Depends. I think doing literally zero math for a year starts to be quite problematic. But if you're using a lot of math during that time, or at least studying something heavily quantitative, I think its not so bad, and you'll be able to pick it up without much issue later.

That is my experience at least. Taking 6 months break to only focus on (pretty theoretical) ML stuff, afterwards, studying algebraic geometry, was not harder, but easier actually.

He should read descartes, hume and kant instead.

That would be seriously awful. You'd constantly be thinking "Is this really it?", and then probably kill yourself.

Går helt fint. Du har 2-3k til overs som du kan bruke på mat osv. Bare ikke bruk opp det ekstre store stipendet du får på starten til tulleting.

google "central limit theorem" you imbecile. fuck off dipshit

Yeah, its a worm.

I don't think so at all. He posts very infrequently, and when he posts, I don't think it is that insightful.

Kjøp en billig thinkpad og installer linux.

Jeg har en iPad men har ikke brukt den noe til skole. Hva tenker du å bruke den til? Å ta notater og å skrive innleveringer i matte er det eneste jeg brukte den til, og jeg stoppet, pen/papir mer brukervennlig imo.

Ok, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be insensitive. I think the blue color is beautiful. I was just curious if there was some religious or cultural significance, I walk past it the synagogue every day, and I think it is very pretty. The houses and synagogue are the same color, like light blue, like the sky, like this

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Magen_David_Synagogue%2C_Byculla%2C_Mumbai.jpg 

Although this is not the one I'm referring to (I'd like to keep my town not known).

Everyone on this subreddit sucks at mental math, at least that's the response whenever people ask this question.

Please don't cite "lesswrong" here.

I also thought he meant that, and I watched it when it occurred during the entire rittenhouse saga. But like, why is this a big deal? I didn't find destiny's quote especially crazy regardless.

If protestors are burning down buildings, and you think you're justified in gunning them down, I don't see why ramming into them with a car wouldn't be justified.

They have somewhat different associations, like being in a running car is typically more safe, than gunning people down, which at least to me has the association of being out in the open in a very hostile situation. But that was not the situation here, so I don't see why it matters much.

No. I manage to bind any keyboard key to any other keyboard key, but no keyboard key to any mouse key.

I'm envisioning it being done collaboratively. It's in everyone interest not to have an existential catastrophe.

I don't take those as given. Its more like

no regulation: 80% chance we all die

with regulation: 50% chance we all die

There is a good chance, if we try to impose regulation, it ends up either toothless or not targeting the correct problem. There is also a chance that even if we implement sensible regulation, it doesn't work because the problem is just too hard. There is also the problem that, even if the problem is solvable, and we implement effective regulation, the people with access use it for bad ends.

All of these concerns are dwarfed by the fact if we don't have strict regulation, we're almost certainly doomed. Like if nuclear weapons could be 3d printed from basic materials using a consumer-grade printer, at the cost of 200 dollars, and no governments or other organizations made attempts to prevent people for getting access to 3d printers or such materials, it would be over for us as a civilization.

Now, there are certain background assumptions here. Like truly transformative AI being possible. I think those assumptions are very reasonable. But if they are not, the argument against anti-regulation holds I think. Because if AI isn't going to be transformative, regulation hampering it doesn't matter all that much.

x-risk comes from sufficiently advanced AI being developed before we solve alignment. There are extremely strong market incentives to develop AI further, so individual actors cannot be expected to self-regulate. Ergo we need regulation.

It obviously reduces it.

No. The most dangerous out come is that we all die.

I don't like regulatory capture, but whining about it when the existential status of humanity is at stake is batshit insane.

You only do this if you dispute the claims of existential risk. Which is fine, but don't frame the discussion as being about regulatory capture.

Why do you think they don't have much influence? I think rationalists have extreme amounts of influence relative to the general populations. I think EAs are winning, billion of dollars. Rationalists are winning. We're making headway on AI, its just that its an incredibly hard problem, and we're probably not going to make enough. But on the AI issue, rationalists are probably the most important faction, if you don't count "general technocapital machine" as a faction of its own.

I don't really understand what you're saying with this comment. Elaborate/rephrase?

I think you're just factually wrong.

Firstly, Yudkowsky runs MIRI, which has 100M$ donations? Yudkowsky has told people there is no reason for them to donate anymore because they have enough money, and don't know what to do with it.

Also, just factually, if you look at surveys from less wrong or slatestarcodex, the readers are generally extremely educated and either upper or upper middle class. Now, maybe people are lying or exaggerating when they respond to those surveys, but if you go to any rationalist meetup, like lesswrong, acx, manifold, ai safety meetups, EA conferences. The people there fit the image the surveys give. Like a lot of academics and software engineers, some quants. Not everyone there, but *far* more than you'd expect to see in the general population. Now, maybe you can make the case there is a selection effect going on, if you go to EAG there is a strong filter for the people. But even if you just hang out in random EA/rationalist discords, and talk to people there, they still fit the profile.

For the AI-doom stuff.. If AI kills us all, it kills non-rationalists as well? I guess non-rationalists can say "I was blissfully unaware of the doom right up before I died!". But that doesn't seem like a state you should aspire for.