in my adult life (until recently) whether I wanted to have children eventually, I would've said yes, without hesitation. In recent years I've been telling myself: I don't know how likely these AI doom predictions are, but I'm going to focus on...
I've been wondering about this question for a while, but some new research released today reminded me of it: > The seasonal timing of the catastrophic end-Cretaceous bolide impact places the event at a particularly sensitive stage for biological life cycles in the Northern Hemisphere. In many taxa, annual reproduction...
If you had asked me at any point in my adult life (until recently) whether I wanted to have children eventually, I would've said yes, without hesitation. In recent years I've been telling myself: I don't know how likely these AI doom predictions are, but I'm going to focus on optimizing the "long path" because that's where my decisions actually matter - and so I should still have children just in case.
But now, both as I'm nearing the family-forming stage in my life, and as the AI timeline seems to be coming into sharper focus, I'm finding it emotionally distressing to contemplate having children.
If AI kills us all, will my children suffer?... (read more)
Curb Your Enthusiasm - I didn't know you could be anonymous and tell people! I would've taken that option!
This is a good chance for me to interrogate my priors because I share (although not very strongly) the same intuitions that you criticize in this post. There's tension between the following and my desire not to live in a bland tall-poppy-syndrome dystopia where nobody ever wants to accomplish great things; I don't really know how I'd resolve it.
Intuition 1: Social praise is a superstimulus which titillates the senses and disturbs mental tranquility. When I tell a joke that lands well, or get a lot of upvotes on a post, or someone tells me... (read more)
Proof-of-work is a radical and relatively recent idea which does not yet have a direct correspondent in philosophy. Here, cryptographic proofs witness the expenditure of resources like physical energy to commit to particular beliefs. In this way, the true scale of the system which agrees on certain beliefs can be judged, with the largest system being the winner.
I think this relates to the notion that constructing convincing falsehoods is more difficult and costly than discovering truths, because (a) the more elaborate a falsehood is, the more likely it is to contradict itself or observed reality, and (b) false information has no instrumental benefit to the person producing it. Therefore, the amount of... (read more)
I've been wondering about this question for a while, but some new research released today reminded me of it:
The seasonal timing of the catastrophic end-Cretaceous bolide impact places the event at a particularly sensitive stage for biological life cycles in the Northern Hemisphere. In many taxa, annual reproduction and growth take place during spring. Species with longer incubation times, such as non-avian reptiles, including pterosaurs and most dinosaurs, were arguably more vulnerable to sudden environmental perturbations than other groups43 (for example, birds).
... (read 356 more words →)Similarly, large-scale wildfires raging across the Southern Hemisphere9,34,41 may have been evaded by hibernating mammals that were already sheltered in burrows34,41 in anticipation of austral winter. Additional modes of seasonal dormancy,
- Reward yourself after each session.
What kinds of rewards do you use for this?
Consider the following charts:
Chart 1 shows the encephalization quotient (EQ) of various lineages over time, while Chart 2 shows the maximum EQ of all known fossils from any given time. (Source 1, Source 2. Admittedly this research is pretty old, so if anyone knows of more recent data, that'd be good to know.)
Both of these charts show a surprising fact: that the intelligence of life on Earth stagnated (or even decreased) throughout the entire Mesozoic Era, and did not start increasing until immediately after the K/T event. From this it appears that life had gotten stuck in a local equilibrium that did not favor intelligence; i.e. the existence of dinosaurs (or other... (read more)
Such a category is called paraphyletic. It can be informationally useful if the excluded subgroup is far-divergent from the overarching group, such that it has gained characteristics not shared by the others, and lost characteristics otherwise shared. But the less divergence has taken place, the harder it is to justify a paraphyletic category. The category "reptile" (excluding birds) makes sense today, but it wouldn't have made sense in the Jurassic period. The mammal/cetacean distinction is somewhere in the middle.
Animal/human is different because the evolutionary divergence is so recent that it's difficult to justify the paraphyletic usage on biological grounds. Rather this is more of an ingroup/outgroup distinction, along the lines of βαρβαρος ("anybody who isn't Greek"). If humans learned to communicate with e.g. crows, the shared language probably wouldn't have a compact word for "non-human animal," although it might have one for "non-human non-crow animal."
I’m also not sure how far non-core and core identity rationalism are mutually exclusive. (Just like a lot of people are vaguely christian without belonging to a church, so maybe a lot of people would be vaguely interested in rationalism without wanting to join their local temple)
Agreed; finding a way for multiple levels of involvement to coexist would be helpful. Anecdotally, when I first tried attending LW meetups in around 2010, I was turned off and did not try again for many years, because the conversation was so advanced I couldn't follow it. But when I did try again, I enjoyed it a lot more because I found that the community had... (read 573 more words →)
A few thoughts on this.
First, I probably have a higher appetite for religion-ifying rationalism than others in the community, but I wouldn't want to push my preferences too hard lest it scare people off. This may stem from my personal background as a cradle atheist. Religious people don't want rationality to become rivalrous with their religion, and ex-religionists don't want it to become they very thing they escaped. To the extent that it's good for rationality to become more religion-like, I think it'll happen on its own in the next few decades or centuries without any concerted effort. I'm not in a hurry.
Second, we should avoid treating "religion" as a fixed concept... (read 924 more words →)
1-3 months doesn't seem so bad as a timeline. While it's important not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good (since projects like this can easily turn into a boondoggle where everyone quibbles endlessly about what the end-product should look like), I think it's also worth a little bit of up-front effort to create something that we can improve upon later, rather than getting stuck with a mediocre solution permanently. (I imagine it's difficult to migrate a social network to a new platform once it's already gotten off the ground, the more so the more people have joined.)
I would also like to register my opposition to using Facebook. While it might seem convenient in the short term, it makes the community more fragile by adding a centralized failure point that's unaccountable to any of its members. Communicating on LessWrong.com has the virtue of it being owned by the same community that it serves.
I previously posted Was the K-T event a Great Filter? as a pushback against the notion that different lineages of life on Earth evolving intelligence is really "independent evidence" in any meaningful sense. Intelligence can evolve only if there's selective pressure favoring it, and a large part of that pressure likely comes from the presence of other intelligent creatures competing for resources. Therefore mammals and birds together really should only count as one data point.
(It's more plausible that octopus intelligence is independent, since the marine biome is largely separate from the terrestrial, although of course not totally.)