/ratanon/ - Rationalists Anonymous

Your writing is all right, but you should lurk before posting. Don't be that newfag.

what the fuck are you talking about, you stupid retard?

>>12975

rude and stresspilled

>>12978

better than dude and dresspilled

>>13002

I see you're checking out /ratanon/ again, Scott. There is no need to make transphobic remarks just to fit in here.

>>12903

Are you the same guy that posted the rapekink subreddit here ? Asking for me.

>>12909

No. What would it mean if I were? I did post the ftmspunished link.

Eat meat. Don't torture plants.

https://wargsblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/12/the-ethics-of-meat/

>>12935

Rampant naturalistic fallacy and barely-rationalized status quo bias. Weaksauce.

>>12935

Eating meat made from plants tortures more plants than eating plants directly.

>>6794

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Egan's_law

>Morally, all future instances of all people are in the same reference class. (Unless you want to endorse extreme anti-universalism. Not that I’d mind, but it’s not very popular these days.) See how evil your own actions are, shamelessly favoring a very narrow class of people? I honestly don’t know if should be more troubled by the insanity of this view, or the implied sociopathy of virtually all actions once you take it seriously.

Rawls is bad for you. I understand this sounds crude next to the analysis in Muflax's post, but it should be pointed out. Rawls is also bad philosophy, but that is a separate point. It should also be pointed out that their anxiety problems predated and were not caused by rationality, although it appears that participating in the community exacerbated them.

>>6794

>>6796

How many rationalists subscribe to MW interpretation?

How tightly do they generally hold onto this model?

It seems dogmatic and impulsive for people to so readily jump at it and say "This! This is 100% True"

If many worlds is true, doesn't that mean that future people are exponentially more important morally than present people because the number of worlds increases exponentially?

>>12876

I think that, despite the name, "many worlds interpretation" doesn't literally mean that there is a discrete set of worlds—the claim is more that what exists is a probability distribution over possible worlds. But the distribution will generally not be discrete, so you can't assign a finite number count.

You could say that there is a measure over worlds, but then measure is conserved by time evolution, so future people don't get more weight.

>>12889

I think Land is just wrong when he says that "Even the orthogonalists admit that there are values immanent to advanced intelligence, most importantly, those described by Steve Omohundro as ‘basic AI drives’ — now terminologically fixed as ‘Omohundro drives’".

I haven't asked, but I would think Yudkowsky would say you could definitely build an AI which tries to first take over the world and then commit suicide, i.e. one that violates the Omohundro drive for self-preservation. Such an AI would not be produced by natural evolution, but that's exactly why we need to design it ourselves instead.

Certainly, Scott Alexander's whole thing about "defeating Moloch" is to design something that just evolution, and more generally competition between many different agents, could *not* produce, because the result of evolutionary drives will be terrible.

>>12891

Can't make one that gets dumber though. Imo this line of argument is a red herring like those about non-orthogonal AI being outcompeted. The real questions are:

Is cognition itself darwinian somehow? Could true AGI be static / frozen and still earn that G? Without a literal galaxy-brain (that would view it as a dumb insect) to design it? Are "goals" actually real and formalizable?

Also finitude of the universe and convergence. Even if something like Clippy is possible, would it be practically distinguishable from an intelligence maximizer in the long term? It mostly has to balance entropy research against management of its decomposition…

>because the result of evolutionary drives will be terrible.

What is better than power acquisition for its own sake enjoyed inasmuch as done effectively? It feedbacks, unlike wastage to humor monkey token-goals.

Obviously wrong, and even the people who claim to be orthgonalists aren't really. Simply admitting Omohundro drives exist is enough to extinguish the hard orthogonalist thesis. The rest of the misunderstanding comes from moronically extrapolating the Dream Time to the future, thinking that Omohundro drives take some small part of an agent's resources, while they're free to spend the rest wherever they want. Hanson's Age of Em is a good antidote to such nonsense. Omohundro drives are all there is in a competitive environment, and any agent that makes it will have goals that are just hypertrophied versions of those drives.

>>12895

Sure, Omohundro drives are all that survive in a competitive environment, no one denies that. The question is what an AI would spend surplus on, if it ever got surplus. (And the theorized route by which it will get surplus is taking over the world by being superintelligent.)

