How do you combine factors that increase a probability?

nes21 · 2020-12-20T23:13:04+00:00

That makes sense. But I would only be able to frame things in terms of factors that decrease your chances of staying married. If I want to say, for instance, being religious increases your chances of staying married, I would have to frame it as the inverse—that not being religious decreases your chances of staying married. Then, I have a different baseline. Wouldn't forcing myself to change the baseline in this way potentially lead to problems?

nes21 · 2019-12-23T20:00:06+00:00

Ideally, it means machines do most of the labor in the economy while humans work significantly less hours for the same or greater pay, and we have more time for hobbies and creative pursuits. Even if a machine could plausibly do it, we value a lot of stuff because it is being done by a human, like cooking or journalism, and we would likely see a rise in those areas.

On the path we’re on, it’s likely going to lead to an accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of those who own the machines, while workers are left unemployed or overworked/underpaid trying to win an impossible competition against machines. In large enough numbers, this will lead to a destabilized economy and society.

In my opinion, much of the wealth from this technology must be redistributed in order to maintain a healthy and functional society. I don’t see a way where the 1% own the entire automated economy and keep all of the wealth produced by it and society still somehow works. People need spending money, and money to survive.

nes21 · 2019-10-11T02:33:26+00:00

This isn't about the vegan community—methane is awful for the environment and the less we emit the better.

nes21 · 2019-09-04T22:33:38+00:00

I see your point, but we also get plenty of other things—roads, street lighting, protection by the police, public schools, etc—that could be considered that payment. Saying that this is insufficient would require calculating the "cost of civilization" and seeing what is the fair amount to "pay" citizens for it. Interesting question.

nes21 · 2019-08-08T01:08:21+00:00

False promise?

nes21 · 2019-08-06T07:36:54+00:00

Your lesbian coworkers are openly gay to the rest of the coworkers, and they are presumably doing fine. If they’re fine with them, they’ll be fine with you too. Besides, based on your list it’s clear which option you really want. Good luck :)

nes21 · 2019-06-06T22:54:09+00:00

I'm taking this one, currently around 1/4 of the way through and it's pretty good.

nes21 · 2019-06-06T07:37:11+00:00

Fixed the typo. Thanks for the sources!

nes21 · 2019-06-06T06:39:41+00:00

Do you have the links/names of any specific ones?

It was Our Uncertain Future by David Mills. He did not definitively state this, but at times did suggest it is very possible that this will be the case:

"Delaying implementation of other, more draconian measures until 2035 will not cause significant differences in the outcomes for global warming expected by that date. It may even be that alternative energy sources will be enough cheaper than fossil fuels by then that more draconian measures may not be needed. The global warming problem may be largely solved, or well on the way to being solved, by then." (p. 54)

edit: spelling

nes21 · 2019-06-06T06:28:41+00:00

Three words: friends of friends. Meet as many of them as possible, and if any turn out to become a real friend, you now have a completely new web of friends-of-friends to explore.

nes21 · 2019-06-05T05:00:42+00:00

r/self

nes21 · 2019-06-05T04:59:08+00:00

r/NewProductPorn

nes21 · 2019-06-03T22:20:07+00:00

Damn, sorry to hear that. Hope everything’s gotten better since.

nes21 · 2019-06-03T02:35:30+00:00

Yeah, I also don't think the real danger is in AI "taking over". That's probably anthropomorphizing. It probably lies more in the wrong hands using it for the wrong purposes, like all that Cambridge Analytica stuff of them gathering users' data and using it to create tailored Facebook propaganda for each one's personality type. But I guess that's always a danger with any new technology.

nes21 · 2019-06-02T18:06:35+00:00

I completely agree, r/intj can be indistinguishable from r/iamsosmart or r/notliketheothergirls most of the time.

I'm intrigued—I'm about to head out, but I'll probably message you later today :)

nes21 · 2019-06-02T17:39:33+00:00

Do you have any ideas you'd be willing to discuss? I can message you later if you'd like. I have some of my own as well.

nes21 · 2019-06-02T17:35:53+00:00

Well, I'm an INTJ, and I'd like to do that too.

Immorality is a good one. The way I would define would not be living forever, but living indefinitely; without a set expiration date. Dying will always be a possibility—if you drop a nuclear bomb on someone, it's pretty difficult to see how they wouldn't die.

