niplav @niplav@schelling.pt

A solution is technical if it is precise enough to be goodharted, and social if it's so cryptonormatively imprecise that it can be used to coalitionally extract value

dimwit: people are too lazy, too little is happening

midwit: but if you do too much, you risk running into addictive processes & self-reinforcing loops; credit-assignment is hard and goodharts law looms everywhere

synwit: yet: we see high-variance societies with lots of innovation doing useful & better stuff all the time, look for actions bounded below but not above, if you're good at optimizing you're probably also good at discovering that your optimization has gone haywire, thousand flowers!

my reply guys have reply guys, and they have reply guys too, and deeper still; together we implement an HCH tree.

@cosmiccitizen i will now stop writing about this because the topic is fraught with misunderstanding and subject to much empty debate

@cosmiccitizen

know how to deal with algorithms/mathematical structure, because I *really* want to be a mathematical/algorithmic platonist, but if you pressed me to actually present my best-view-considered thought I'd just deny that algorithms exist (which makes difference hard to justify)

I don't deny the hard problem, but I think everybody else misunderstands it ("not about unifying consciousness and matter, but qualia and algorithms")

@cosmiccitizen
the ground is actually consciousness, since that's the thing that is in acquaintance knowledge. you never *see* a rock, it's just that-swirl-of-visual-qualia over there (figure). causality still runs the way it does, but it runs on qualia (panpsychism is a straightforward implication of this *unless* solipsism is true, which I think is scarily likely (nice solution for egoism if you have moral uncertainty!))

mathematical structures: that's where they get you. i don't actually 2/3

@cosmiccitizen

1. this is a shitpost (posts that start with a lower-case letter are usually tongue-in-cheek)

2. functionalism goes "actually, algorithms/mathematical structures are the more fundamental thing (ground), consciousness is just a set of specific patterns instantiated in matter (figure). nothing beyond that" (i think there's two versions, one taking mathematical structures as ground, the other doing a weird hybrid of "algorithms instantiated in matter"). but i claim that 1/2

I think restricting the greater male variability hypothesis to mainly just IQ is odd

If it's true it explains *so much* about why humanity is the way it is

such an elegant compression (I believe it to be true, mostly)

you can't just propose a counterfactual and not state whether it's evidential or causal

where you do() the past to produce it

@nathanpmyoung
Limit: Hours in the day, brains in the skull

Quanta magazine is good

Only the avatar…

Are dowries just payments ensuring paternal investment by using the sunk-cost "fallacy"?

@j2kun
This is the approach taken with Nock (the underlying language for the Urbit Operating Function): The first version is 5K, and each change in the language decrements the version number.

The last possible version is absolute zero (0K). We're currently at 4K.

acquaintance just said that she has *lower* standards for men that approach than for the women she approaches

jives well with the zero (0) approaches during my 1½ hour dg session today :-/

heh I was accidentally hosting the libgeneg copy of Age of Em on my site for a year

Also outer product spaces apparently always only have positive semi-definite elements?