turchin

Quan­tum Im­mor­tal­ity: A Per­spec­tive if AI Doomers are Prob­a­bly Right

• turchinAug 12, 2024, 4:30 PM

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: New eBook: Es­says on UFOs and Re­lated Conjectures

  I found it rather difficult to download it from any of the listed sources, except amazon kindly web where formatting is not good for reading. Can you just upload a pdf somewhere?

• turchinJul 16, 2024, 5:37 PM

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Magnus Vinding’s comment on: Silent cos­mic rulers

  Maybe better say ‘zoo’ vs ‘forest’, or ‘very well protected area’ vs ‘partly protected area’.
  If there is only a few habited planets inside grabby alien sphere, they will be very valuable and very well protected so no UFOs will be observed.

  If there are millions of them, they are less valuable and thus less protected and therefore can be used for some practical activity, like turism, hunting or mining unobtanium. Obviously, if UFOs are aliens, local alien authorities let them be visible sometimes, so local aliens laws are not very strict.

  Observation selection effects like SIA favors the hypothesis that there millions habitable planets inside any grabby aliens.

• turchinJul 16, 2024, 2:07 PM

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Silent cos­mic rulers

  I think that your model is correct and ‘anthropically’ supported.

  In some sense it favors ’zoo hypothesis”. However, there is an important distinction: is it zoo or natural reserve. In general, on Earth zoos are rare but well kept and natural reserves are more abundant, but less controlled. The same anthropic considerations which favor silent rulers, favor natural reserves vs zoos.

  This has bad consequences for us: natural reserves are more likely to be visited by unauthorized visitors and poachers. Or if we will be less anthrophomorphisng, they have less value for cosmic rulers as they are more numerous. UFOs observations and their alleged connections with cattle mutilations and abductions are more favoring the idea that Earth is less protected hunting ground than well protected zoo.

  
  Speaking about “unobservable” part. Aliens which consist of fields or using something like “5-th” dimension to travel will have much less visible footprint but will have much large sphere which they can grab, as they can travel with almost light speed. The same anthropic considerations favor such aliens as they will have larger sphere of influence. Observations of UFOs also imply that they use some non-typical for us way of propulsion, like instant acceleration, manipulating gravity and moving through objects.

  In other words, if aliens are not interesting in building Dyson spheres and can travel with near-light speed without leaving visible traces, we will see much less signs of their activity. Maybe they are more interested in controlling space than in performing a lot of computations.

  The conclusion is unpleasant: we are typical and neglected planet which sometimes is abused by our mostly invisible rulers. But it is the same as life situation of most people on Earth.

• turchinJun 21, 2024, 9:32 PM

  3 points

  0 ∶ 1

  on: Why UFOs matter

  I think that UFOs are really a wildcard in x-risk research.
  1.Even if UFOs don’t have any serious substance behind them, the fact that many serious military people and even presidents believed in them, should update our prior about human irrationality and therefore increase our expectation that nuclear risks and AI risks will be mismanaged.

  2.If UFOs have an interesting, but not world-model-shattering explanation, e.g. they are a form of ball lightings, this opens a possibility of creating new weapons after their nature will be learned.

  3. If their explanation is world-model-shattering, all our expectations about x-risks are wrong.
  World-model-shattering explanations are not only classical aliens.

  They can be:
  -glitches and viruses in the matrix;

  -space-faring animals consisting from exotic fields;

  -clouds of nanobots from already extinct civilizations.

  -malfunctioning berserks-robots

  -elaborated lies from cold war era similar to other memetic mind attacks like “red mercury” or number radio stations.

[Draft amnesty] The Prob­a­bil­ity of a Global Catas­tro­phe in the World with Ex­po­nen­tially Grow­ing Tech­nolo­gies

• turchinJan 20, 2023, 10:45 PM

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: What’s go­ing on with ‘crunch time’?

  It also happens in personal life.

• turchinJan 18, 2023, 1:39 PM

  8 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Quotes about the long reflection

  Critics: “‘Long Reflection’ Is Crazy Bad Idea” https://​​www.overcomingbias.com/​​2021/​​10/​​long-reflection-is-crazy-bad-idea.html

• turchinDec 29, 2022, 12:43 PM

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Ramiro’s comment on: My list of effec­tive al­tru­ism ideas that seem to be un­der­ex­plored

  Actually, I am going to write someday a short post “time machine as existential risk”.

