Daniel_Starr

Karma: 699

Daniel_Starr Mar 24, 2012, 11:55 AM
9 points
on: Nonmindkilling open questions
People care about their health, and there’s a lot we don’t know about even very popular, non-technical habits.

Does a daily aspirin help prevent cancer?

Is running better for your health than other exercise?

[Will you live longer if you switch from a typical American diet to a vegan diet?][oops. Okay, mindkillers are everywhere.]

(For specific probabilities, add parameters, e.g., ‘live 3 months longer.’ Or ask what parameter value the 50% probability should be at.)

Daniel_Starr Mar 24, 2012, 10:54 AM
21 points
on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
Harry testifies: “Voldemort did it all. He made me watch with the Imperius curse—just like when he made me help rescue Bellatrix Black.”

Harry provides details of the Bellatrix rescue that only a participant would know. His accuracy can be verified by Azkaban Security Director Amelia Bones, who just happens to be present in the Wizengamot.

Harry’s knowledge of the Bellatrix rescue proves the villain who Imperiused him was really Voldemort. Who else would rescue Bellatrix?

If anyone expresses doubts about Harry’s super-Patronus, Harry immediately takes the excuse to annihilate a Dementor, one of which also just happens to be present in the Wizengamot.

Harry’s Occlumency lets him lie through the Veritaserum about being Imperiused and witnessing poor Hermione being framed by Voldemort. He likewise lies that “Voldemort” (not Quirrell) took him to rescue Bellatrix.

Harry explains that seeing Hermione about to be condemned to Azkaban gave him the strength to finally break free of Voldemort’s Imperius curse and tell everyone the truth. (Alternately, Obliviation and a Pensieve Harry wasn’t supposed to find.)

Hermione is deemed innocent. Voldemort is acknowledged back in the world and is blamed. Harry can no longer be blackmailed about Azkaban because he’s admitted it.

Harry-irony points for saying right in front of Lucius: “I didn’t want to help Voldemort, I was under the Imperius curse”.

Author-irony points for having Harry lie to blame Voldemort for two crimes that Quirrellmort is in fact guilty of.

Daniel_Starr Mar 23, 2012, 12:39 PM
14 points
in reply to: MarkusRamikin’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
He might think that Harrymort is toying with his son for pure amusement, Bellatrix-style; or that Dumbledore set Hermione on Draco.

But he can punish Hermione as a demonstration of his ferocity now, while he waits and hopes to find the real villain later.

Lucius probably knows that he doesn’t know enough; on that he agrees with Harry. The difference is that he doesn’t see that as a reason to let Hermione off; he sees Hermione as at least an opportunity to send a message to his real enemy, whoemever he is, not to take the House of Malfoy lightly.
What links here?
- MarkusRamikin's comment on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11 by Oscar_Cunningham (Mar 23, 2012, 9:39 PM; 1 point)

Daniel_Starr Mar 23, 2012, 12:35 PM
14 points
in reply to: MarkusRamikin’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
Harry’s suggesting that Voldemort’s tactics involve not just hate but an incredible degree of cynicism.

Both “Make Bella love you despairingly, on purpose” and “Mess with Hermione’s brain intimately over a long period of time” reflect a person who can get to know people closely and accurately and yet not care about them at all.

A lot of evil comes from people doing bad things to people they don’t bother to think about in the first place. Voldemort clearly took the trouble to get to know Bellatrix and (somewhat) Hermione rather well—solely for the purposes of undermining them.

Some police trained as hostage-situation snipers find they can’t actually pull the trigger on real criminals, because they watch them so long and so closely they empathize with them. Draco Malfoy, in the fic, was coming to empathize with Hermione Granger.

Harry is observing that Voldemort seems to be immune to natural empathy, and that creeps him out.

(Agree that Harry having “Voldemort plot detection powers” as a general rule would be bizarre.)

Daniel_Starr Mar 23, 2012, 10:28 AM
2 points
in reply to: Anubhav’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
Intended to suggest pulling some kind of social stunt that would put the Malfoys under obligation or massively shake up the politics of the room...

