I’m sorry, I want to be with someone more interesting, someone who just does something wild and lets the chips fall where they may!
I plan to never take any action toward fulfilling any of my hopes and dreams. What could possibly be riskier than that?
BlazeOrangeDeer
Karma: 245
Down voted for unnecessary rot13
I think “poorly” in this case meant that it wasn’t rated very believable by the judges.
If they’re saying all sources of entropy are physical, that seems obvious. If they’re saying that all uncertainty is quantum, they must not know that chaotic classical simulations exist? Or are they not allowing simulations made by humans o.O
I don’t think I’ve seen a pun thread on lesswrong before… Perhaps it’s one of those things that should stay on reddit.
Now that I think about it, wouldn’t it be incredibly easy for an AI to blow a human’s mind so much that they reconsider everything that they thought they knew? (and once this happened they’d probably be mentally and emotionally compromised, and unlikely to kill the AI) But then it would be limited by inferential distance… but an AI might be incredibly good at introductory explanations as well.
One example: The AI explains the Grand Unified Theory to you in one line, and outlines its key predictions unambiguously.
In fact, any message of huge utility would probably be more persuasive than any simple argument for you not to kill it. Since the AI is completely at your mercy (at least for a short time), it might seek to give you the best possible gift it can, thus demonstrating its worth to you directly. Another option is something that seems like an incredible gift for at least as long as it takes for the AI to get the upper hand.
Maybe he means that each interview of a citizen is causally independent, since interviewing one of them won’t causally affect the answer of another.
Overly dramatic, sounds patronizingly sarcastic
The other question is whether it’s helpful to quickly look for obvious answers when there isn’t one. The information content of “there is a solution” is actually not only one bit (yes vs no), because the fact that that person told it to you means that they solved it quickly using techniques that they already know about. This usually helps you because you either share much of their knowledge, or have an idea of what things they are knowledgeable about. The correct advice in some other cases might have been “you need to learn something else completely new before you’ll get it” or “just stop trying because this problem is really of no value and has no easy answer”.
And thus began a society of literal-minded and meticulous cartographers.
For good reason; it’s the quickest way to become one of the least interesting parts of reddit.
PS: I upvoted lukeprog so that I could comment without penalty and am going to reverse it after I comment. I think that the karma penalty is not a good way to prevent trolls from dominating discussion because trolling is not the only reason that people downvote.
Only on less wrong is a new years retrospective justified using game theory ;)
Society is thankfully not a zero sum game. In many cases, an immigrant having the option to move to a new country is gaining a significant amount of utility, and the citizens of that country do not lose as much as the immigrant gains (they usually even benefit from the immigrant’s presence). And in the cases where the immigrant is taking too much, there already laws in place to counteract antisocial behavior such as stealing or fraud. We already have laws to limit bad outcomes, so restrictions on immigration should tend to cause more harm than good by blocking outcomes regardless of utility. This is in the case where I do not give any advantage to the citizens already in the country by valuing their happiness more, and I don’t see a reason why I should.
“Life isn’t fair” is one of the least effective arguments I have ever heard, though it is a great example of naturalistic fallacy (this thing is better because it’s natural / don’t try to mess with the way things are meant to be). I also said why I thought unfairness in this particular case is bad, so I’m down voting.
On immigration, not necessarily limited to the united states. I find laws that discriminate based on national origin to be unfair, in the sense that they limit good outcomes arbitrarily. On the other hand, I do not know of a way to transition to more lenient immigration laws successfully (though I haven’t thought about it much and it’s far from my areas of interest). I want to know if there are arguments for limiting the rights of immigrants (legal or not) that aren’t rooted in excessive self-interest (“they took our jobs!”) Or perhaps xenophobia.
I think he means multiply once for each piece of evidence, not each hypothesis.
Also for showing me what Lesswrong’s version of r/circlejerk looks like
Remember that the “soul” you are giving up isn’t really the Cartesian dualist version. It matches better to certain emotional or social states that many people prefer to experience.
And the biologist says, “guys, that’s a dog”
Well, you can run things like physics engines on a computer, and their output is not quantum in any meaningful way (following deterministic rules fairly reliably). It’s not very hard to simulate systems where a small uncertainty in initial conditions is magnified very quickly, and this increase in randomness can’t really be attributed to quantum effects but can be described very well by probability. This seems to contradict their thesis that all use of probability to describe randomness is justified only by quantum mechanics.