rojobuffalo

The question I wanted to raise is: are state-of-the-art artificial intelligences gaining the ability to create control loops, i.e. systems with goals and sensors.

The problem is that performance and reliability are issues that creep up and by the time they're a problem, they are much more expensive to fix than if they had been first class priorities from the outset. Everyone who didn't care before finds new reasons to put it off because now it's so expensive to address.

What's the difference between caring and affecting behavior? If people cancel their subscriptions after a major outage, wouldn't it be reasonable to interpret that some of them cared about performance and reliability?

I know I care. If I pay for something and it sucks, I stop paying for it because it's not up to my expectations.

Do you mean dog astronaut as an example of a lie? Because there have been dog astronauts.

That's my impression as well.

It's an interesting question. If you want to read more, the two researchers quoted in the book that I was summarizing are Justin Marshal and Mike Land. Each has a handful of papers that are cited in the bibliography.

Ya, that's a lovely comic, but it appears to be a misconception. That comic is actually specifically called out in the book on page 107.

It's more like a 12 color lookup table.

> Every kind of red stimulates the bottom receptor of row 3. All shades of violet stimulate the top receptor on row 1

That's based on an experiment where they were trained to attack colored lights for a reward.

The comic also says they have 16 color receptors, but the other 4 (2 in the midband and 2 in the hemispheres), as far as anyone knows, aren't involved in color vision.

If you frame it as ignorance, the next step is to enlighten the other side with the factual arguments you want to make. "The threat landscape isn't as bad as you claim it is." "Mass surveillance has downsides that are worse than you would think." If you assert deceptive intent, it kind of slides into character attacks.

It's true that people sometimes don't argue in good faith, and it's fair to question hidden motives. But I think if you have better facts, you should keep arguing the facts.

I think hide implies intent to deceive. It's often more like conscious and sub-conscious reasoning. We constantly tell a story to ourselves about our motives. We're impulsive and wrong a lot of the time. And nobody is the bad guy in their own story.

Maybe it's willful ignorance. Ignorance of the misuse and harm of mass surveillance.

How about mouthwash first thing in the morning to nuke the bacteria without coating your mouth in fluoride?

Oh man I love that description! It makes me think how exercise is like a contest against physical limits, which are knowable. Hard work leads to heavier lifts or longer runs. But when you kick your own ass in meditation, the limits are more ambiguous and progress isn't so linear.

It's remarkable that I so often lapse in my meditation practice when it's such a short time commitment and so consistently improves my mood. I tell myself that morning yoga is enough or a walking meditation while taking the dog out is enough - I do those every day without fail. But they're not the same as seated breath work.

Why do other mood improvement habits seem more approachable, like making a cup of tea or exercise or a shower, while sitting and breathing seems harder?