… but mostly ’cause it’s funny. I mean, it’s got to be a solution to some problem Harry faces. His fanclub demands it!

Daniel_Starr Mar 23, 2012, 10:21 AM
0 points
in reply to: buybuydandavis’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
Why, then, did Dumbledore take the initiative to cover for her? To protect her from Lucius’ revenge?

Daniel_Starr Mar 23, 2012, 9:57 AM
5 points
on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
Harry can save Hermione by offering false testimony against Quirrell. There’s a taboo social tradeoff. The odd thing is that he has to do it by telling lies about Quirrell that we know are mostly true.

Harry can give false testimony under Veritaserum, because he’s an Occlumens, which of those present only Dumbledore and McGonagall and the Malfoys know (and the Malfoys wouldn’t be believed).

So, what can he falsely testify that would save Hermione?
- That he himself tampered with Draco and Hermione’s memories. But he’d better have one heck of an escape planned, even if he does have the Cloak of Invisibility and power against Dementors.
- That he did it, but he was Imperius’d into it by a mysterious cloaked figure. But then he has to account for where he found the time to alter their memories, and convince people he knows the False Memory Charm.
- That Dumbledore did it. Dumbledore just might go along out of guilt, and the Malfoys would go along to see Dumbledore brought down. But McGonagall would probably not stay silent, doubting Dumbledore’s guilt and knowing Harry is an Occlumens.
- That Dumbledore confessed to him that he murdered Narcissa Malfoy. But that’s a separate crime, so it doesn’t save Hermione without a side deal with Lucius and Harry blew his chance at that.
- That Bellatrix Black broke into Hogwarts, tampered with Hermione and Draco, confessed to him to taunt him, and fled. Too many odd events, especially since Hogwarts is supposed to be hard to break into: Lucius would suggest it was Dumbledore Polyjuiced into Bella to set up Harry with a lie.
- That Quirrell did it and revealed it to him, as well as that he was the rescuer of Bellatrix Black, to show that Hogwarts couldn’t protect his friends and in hopes of intimidating Harry to the cause of Voldemort. Bingo.
If Harry falsely testifies against Quirrell, neither Dumbledore nor McGonagall would suspect it of being a lie, especially if Harry explained he had kept silent in hopes of making Quirrell think he was actually won over to Voldemort’s side. It also fits the convenient fact that it was Quirrell who discovered the bodies. And because Quirrell really did rescue Bellatrix Black, Harry can offer plenty of true testimony about the Azkaban mission as stuff that Quirrell told him to impress him. So his testimony will seem verifiable as well as Veritaserum-proved. Harry knows Quirrell wouldn’t come in to defend himself from the charge Harry thinks he’s innocent of (Hermione and Draco), because he’d be sent to Azkaban for the charge Harry knows he’s guilty of (rescuing Bellatrix Black).

And while Harry doesn’t want to turn on Quirrell… he knows Quirrell can defend himself a lot better than Hermione can. He could use his Patronus to deliver a message to Quirrell to run and hide right after he testifies (or, with a Time-Turner, right before).

For added flavor, Harry could truthfully testify about rescuing Bellatrix Black—and claim that he was Imperius’d into his role, just like good old Lucius!

I don’t think “Harry sacrifices Quirrell” is the actual answer, because Harry making a big deal in his mind of “sacrificing” Quirrell would feel a little cheap for those of us who know he should turn on Quirrellmort. Dramatically it would work better for Harry to sacrifice someone we think is genuinely valuable to him, or to pull out some interesting social leverage over the Wizengamot voters. But false testimony against Quirrell is for Harry a lot more “taboo” than calling in Imperius-debts, and doesn’t require a side-deal the way that pressuring Dumbledore with false testimony over Narcissa would, or the kind of shenanigans of invoking a duel with Draco over the insult to the Ancient House of Potter.

Daniel_Starr Mar 23, 2012, 8:07 AM
16 points
in reply to: Vaniver’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
Even if Harry couldn’t get access to Lucius in private, he could have made a much better public proposal.

