This feels sort of minor, but for your second link you should really credit the writer (AlexMennen), not the site it's published on.
Further thoughts here:
Insofar as I think OpenAI shouldn't be funded, it's because I think it might be actively harmful.
(epistemic status: I am not very informed about the current goings on at OpenAI, this is a random person rambling hearsay and making the best guesses they can without doing a thor...(read more)
I should note that I'm not sure whether OpenAI is a point against this claim or not (I think not but for complicated reasons). My vague impression is that they do tend to have their own set of assumptions, and are working on reasonably concrete things (I think those assumptions are wrong but am not ...(read more)
A related thought:
There's an issue with AI Safety funding: many people agree it's important for there to be an AI Safety field, and such a field should grow, evaluate the problem from different angles, build up a body of knowledge and cultivate people who think seriously about the problem full-time...(read more)
Let's take the issue of truth and knowledge as an example. In terms of Genereal Semantics means to fail at consciousness of abstraction. The two happen on different layers of abstraction.
Lately it has become fashionable to speak about 'post-truth' and when you call for ignoring truth, you further ...(read more)
I'm not familiar with Savage's theorem, but I was aware of the things you said about the VNM theorem, and in fact, I often bring up the same arguments you've been making. The standard response that I hear is that some probability distributions cannot be updated to without an infinite amount of infor...(read more)
So you're saying rationality is good if your utility is linear in the quantity of some goods? (For most people it is more like logarithmic, right?) But it seems that you want to say that independent thought is usually useful...
I'm sure the 10th century peasant does have ways to have a better life, ...(read more)
Absolutely it is the case that utility should be bounded. However as best I can tell you've left out the most fundamental reason why, so I think I should explain that here. (Perhaps I should make this a separate post?)
The basic question is: Where do utility functions come from? Like, why should ...(read more)
My view is that any world where the value of possible outcomes is heavy-tailed distributed (x-risk is a thing, but also more everyday things like income, and I'd guess life satisfaction) is a world where the best opportunities are nonobvious and better epistemology will thus have very strong returns...(read more)
My mindset was that this was a social site rather than a publishing depot so I didn't put the effort into editing. But I'm also new to the forums (although longterm reader of the extended LW universe) so I'm happy to be proven wrong if need be.