This is a diaspora survey, for the pan-rationalist community.
I have taken the survey. I did not treat the metaphysical probabilities as though I had a measure over them, because I don't.
I guess the rejection is more based on the fact that his message seems like it violates deep-seated values on your end about how reality should work than his work being bullshit.
Lumifer rejects him because he thinks Simon Anhold is simply a person who isn't serious but a hippy.
How about you let Lumifer speak for Lumifer's rejection, rather than tilting at straw windmills?
The equivocation of 'created' in those four points are enough to ignore it entirely.
I'm curious why this was downvoted. The last statement, which has political context?
Are there any egoist arguments for (EA) aid in Africa? Does investment in Africa's stability and economic performance offer any instrumental benefit to a US citizen that does not care about the welfare of Africans terminally?
We don't need to describe the scenarios precisely physically. All we need to do is describe it in terms of the agent's epistemology, with the same sort of causal surgery as described in Eliezer's TDT. Full epistemological control means you can test your AI's decision system.
This is a more specific form of the simulational AI box. The rejection of simulational boxing I've seen relies on the AI being free to act and sense with no observation possible, treating it like a black box, and somehow gaining knowledge of the parent world through inconsistencies and probabilities and escaping using bugs in its containment program. White-box simulational boxing can completely compromise the AI's apparent reality and actual abilities.
Stagnation is actually a stable condition. It's "yay stability" vs. "boo instability," and "yay growth" vs. "boo stagnation."
(Ve could also be copied, but it would require coping of all world).
Why would that be the case? And if it were the case, why would that be a problem?
Edit: Soylent's Reply, provided by Trevor_Blake
... (read 207 more words →)OAKLAND, Calif., Aug. 13, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- As You Sow, a non-profit environmental-health watchdog, today filed a notice of intent to bring legal action against Soylent, a "meal replacement" powder recently featured in New York Times and Forbes stories reporting that workers in Silicon Valley are drinking their meals, eliminating the need to eat food. The 60-day notice alleges violation of California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act for failure to provide sufficient warning to consumers of lead and cadmium levels in the Soylent 1.5 product.
Test results commissioned by As You Sow, conducted by an independent laboratory, show that one serving of Soylent 1.5 can
Most of those who haven't ever been on Less Wrong will provide data for that distinction. It isn't noise.