  Technically, any time travel is possible only if timeline is branching, but it is ok in quantum multiverse. However, some changes in the past will be invariants: they will not change the future in the way that causes ground father paradox. Such invariants will be loopholes and have very high measure. UFO could be such invariants and this explains their strangeness: only strange thing are not changing future ti prevent their own existence.

• turchinDec 28, 2022, 10:14 PM

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Jeroen De Ryck 🔹’s comment on: Cause pri­ori­ti­sa­tion: Prevent­ing lake Kivu in Africa erup­tion which could kill two mil­lion.

  Thanks for these details!

  The report doesn’t mention any likelihood of any of these events happening

  May be you discuss a different report than I read. The one I read says:

  In fact there is evidence of eruptions at Kivu in about 1000 year cycles and predictions based on observed accumulation rates (10-14% per year) suggest an eruption in the next 100-200 years, see Report [1].

Cause pri­ori­ti­sa­tion: Prevent­ing lake Kivu in Africa erup­tion which could kill two mil­lion.

• turchinDec 26, 2022, 4:08 PM

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: The­o­ries of con­scious­ness (Seth & Bayne, 2022)

  Link is not working for me

• turchinDec 18, 2022, 9:30 AM

  2 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: Is buy­ing a home a bad idea for most EAs?

  Buying a house is a bet on long AI timelines and absence of all other catastrophes.

• turchinDec 18, 2022, 9:29 AM

  1 point

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Evan R. Murphy’s comment on: Is buy­ing a home a bad idea for most EAs?

  Buying a house protects you against rent growth, income decline and inflation, as well as bad landlords and time consuming rent hunt.

• turchinDec 15, 2022, 8:05 PM

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: [linkpost] Is China Plan­ning to At­tack Taiwan? A Care­ful Con­sid­er­a­tion of Available Ev­i­dence Says No.

  Three arguments in favor of war soon:

  1. Chips. While China chip industry is getting sanctioned, most of the world production of advanced chip remains on Taiwan. But this is not for long, as manufacturing start relocating in other places. Attack on Taiwan could prevent US dominance in chips and AI.

  2. Ukraine war strained US production of some weapons, but US invested in increase of production of missiles and artillery ships. So in future situation will be less advantageous for war.

  3. China has clear advantage now in cheap drones produced in mass, like DJI. But is is also not for long.

• turchinDec 13, 2022, 11:07 AM

  −6 points

  2 ∶ 4

  in reply to: Nicholas Wagner’s comment on: Why did CEA buy Wytham Abbey?

  And did the purchase come with any conditions, like the right for the billionaire to use the venue as his house between the conferences?

• turchinDec 13, 2022, 11:02 AM

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Owen Cotton-Barratt’s comment on: Why did CEA buy Wytham Abbey?

  How much are electricity, maintenance and property tax for this venue? Historic building may require expensive restoration and are subject to complex regulation.

• turchinNov 20, 2022, 8:46 PM

  1 point

  0 ∶ 1

  on: The SBF Saga Is Not A Rea­son to Throw Out the Mo­ral Calculus

  I think it is more interesting to think about other people as of rational agents. If bitcoin grew to 100K as it was widely expected in 2021, SBF bets will pay off and he will become the first trillioner. He will also be able to return all money he took from creditors.

  He may understood that there was only like 10 per cent chance to become trillioner, but if he thought that trillion dollars for preventing x-risks is the only chance to save humanity, then he knew that he should bet on this opportunity.

  Now we live in a timeline where he lost and it is more tempting to say that he was irrational or mistaken. But maybe he was not.

• turchinNov 13, 2022, 8:11 PM

  45 points

  12 ∶ 1

  on: SBF, ex­treme risk-tak­ing, ex­pected value, and effec­tive altruism

  One thing that he didn’t use in his EV calculations is meta-level impact of failure on the popularity of EA and utilitarianism. Even relatively small failure in money could have almost infinite negative utility if topics like x-risks prevention become very unpopular.

• turchinNov 3, 2022, 6:33 PM

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Res­lab Re­quest for In­for­ma­tion: EA hard­ware projects

  I am interested to see how wood gasification s an energy source for cars could be bootstrapped in the case of industry collapse.

  Another topic: how some cold tolerant crops from nothern regions ( fodder beet, rutabaga) could be planted in South in the case of nuclear war winter. I already tried some experiment remotely (asked friend) but it failed.

  Also creating self-sustaing community on an island would be an interesting experiment.