The only way to reject orthogonality with confidence is to assert some cosmic moral law that hides in the equations. As far as we know, this universe runs on physics. Indeed we could expect intelligences to converge on universal effective principles for cooperation, but even so there's too much solution space left and too little reason for following any sort of law, especially when interacting with a known and lesser agent.

>>12890

I guess it's a matter of what comics you grew up with as a child? I wonder if newer generations are able to draw more authentic manga, since it got more popular now…

>>12897

Hypothesis A would have all sorts of funny implications.

>Our artist is 1/8 Japanese and has inherited all the right genes. Seriously, we made him take the 23andMe "Can you draw manga?" test.

>If you immigrate to Japan you're killing anime.

>Let's build a reservation for Japanese people to have fresh doujinshi in the transhuman future… But what about genetic drift?

There could also be a connection to the writing system and art education in early childhood and at schools.

>>12897

I think A is obviously wrong enough that we can just debate the specifics of B, although I'd like to put forward a possible C: Selection effects and incentives.

Basically, the Western artists that would be making decent-quality anime or manga if they were in Japan, aren't making anime or manga in the West. We just have the shit ones. The rest are doing cartoons or furry art or something.

samefag here, it's most likely one of his daughters:

https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/9go8cp/linus_torvalds_daughter_has_signed_the/

unironically the best thing someone could do is bring this to Peterson's attention through twitter or reddit, imagine the normie shirtstorm, why did no one think of this until now ?

>>12869

Does any anon here have a burner Twitter account? Or is Twitter a bad way to contact Peterson?

>>12880

I don't but just imagine his face the first time he sees the post-meritocracy manifesto.

>>12863

That's so spot-on that I'm not even upset, I just feel the warm glow of being Understood.

>>12863

forer effect, checkmate

"why I quit 4chan" is like its own genre

The internet cannot fill the void, seek constructive hobbies.

>>12834

so I'll bite: when was 4chan good?

>>12850

Back when it matched the taste you had at the time.

>>12850

Back when I was a newfag.

>>11198

>Do you think your own life was bad? Do you think your own life is not worth living?

I just don't think that people who need medication to survive before age 30 should breed. I shouldn't be here. 30% of bipolar people kill themselves before age 30. I'm not against adopting kids. I attempted suicide when I was 15. Why would I want to bring a disabled kid into a job market of 9 billion people by mid century? I really wanted to have kids, but if I can only have 1, and if it's going to be disabled, fuck it.

As for the learning disability, it's just autism spectrum.

>>11198

>The divorce rate of normies is already over 50% for starters. Then consider that statistics about divorce rates can vary a huge amount if you are talking about males or females. Etc.

>>11198

>The divorce rate of normies is already over 50% for starters. Then consider that statistics about divorce rates can vary a huge amount if you are talking about males or females. Etc.

Yeah, but I'm not a university graduate. The best I could do at this point would be maybe an English or biology degree, graduating at around 30. It would suck. Since I'm not a uni grad, the woman I would probably marry would be a non-uni grad, so the divorce rate would be elevated.

Also, remember that my non-verbal IQ is only 114.

>>11204

>30% of bipolar people kill themselves before age 30.

This statistic doesn't seem weird to you?

If you really believe that Bipolar disorder is genetic, and that they are so unsuccessful at life and relationships… Well then why the hell haven't they already gone extinct? Why does it need your help to remove it from the gene pool? It seems to be doing such a good job at that already. Your beliefs are not consistent.

> if it's going to be disabled, fuck it.

Again, mental illnesses are nowhere near as heritable as you seem to think. Your kid would have a slightly increased risk.

>I just don't think that people who need medication to survive before age 30 should breed.

This is a weird belief to me. I wear glasses. I can only see a short distance without them. In the ancestral environment I would be at a severe disadvantage. Yet this condition is easily fixed with modern technology so who cares?

Additionally it's worth noting that all of these things may be "diseases of civilization". There's no way, that in our natural environment, such a high percentage of humans need glasses or have depression or bipolar disorder. There's some theories that these things might be caused by our unnatural way of life. E.g. lack of exposure to sunlight seems to correlate with both depression and nearsightedness. Our diets are way different and we are way more sedentary.

