indrax

38 ms·

331.
by indrax 16y ago
>Simply asserting that "strong motors are expensive" doesn't answer the question. If expense were the determining reason in the past, then no one would make/buy them today either. This assumes that stronger motors aren't cheaper today t
332.
by indrax 16y ago
See Also: http://xkcd.com/386/
333.
by indrax 16y ago
Parts for a reprap.
334.
by indrax 16y ago
Especially since part of negligence is the standard of care. As long as everybody's not-doing it, it's not a liability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice#Elements_of... I am not a lawyer, but I was briefly an EMT.
335.
by indrax 16y ago
About Salvo Magazine: Blasting holes in scientific naturalism, marveling at the intricate design of the universe, and promoting life in a culture of death; Critiquing art, music, film, television, and literature, interrupting mass media inf
336.
by indrax 16y ago
No amount of deception by the teacher makes any of their science-y explanations correct. It's not that they had an alternative model of how it could have happened, and tried to offer a explanation with a technical term. It's that they were
337.
by indrax 16y ago
No amount of expecting a science-y explanation from the teacher makes any of their science-y explanations correct. It's not that they had an alternative model of how it could have happened, and tried to offer a explanation with a technical
338.
by indrax 16y ago
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Friendly_AI
339.
by indrax 16y ago
One possible answer is that yes, that would be a good way to design a brain, but no we can't because evolution isn't smart. So we have brains that overwhelmingly lock on to whatever behaviors we remember being rewarded in the past, and only
340.
by indrax 16y ago
s/ask for/offer/;
341.
by indrax 16y ago
I think we actually do have a deep implicit understanding of the exponential function, and THAT may be our greatest shortcoming. We don't understand it precisely, and we don't intuitively relate to "4^x". But we very intuitively get things
342.
by indrax 16y ago
This is good fodder for an alternate history fiction.
343.
by indrax 16y ago
Facebook might get me, but I find it annoying. They would need to guess my bank first, and guessing wrong would set off alarm bells. (Moreso now than before I heard of this) Slightly related: I think new tabs should inherit history, so that
344.
by indrax 16y ago
Hmm, I think I've already developed habits that offer me SOME immunity to this. I keep my main gmail in the leftmost tab, Almost always logged in. When I have tabs for gmail or Google docs that show me being logged-out, I hit reload. Rarely
345.
by indrax 16y ago
This is going to spike their time-on-front-page statistics.
346.
by indrax 16y ago
It seems incredibly irresponsible to think something is vitally important and not be working on it. Causation should have much to do with it. It may be reasonable to think some other task is more important than this one, or for there is no
347.
by indrax 16y ago
I did not say that the Singularity was certain or inevitable. I do kind of take it for granted but if you're saying it's not going to happen, that's a whole different argument. I'm not saying "If humans continue to exist, we will certainly
348.
by indrax 16y ago
Even just decent sublight space colonization would probably be enough to make human survival fairly reliable for the foreseeable future, but I don't think ANY space colonization is likely in the foreseeable future. On that count, I think we
349.
by indrax 16y ago
Note that Shaping the Singularity was taken as the same task as averting human extinction. The talk of AI is secondary, it comes up because many of us think that AI can offer good solutions. In looking at AI, it also seems apparent that AI
350.
by indrax 16y ago
If there is a significant die-off in industrial nations it could lead to a major delay in the singularity, perhaps making it impossible altogether. http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html In these terms this could be a 'crunch'.
351.
by indrax 16y ago
>"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work..." What the hell? This sounds like Bush. What happened to the guy who was in love with his blackberry?
352.
by indrax 16y ago
>What enables anesthetics such as xenon or isoflurane gas to switch off the conscious mind? Hameroff speculates that anesthetics “interrupt a delicate quantum process” within the neurons of the brain. Pet peeve: We don't know that anyth
353.
by indrax 16y ago
well to be fair, the genie solved the problems, the smart people are just copying.
354.
by indrax 17y ago
Well, let's revisit the state of the art in towel folding in 5 years.
355.
by indrax 17y ago
More like 2 or 3 years. The singularity is at hand.
356.
by indrax 17y ago
Not knowing who someone is is not an excuse to shoot them. It is NOT true that 'anyone helping him' is also an enemy. That is just a recipe for war crimes.
357.
by indrax 17y ago
Hmm, can you tell me where in the video that it's pretty clear anyone from the van was picking up weapons? I can understand some fog-of-war "I thought the camera was a gun." excuses, but just because they say on the radio that they were "po
358.
by indrax 17y ago
I agree that what you describe should not be considered a serious charge. I think it would be better labeled as prejudice, but that's just semantics. I think that treating people differently because you think their category has a different
359.
by indrax 17y ago
What will we do with all that time? http://lesswrong.com/lw/wx/complex_novelty/ TL;DR: The smarter you get, the more interesting things you can work on. We're already smart enough to do interesting things for a long long time.
360.
by indrax 17y ago
>His theory basically boils down to “morality is acting in a way that creates the least human suffering" You've got it flat-out wrong. Suffering is one value where he's pretty sure he's got the right factual answer, and some good answer

More ›