Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Be Happy

lesswrong.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 222 posts

Re: How to Be Happy

#211

Post by davidgerard »

namnatulco wrote: post #166
joesmo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Primarily he focuses not on developing a Strong AI (AGI), but rather focusing on safety issues that such a technology would pose. That's absurd at worst, science fiction at best, akin to worrying about manned flight safety in the 1500's.

Are you really trying to deny that google cars and other automated systems at least partially based on AI have safety issues? Even if we're talking autonomous, "life-like" AI, there is a long list of interesting philosophical and legal questions to be asked. I can't say I find any of the statements here or in the article very appealing, but you shouldn't dismiss real safety/security issues just because you don't like…

Are you really trying to assert that MIRI is addressing systems on the level of Google cars, in any serious technical manner? If so, can you point to examples?

Re: How to Be Happy

#212

Post by davidgerard »

lucisferre wrote: post #53
Jweb_Guru wrote: post #10

Just for those of you who aren't aware, LessWrong is a site devoted to the cult of the "singularity." The site founder, Eliezer Yudkowsky, is a secular humanist who is probably most well-known for his Harry Potter fanfiction, "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality." His core beliefs include that the obvious goal of the human race is immortality, that it is justifiable to kill a man if it would remove a spec of…

It's funny but this article is actually the strongest evidence of cult behaviour. Teaching you how to be "happy" is pretty much the initial selling point of almost every cult out there. Just walk by any Scientology building. Also from the wiki you linked [1] > Some people familiar with the LessWrong memeplex have suffered serious psychological distress after contemplating basilisk-like ideas — even when they're fairl…

Luke didn't walk by Scientology, he walked in:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/58m/build_small_skills_in_the_right_...

You'll see me in the comments going "WHAT THE HELL, HERO."

Re: How to Be Happy

#213

Post by davidgerard »

mhb wrote: post #31
Jweb_Guru wrote: post #10

Just for those of you who aren't aware, LessWrong is a site devoted to the cult of the "singularity." The site founder, Eliezer Yudkowsky, is a secular humanist who is probably most well-known for his Harry Potter fanfiction, "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality." His core beliefs include that the obvious goal of the human race is immortality, that it is justifiable to kill a man if it would remove a spec of…

Where have Drexler's nanobots been credibly discredited?

Every real-world chemist who looks into the idea.

Re: How to Be Happy

#214

Post by dllthomas »

maaku wrote: post #193
TeMPOraL wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which would be an equivalent of pg posting his essay to HN, and then people accusing HNers of cultishness because of that essay. Hmm... actually, that happens every now and then and is exactly as fair as the accusations against lukeprog and LessWrong. Also, MIRI was created years after LessWrong.

MIRI is the continuation of SIAI which predates (and started) LessWrong.

Though Luke's involvement does not, not that that really means much.

Re: How to Be Happy

#215

Post by noblethrasher »

n09n wrote: post #112
woodchuck64 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there an argument to be made why artificial intelligence that surpasses human intelligence is not a problem for the human race?

Probably the same argument that human intelligence that surpasses feline intelligence is not a problem for domestic housecats.

That's just because we happen to like housecats. The whales will have some legitimate gripes. I mean, they aren't even competing with us for anything.

Re: How to Be Happy

#216

Post by tim333 »

I tried actively increasing my happiness by reading up the on self help / academic stuff with moderate success. I probably managed to go from well below average (based on some Seligman tests) to a bit above. I kind of had a goal to get to the top 10% which I don't think I've really hit but onwards anyway...

Re: How to Be Happy

#217

Post by randallsquared »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #201
lolpep8 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why, even while being an atheist, would I accept utilitarianism over Jesus Christ in this case?

For more-less exactly the same reason you accept general relativity over aristotelian motion - it is derived from first principles using maths, can be shown to match experience even if somewhat intuitive to people, and works pretty well in practice.

> can be shown to match experience even if somewhat [un]intuitive to people, and works pretty well in practice.

I think these are the two points that those skeptical of utilitarianism have trouble with: it's exactly that it doesn't seem to match experience that started this thread. Additionally, it doesn't actually seem to work well in practice: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/07/the_argument_fr_...

Re: How to Be Happy

#218

Post by vertex-four »

tim333 wrote: post #207
vertex-four wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do not understand why there are so many haters of LessWrong. A lot of us have ended up in places where they have tried to force their beliefs on us (a huge one being "debate is always the correct way to understand things, and is never inappropriate in any situation ever" - the concept of, say, cooperative discussion, or even caring about people's emotions and sense of self, seems to have never occurred to any of…

>A lot of us have ended up in places where they have tried to force their beliefs on us Really? I guess 'they' being less wrong enthusiasts. I'm honestly curious where as I have not come across this stuff much.

Various IRC channels across freenode; generally social spaces.

Re: How to Be Happy

#220

Post by gaelow »

gaelow wrote: post #145
chippy wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bit about procrastination was in the first half of the article :)

Who said I read the first half?

(LPT: Always jump straight to the conclusions part of the article. Then, maybe, read the parts that may interest you. The Internet is an infinite sea of data; If you stop swimming or dive too deep, you'll drown on it.)
Post reply on HN