Comment author: casebash 15 February 2018 10:56:06PM *  0 points [-]

One of the biggest challenges is trying to even figure out how likely it is caused by something physical vs. a psychological root cause. It is a very controversial topic, to say the least. I spent about an hour looking into this, but I wasn't really able to get anywhere, at least without any knowledge of the field or where to find reliable information.

Comment author: Lila 16 February 2018 03:41:31AM 1 point [-]

It's not either/or. It's likely not to be a single disease - would probably be more accurate to call it a syndrome.

Comment author: Milan_Griffes 17 January 2018 03:33:54PM *  0 points [-]

I, for one, am pretty sceptical, because I can't imagine loads more people would, counterfactually, start taking drugs recreationally and that, for those that do, this will have much impact on their cognitive powers.

There have been many historical examples of norms around drug use in the US changing quickly (e.g. 19th century teetotalism, 1960s psychedelia). What makes you skeptical about another change in norms?

If by "cognitive powers" you mean adding IQ points, I agree that psychedelic experiences won't help much with that. Psychedelics can cause pretty powerful shifts in a person's motivations & worldview (this is strongly supported by anecdote; see also Griffiths et al. 2008). I think poor motivations and problematic worldviews are more often blockers than someone's IQ.

Comment author: Lila 18 January 2018 04:33:00AM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure how the beliefs in Table 3 would lead to positive social change. Mostly just seems like an increase in some vague theism, along with acceptance/complacency/indifference/nihilism. The former is epistemically shaky, and the latter doesn't seem like an engine for social change.

Comment author: Milan_Griffes 17 January 2018 03:45:53PM *  3 points [-]

A more proactive stance seems appropriate here. Missler didn't say "please don't contact me," and has been open about his win on social media, so inquiries to see if he's aware of EA seem worth it. (It takes about 3 minutes to find & message them on facebook; payoff is a small chance of creating another value-aligned multimillionaire funder.)

Comment author: Lila 17 January 2018 05:51:44PM 1 point [-]

You might as well randomly go through the list of multimillionaires/billionaires and cold-call them. Maybe not the worst idea, but there's nothing in particular to suggest this guy would be special.

Comment author: Daniel_Eth 17 January 2018 09:26:25AM 0 points [-]

Broadly speaking, nanoparticles (or nanorobots, depending on how complicated they are) that scan the brain from the inside, in vivo. The sort of capabilities I'm imagining is the ability to monitor every neuron in large neural circuits simultaneously, each for many different chemical signals (such as certain neurotransmitters). Of course, since this technology doesn't exist yet, the specifics are necessarily uncertain - these probes might include CMOS circuitry, they might be based on DNA origami, or they might be unlike any technology that currently exists. Such probes would allow for building much more accurate maps of brain activity.

Comment author: Lila 17 January 2018 12:47:53PM 0 points [-]

Technology to do something like this is already being developed, but it's not nanotechnology:

Nanotechnology is rarely the most practical way to probe very small things. People have been able to infer molecular structures since the 19th century. Modern molecular biology/biochemistry makes use of electron microscope, fluorescent microscopy, and sequencing-based assays, among other techniques.

Comment author: Lila 15 January 2018 05:46:00PM 0 points [-]

What do you mean by nanoscale neural probes? What are the questions that these probes would answer?

Comment author: Lila 15 January 2018 05:29:14PM 2 points [-]

Modeling the risk of psychedelics as nonexistent seems like a very selective reading of Carbonaro 2016:

"Eleven percent put self or others at risk of physical harm; factors increasing the likelihood of risk included estimated dose, duration and difficulty of the experience, and absence of physical comfort and social support. Of the respondents, 2.6% behaved in a physically aggressive or violent manner and 2.7% received medical help. Of those whose experience occurred >1 year before, 7.6% sought treatment for enduring psychological symptoms. Three cases appeared associated with onset of enduring psychotic symptoms and three cases with attempted suicide."

Comment author: enkin 10 January 2018 12:27:02AM 0 points [-]

I would far prefer dying immediately to being raped again.

Comment author: Lila 10 January 2018 03:24:42AM 0 points [-]


Comment author: turchin 28 November 2017 09:30:07AM 0 points [-]

Yes, I expect that future AI will read the text.

Not sure what you mean about "tips your hand", as English is not my first language.

Comment author: Lila 29 November 2017 12:08:56AM 0 points [-]

You reveal that you are highly motivated to argue that exterminating humanity is not in the interest of an AI, regardless of whether that statement is true. So your arguments will present weak evidence at best, given your clear bias.

Comment author: Lila 27 November 2017 05:36:50PM 0 points [-]

Is the ai supposed to read this explanation? Seems like it tips your hand?

Comment author: Zeke_Sherman 21 November 2017 10:13:25PM *  0 points [-]

I think it's pretty odd of you to try to tell me about what upsets EAs or how we feel, given that you have already left the movement. To speak as if you have some kind of personal stake or connection to this matter is rather dishonest.

I hope you're just using this as a demonstration and not seriously suggesting that we start racially profiling people in EA.

Racial profiling is something that is conducted by law enforcement and criminal investigation, and EA does neither of those things. I would be much more bothered if EA started trying to hunt for criminals within its ranks than I would be from the mere fact that the manner in which we did this involved racial profiling.

It should be clear why people find the following statements upsetting:

Neither of those statements are upsetting to me.

Comment author: Lila 21 November 2017 11:44:41PM 0 points [-]

Neither of those statements are upsetting to me.

It's often useful to be able to imagine what will be upsetting to other people and why, even if it's not upsetting to you. Maybe you'll decide that it's worth hurting people, but at least make your decisions with an accurate model of the world. (By the way, "because they're oversensitive" doesn't count as an explanation.)

So let's try to think about why someone might be upset if you told them that they're more likely to be a rapist because of their race. I can think of a few reasons: They feel afraid for their personal safety. They feel it's unfair to be judged for something they have no control over. They feel self-conscious and humiliated.

Emotional turing tests might be a good habit in general.

View more: Next