Blueberry

• BlueberryMar 29, 2012, 9:49 PM

  8 points

  in reply to: Dr_Manhattan’s comment on: Mini­camps on Ra­tion­al­ity and Awe­some­ness: May 11-13, June 22-24, and July 21-28

  Videotapes aren’t interactive, and it seems like the biggest benefit from the workshop would be actually engaging with the people and exercises involved.

• BlueberryMar 29, 2012, 9:37 PM

  4 points

  in reply to: hairyfigment’s comment on: What I’ve learned from Less Wrong

  Are we both thinking of the book where vg gnxrf n qrhf rk znpuvan gb cerirag uhznavgl sebz qrfgeblvat vgfrys? Gur obbx va juvpu ng yrnfg bar punenpgre’f rkgencbyngrq ibyvgvba jbhyq cebonoyl qrfgebl uhznavgl, cnvashyyl?

  When and which character? I’m not sure where you’re getting that.

  Now the AI does seem absurd.

  Well, it’s a pretty common error to think that with enough intelligence, an AI (or person) will be ethical and friendly. Eliezer himself made that mistake back in 2000 before he realized that intelligence is optimizing the world towards goals and those goals can be arbitrary. Spider was right that an AI would probably not have human emotions like greed or revenge, but he missed the idea that we’re made of atoms that the AI could use for something else.

• BlueberryMar 29, 2012, 8:23 PM

  3 points

  in reply to: Percent_Carbon’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  I was alluding to a Larry Summers quote:

  A gold standard is the creationism of economics.

  The point was to insult the Goreans by comparing them to creationists, and that I hoped no one took them as a representation of lifestylers. I’m not sure why I got voted to −2, though.

• BlueberryMar 29, 2012, 10:38 AM

  1 point

  in reply to: Will_Newsome’s comment on: Modest Superintelligences

  This is probably a mistake, but I have to ask where you get this bizarre claim and why you believe it.

• BlueberryMar 29, 2012, 10:35 AM

  1 point

  in reply to: TimS’s comment on: Schel­ling fences on slip­pery slopes

  Or, more recently, Phelps v. Snyder, where the Court overturned a jury verdict for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on Fred Phelps’s First Amendment protected funeral protest.

• BlueberryMar 29, 2012, 10:28 AM

  2 points

  in reply to: ArisKatsaris’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  This one?

  It was posted after I said “I accept your bet,” so I am honor-bound to pay up. But if you feel bad taking the money I can always donate to SIAI instead.

• BlueberryMar 29, 2012, 9:45 AM

  0 points

  in reply to: katydee’s comment on: What I’ve learned from Less Wrong

  That makes me want to read Very Bad Deaths very much, which was probably not your intended effect.

  his didactic tone and self-righteous presentation continued even when he was describing horrible and outrageous actions, cold-blooded murders on the parts of the protagonists, etc.

  Are you sure you’re not making the mistake of confusing a character’s beliefs with the authors?

  As far as the murders, have you ever seen an action movie?

  it demonstrated his ability to justify (and even advocate for) ridiculous excesses

  please give me more details on this. I take it you’re not a rational anarchist and don’t support Michael’s revolution? What ridiculous excesses?

  I’m just very surprised that you think it’s didactic or self-righteous; I didn’t see it that way at all.

  Just curious, have you read Heinlein’s “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”? Night of Power is full of allusions to it and it may not make as much sense if you haven’t.

• BlueberryMar 29, 2012, 6:41 AM

  −3 points

  in reply to: Percent_Carbon’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  What pedanterrific said. Fringe groups with false and harmful beliefs that act ridiculous.

  What links here?

  • Blueberry's comment on Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81 by bogdanb (Mar 29, 2012, 8:23 PM; 3 points)

• BlueberryMar 29, 2012, 6:39 AM

  1 point

  in reply to: fubarobfusco’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  Ooh yes, there it is! Thanks.

• BlueberryMar 29, 2012, 12:26 AM

  4 points

  in reply to: Dirk’s comment on: How to Be Happy

  They’re definitely appropriate responses. First, let’s distinguish two different things:

  1. Being happy

  2. Engaging in desired leisure activities

  Since it’s very difficult for, say, depressed people to fix the world’s problems, I think being happy is actually a step towards solving them, if it gives you the energy and motivation you need. I see happiness as an instrumental goal, not a terminal one. In fact, I suspect you’d be happier when you stop procrastinating and do something that works towards what you really care about.