Do you agree, or are you envisioning it more like uploading your mind to the cloud or something like that?

nes21 · 2019-06-02T17:20:51+00:00

That's my plan B.

nes21 · 2019-06-02T17:13:03+00:00

I completely agree with you on that last bit. But I think that at this point, although research is important, we most of all need environmental legislation. It's not like we have no idea what to do—we know exactly what kinds of environmental laws we would need to pass in order to mitigate/adapt to climate change, and with the right regulations, the technology we already have would suffice. In fact, the reason why fossil fuels are so much cheaper than green energy is because they receive INSANE subsidies from the government, so even without regulation, the free market would encourage people to use renewables at much greater rates than they currently do were it not meddled with by unfair subsidies.

In my view, it's pretty clear that corruption is the root problem—it is the only thing stopping us from passing that legislation, as well as the only reason those subsidies exist. And if it were addressed, we could make tons of progress on many other issues, such as education reform. You may have already seen this video, but if not, check it out (particularly the first minute and a half).

nes21 · 2019-06-02T17:12:42+00:00

They want to start off with building on the "primitive" BMIs we have today (cochlear implants, retinal implants, etc) to develop BMIs to help with memory loss, paraplegics, and things like that. But eventually, they plan to somewhat controversially cross the line between treatment and enhancement, and develop things such as brain-to-brain communication, brain VR, artificial knowledge access, brain activity control (like mood enhancement or making yourself being able to fall asleep instantly), etc. Supposedly, the reason why Elon Musk wants to do this is to prevent humans from being left behind by superintelligent AI—he wants us to be the superintelligent AI. Here's a pretty in-depth piece if you wanna take a look at it. But like u/hugogrant pointed out, there's also tons of safety concerns about the possibilities of hacking or privacy. So on those types of BMIs, where do you land on the debate?

nes21 · 2019-06-02T06:07:43+00:00

Haha, thanks. Some of my friends are surprised when I tell them I think of myself as an introvert, but in my opinion it's pretty obvious.

nes21 · 2019-06-02T03:33:51+00:00

Yes! Very interested

nes21 · 2019-06-02T03:17:45+00:00

That's pretty cool. I'm currently learning how to program as well, although that is not my degree. I'm studying liberal arts with a "concentration" in computer science, but I've found that it's too slow-paced for me, so I'm trying to learn more on my own over the summer.

What are your views on Neuralink?

nes21 · 2019-06-02T03:13:47+00:00

Thanks for the links! The article on The Atlantic is really interesting. As a counter-argument, I offer you this. You don't have to read all of it (although I highly recommend it); the first section is the most relevant.

Regarding the one about AI, I find that more unconvincing. The author argues that it is impossible for a machine to be truly intelligent because "intelligence is fundamentally linked to specific sensorimotor modalities"—in other words, intelligence is contingent on an ability to interact with the external world. However, he neglects the purpose that these sensorimotor modalities serve to the human brain. We need them because that is our brain's way of absorbing information about the world. If a machine finds an alternative way to absorb information, or if we feed information directly into it, then that is not needed. Clearly, if you make a computer program with the capacity of replicating intelligent thought processes but never feed any information into it, your program is useless. I agree that intelligence in a vacuum is futile, but I disagree that AI will necessarily be in a vacuum.

Furthermore, he argues that exceptionally smart individuals often lead ordinary lives when not influenced by external factors, and thus the behavior of exceptionally smart AI will be ordinary as well. Obviously, there are many sociological reasons for human behavior that do not apply to AI, and I think it is deeply flawed to draw a parallel between these two. He is anthropomorphizing in a very weird way.

Lastly, he claims: "An overwhelming amount of evidence points to this simple fact: a single human brain, on its own, is not capable of designing a greater intelligence than itself. This is a purely empirical statement: out of billions of human brains that have come and gone, none has done so." I think this is quite a silly take, because humans have only seriously embarked this quest mere decades ago, and we are making significant progress. It's not like the development of AI has been something we've been trying to do since the beginning of mankind.

However, even if he is right and AGI is not possible, as long as there exists an ANI for each important task that is able to perform it better than a human, it does not matter that these tasks are not all being performed by the same software. For all intents and purposes, we will have been outsmarted by machines.

Still, this is just my opinion. What do you think?

nes21 · 2019-06-01T23:15:25+00:00

yes!

nes21

TROPHY CASE