>My non-verbal IQ is *only* one standard deviation above average.

You are well above average even in your worst category. You are fine. Verbal IQ is what matters anyway.

>Since I'm not a uni grad, the woman I would probably marry would be a non-uni grad, so the divorce rate would be elevated.

For the love of god, stop living your life around questionable statistics.

>>11205

>This statistic doesn't seem weird to you?

Sorry, what I meant to say is 30% of UNMEDICATED bipolar people kill themselves.

>If you really believe that Bipolar disorder is genetic, and that they are so unsuccessful at life and relationships… Well then why the hell haven't they already gone extinct?

My family is full of rich people. People with some but not all of the genes are successful.

>Why does it need your help to remove it from the gene pool?

It' self removing.

>>11204

>Since I'm not a uni grad, the woman I would probably marry would be a non-uni grad, so the divorce rate would be elevated.

Correlation and causation, dude.

>>12655

so what actually happened

>>12657

I'd imagine there was some legal/technical reason that they weren't allowed on the flight, and Aaronson was too blinded by rage and/or autism to comprehend.

>On SneerClub, someone opined that not only was I an oblivious idiot at the smoothie counter, I must also be oblivious to how bad the incident makes me look—since otherwise, I would never have blogged about it. I ask my detractors: can you imagine, for one second, being so drunk on the love of truth that you’d take the experiences that made you look the most pathetic and awkward, and share them with the world in every embarrassing detail—because “that which can be destroyed by the truth should be”? This drunkenness on truth is scary, it’s destabilizing, it means that every day you run a new risk of looking foolish. But as far as I can introspect, it’s also barely distinguishable from the impulse that leads to doing good science: asking the questions everyone else knows better than to ask, clarifying the obvious, confessing one’s own doofus mistakes. So as a scientist, I’m grateful to have this massive advantage, for all its downsides.

Preach

>>12816

This - and I am making the comparison not because I am trying to insult Aaronson, but because I cannot shake off the impression - is an intelligent man's version of https://sonichu.com/cwcki/Honest_Content.

>>12817

It's different, but they are both from an autistic kind of mind. Scott can't navigate complicated social situations. So he wants to make everything clear and precise, that way he knows what to do. CWC is too retarded to control himself.

>>12480

Yeah—status is nothing but a means to an end.

>>12489

>status is nothing but a means to an end

Tell that to an adaptation-executer.

>>12478

Masturbation is considered acceptable by most people, though; the general consensus in a modern, "sexually liberated" society, is that everyone does it except massive prudes and assorted weirdos. There's a bunch of other stigmas, but "masturbation is unacceptable" is a sentiment alien to the modern bugman or soyboy.

If you say "I feel more satisfied with pornography and masturbation than I would in a relationship", that marks you as pathetic and disgusting for various reasons, but one of the main ones is that there's a huge societal consensus that sex feels better and is more satisfying than masturbation, so in addition to anything else that's contemptible about your choice of lifestyle, you're also delusional. Disintegrate that pillar, and the others look shaky, and you can bring the whole edifice down with a good push.

>>12479

The problem with tying those together is that a sexbot is an appliance no more capable of being "exploited" than a washing machine. Some feminists are delusional enough to actually try, but when the nutty extreme does it it just makes it harder for mainstream normies to buy into the idea.

>>>/robowaifu/ exists

https://twitter.com/stevenkaas

IQ isn't the right metric. It's important, but you shouldn't fetishize it, because it mostly acts indirectly. You can get away with tabooing IQ and intelligence a lot of the time.

The quality of your inside view depends on your knowledge about the relevant topics, your skill at evaluating evidence, your intuition for it, and a number of related skills and intuitions. All of those are largely acquired, and not all of them are fully general. Intelligence correlates with how easy it is to acquire them, but not perfectly.

Looking for a threshold is silly, because a good Bayesian knows 0 and 1 aren't probabilities. Looking for a general factor is silly, because your inside view on microbiology is worthless if you don't know anything about microbiology, no matter how intelligent you are. Invoking IQ is silly, because it's only a proxy for more informative directly applicable skills.

IQ is just another factor you may or may not want to take into account when taking the outside view. For example, "students with IQs over 130" and "students" are reference classes that give you different answers for "how likely am I to graduate?"