  As far as the second point, I know Eliezer has thought about this question, and has said before that if his help wasn’t urgently needed to save the world, he would do other things, like be a science-fiction writer. Depends on how much of a duty you feel you owe the world. For instance, suppose you walk past a kid drowning, and you could save the kid with a few minutes of effort. Do you have a duty to save the kid, or is it just a good thing to do, but not required?

  These things keep me up at night, sometimes.

  I think it’s worth noting that not sleeping well and feeling bad doesn’t help towards either saving the world or reaching your own goals.

• BlueberryMar 29, 2012, 12:12 AM

  −4 points

  in reply to: ArisKatsaris’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  You know, even if I’m wrong about the marriage, getting voted down to −10 seems a little excessive...

• BlueberryMar 29, 2012, 12:08 AM

  1 point

  in reply to: Nominull’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  Yes, but there’s no verb that means to put someone into it...

• BlueberryMar 28, 2012, 11:54 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: bogdanb’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  True. And the existence of that headline makes me think Magical Britain is at least somewhat supportive of same-sex relationships being formally recognized, though it’s weak evidence.

• BlueberryMar 28, 2012, 9:21 PM

  −1 points

  in reply to: bogdanb’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  Well, yes, agreed that points more towards an oath of servitude. But I could easily imagine someone marrying me and promising to obey “the master of my house” as a poetic and formal way of referring to me. My point in the comment you were responding to was that obedience is hardly foreign to wedding vows.

• BlueberryMar 28, 2012, 9:18 PM

  3 points

  in reply to: bogdanb’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  I thought there was a Quibbler headline involving same-sex marriage, but upon checking I realized I was thinking of the one where Harry gets Draco pregnant.

  No, I don’t think we have any information on the status of same-sex marriage or civil union in Magical Britain.

• BlueberryMar 28, 2012, 9:01 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: Alsadius’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  What did you think it was preaching?

• BlueberryMar 28, 2012, 7:54 PM

  3 points

  in reply to: lavalamp’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  True. Maybe they were just so stunned by everything.

  On the other hand, Lucius gets 100,000 gold and Potter in his debt, which apparently gives him some kind of control. And maybe he realized Hermione wasn’t the actual killer, but couldn’t back down at that point because he’d lose face. So it’s not like he ends up with a bad deal.

  Alternatively, if he thinks Harry is his real enemy and Hermione just a minion, maybe having Harry in his debt is just as good as putting Hermione in the clank, according to his utility function.

• BlueberryMar 28, 2012, 7:42 PM

  5 points

  in reply to: ArisKatsaris’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  The problem is that I don’t know enough about Magical Britain’s culture and customs to make a good estimate. There’s so much weird stuff going on there that there’s not much that would surprise me.

  You are correct that taken completely out of context like that, they sound like service vows. And I’m biased because I want them to be marriage vows; after reading your posts I’ve updated in favor of service vows.

  I don’t think P(marriage) > 50%. But you’re offering me 10 against 1, and I am sure P(marriage) > ¹⁄₁₁. So I accept your bet. I’ll put up $30 against your $300, to be judged either by an unambiguous statement in a future chapter of MoR, or by a comment on LW by Eliezer.

• BlueberryMar 28, 2012, 7:28 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: lavalamp’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  And since we know no one has the idiot ball, that suggests that the fealty vow (or possibly wedding vow) to Harry was totally unexpected. My impression was that the Wizengamot was stunned by the events.

  what McGonagall did was a totally obvious solution to every wizard in the room except Harry; everyone in the room not on Malfoy’s side probably even came in expecting Lucius to extract this fealty vow or something similar from Hermione

  Yes, they expected Lucius to extract something similar from Hermione. They weren’t thinking of Lucius’s debt to Harry, so until Harry mentioned it and stunned the room, McGonagall’s actions wouldn’t have occurred to them.

• BlueberryMar 28, 2012, 7:25 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: MartinB’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  So was the traditional wedding vow… “I promise to love, honor, and obey.”