AlexMennen

5 ms·

1.
by AlexMennen 3y ago
What do you think "bottom 25%" and "top 25%" mean, exactly?
2.
by AlexMennen 6y ago
This seems overly harsh. Few people took COVID-19 seriously on Feb 4, so this standard makes almost everyone have no credibility, including people who don't admit to the error. All humans are unreliable.
3.
by AlexMennen 10y ago
> This implies second order logic. No, it does not. The second incompleteness theorem is provable in first-order Peano Arithmetic. > Of course I'm in no position to say a similar thing about Goedels incompleteness theorem, and I
4.
by AlexMennen 10y ago
I think the idea is that the machines are supposed to learn what humans want from human behavior, and then help humans get what they want their own way, rather than imitating human behavior.
5.
by AlexMennen 12y ago
This reasoning uses the self-indication assumption, which I tentatively also agree with, but there are some pretty good criticisms of it. http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/olum/sia.pdf
6.
by AlexMennen 12y ago
That's just a special case of a general feature of probabilistic arguments: a small but positive fraction of the times they are used, they will give wildly misleading predictions. If we assume that everyone uses the doomsday argument w
7.
by AlexMennen 13y ago
No. It would probably pick up on the correlation, but AIXI assumes that its only interactions with the universe are through its input and output channels, so it cannot recognize that a particular part of the universe is itself. It does not
8.
by AlexMennen 13y ago
Yes, thank you.
9.
by AlexMennen 13y ago
2 micromorts does not mean 2 separate risks, each of which has a 1 in 1 million chance of killing you. It means a single risk that has a 1 in 500 thousand chance of killing you. Similarly, it would be absurd to define 1 mort as the combinat
10.
by AlexMennen 13y ago
So is 1 mort a guaranteed death or a [edit:] 1 - 1/e chance of death?
11.
Prisoner's Dilemma (with visible source code) Tournament(lesswrong.com)
4 points by AlexMennen 13y ago|0 comments
12.
by AlexMennen 14y ago
Moving is generally much easier for sellers, who are more likely to be large corporations, than for buyers, who are more likely to be individuals.
13.
by AlexMennen 14y ago
Good point, but the chances of a failed launch are fairly small, and the damage from accidentally detonating a large nuke on the Earth's surface, while bad, would be small compared to human extinction. If we are sufficiently uncertain about
14.
by AlexMennen 14y ago
If there is a significant chance that a comet will hit and destroy us, it makes sense to do everything we can to prevent it from doing so. Given the stakes, .1% chance should be more than enough for us to take it seriously. It does not seem
15.
by AlexMennen 14y ago
In your tax example, that reasoning would make sense, since the legislature would be unlikely to pass those on its own. My point was that, even if "prop 35 gets enacted" is better than "nothing like prop 35 gets enacted", that doesn't neces
16.
by AlexMennen 14y ago
> those that cared may have decided "on the balance, in this flawed democratic system where I have to vote on this as a single unit, I think the result is better despite this consequence" They would be wrong. Anyone who has enough resou
17.
by AlexMennen 14y ago
> One last point, as much as people focus on key states deciding the election, the reality is that the states are on a spectrum based on the popular vote. If a Republican wins the popular vote by 8% or more they'll probably carry Califo
18.
by AlexMennen 14y ago
States have an incentive to use a winner take all policy to maximize their influence in the outcome.