jmoggr

5 ms·

1.
by jmoggr 3mo ago
This makes sense. Interacting with the world is hard and poses real bottlenecks. I think that resource acquisition is a solvable problem for such a system, robots seem mainly limited by software. I concede that I am too certain about the li
2.
by jmoggr 3mo ago
Is a coherent, human-interpretable, goal necessary for recursive improvement? > how can you be so sure that reaching that goal looks like the straight line you envision? Because the thing pursuing the goal would be able to improve it&#x2
3.
by jmoggr 3mo ago
> you've set up a straw man I think you're right, my bad. > What I see is resistance to the idea that we can have any certainty about the future by drawing a straight line from the past. I'm arguing that if recursive se
4.
by jmoggr 3mo ago
So I guess you are one of the people experiencing these gains. Can this model be scaled to the rest of society?
5.
by jmoggr 3mo ago
I generally agree with this. I suspect we just have different beliefs about how close we are to RSI. > Not saying it won't happen, but it's far from being the only plausible trajectory. But if it does happen, then wouldn't
6.
by jmoggr 3mo ago
> but who is the customer base after that? That's the fun part, there is none (in the traditional way of people buying things at least). > Why would I invest my earning into sustaining a machine that ideally is extracting every c
7.
by jmoggr 3mo ago
> and have every reason to believe they aren't What reason? To me recursive self improvement seems credible, it's just a question of when. It seems obvious that given RSI, trend lines will be at least linear. The disagreement c
8.
by jmoggr 3mo ago
I think it's credible to believe that that a system which is able to meaningfully improve it's own intelligence will lead to a far weirder world than the one imagined by the article. The parent comment could be interpreted as frus
9.
by jmoggr 3mo ago
> Is there demand for 10000 iq intellegence Yes. If it looks like 10000 iq is possible, then money will be thrown at whoever is most likely to achieve it first, and whoever has the most intelligent models right now strongly predicts who
10.
by jmoggr 4mo ago
China will experience the same problems described in the article, even if that war happens and even if they win. They are possibly better equipped to deal with the problems, but I don't think that nicely-asking-companies-to-keep-humans
11.
by jmoggr 4mo ago
but, like, what if they weren't lying? Regardless, their actions seem to indicate that they are trying their hardest to make this true; given that they have the resources of a developed nation behind them, it seems reasonable to seriou
12.
by jmoggr 4mo ago
Don't forget that humans require inputs (land, water). It's not obvious that there is a happy equilibrium where the majority of humans are able to meaningfully compete for those inputs.
13.
by jmoggr 10mo ago
All they have to do is not reproduce. This is already happening.
14.
by jmoggr 10mo ago
> Automerge/Yjs require learning CRDTs I've been using Automerge for a while and haven't had to look at any CRDTs. To me this looks very similar to Automerge. Neat project!
15.
by jmoggr 1y ago
I think the comments here have been overly harsh. I have friends in the community and have visited the LessWrong "campus" several times. They seemed very welcoming, sincere, and were kind and patient even when I was basically asse
16.
by jmoggr 1y ago
Neat! Thank you!
17.
by jmoggr 1y ago
> How much would a 10cm sphere of gold be worth in GBP? Is there some trick to this? Or do you have to input it like: You have: 4/3 pi (10 cm)^3 19320 kg/m^3 45000 GBP/kg (What ChatGPT gave me)