“Hermione was not your family’s true enemy, as you and I both know. To you, she is nothing but a pawn symbolizing the foe you can’t yet strike. But she has value to me. If you want the right to deliver her to Azkaban, so be it, but hold off on claiming that right, Lucius, and I will give you your real enemy. You can spend your anger on this one little child now. But then I will owe you nothing, and your enemy will laugh at you. Or take today’s judgment but wait on executing it, call her a hostage for my promise between us, and I will redeem Hermione with one far more valuable to you—both for your revenge, and for the life and safety of your son.”

Or something like that. It still probably wouldn’t have worked, of course—Lucius does not trust Harrymort’s intentions or power.

Daniel_Starr Mar 23, 2012, 7:18 AM
9 points
in reply to: linkhyrule5’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
They could adopt/legitimize Draco’s children by another lover. As Harry’s fanclub says, he and Draco and the lady could have one of those, you know, arrangements...

Daniel_Starr Mar 23, 2012, 6:37 AM
22 points
on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
The author’s clues are pushing in two different directions. “Taboo tradeoffs” in the title, and that Harry’s Dark side is delivering the solution, implies an answer that is morally unnerving or at least cold-blooded.

The author’s line about Harry shifting from seeing the Wizengamot voters as “wallpaper” to seeing individuals with agency, “PCs”, and the line about remembering the laws of magical Britain, implies an answer that involves the incentives and ‘rules of the game’ of the other Wizengamot members besides Lucius and Dumbledore.

None of the solutions I’ve seen (let alone the few I’ve thought of) seem both Dark/taboo and social/voters-are-PCs.

Harry calling in the (nominally) Imperiused voters’ debts: clever, invokes customs of magical Britain, makes the voters PCs rather than wallpaper, but not very Dark or taboo.

Harry threatens the crowd with the Dementor somehow, or browbeats Dumbledore into ruining his reputation: Dark/taboo, but doesn’t invoke the customs of magical Britain or treat the other Wizengamot voters as PCs.

Is there a solution that both invokes magical Britain’s laws / makes PCs of the voters and involves some alarmingly Dark/taboo move or trade by Harry?

Boy-Who-Lived marries Draco Malfoy?

Daniel_Starr Mar 23, 2012, 12:27 AM
1 point
in reply to: Grognor’s comment on: What epistemic hygiene norms should there be?
Oops. Yah. It’s related, in the sense of “lower the pressure to insist that you’re right”, but it’s not the same. Fixed.

Daniel_Starr Mar 22, 2012, 1:30 PM
5 points
on: Cult impressions of Less Wrong/Singularity Institute
Ironically, I suspect the “cultlike” problem is that LessWrong/SI’s key claims lack falsifiability.

Friendly AI? In the far future.

Self-improvement? All mental self-improvement is suspected of being a cult, unless it trains a skill outsiders are confident they can measure.

If I have a program for teaching people math, outsiders feel they know how they can check my claims—either my graduates are good at math or not.

But if I have a program for “putting you in touch with your inner goddess”, how are people going to check my claims? For all outsiders know I’m making people feel good, or feel good about me, without actually making them meaningfully better.

Unfortunately, the external falsifiability of LW/SI’s merits is more like the second case than the first. Especially, I suspect, for people who aren’t already big fans of mathematics, information theory, probability, and potential AI.

Organization claims to improve a skill anyone can easily check = school. Organization claims to improve a quality that outsiders don’t even know how to measure = cult.

If and when LW/SI can headline more easily falsifiable claims, it will be less cultlike.

I don’t know if this is an immediately solvable problem, outside of developing other aspects of LW/SI that are more obviously useful/impressive to outsiders, and/or developing a generation of LW/SI fans who are indeed “winners” as rationalists ideally would be.

Daniel_Starr Mar 22, 2012, 12:40 PM
4 points
on: What epistemic hygiene norms should there be?
Another one that I feel is important:

Identify the testable predictions that go along with your belief.

This not only wards off “just so stories” and confirmation bias; it also shows people how to mine their own knowledge to add weight for or against the belief you’re offering. If their expertise overlaps yours at all, they probably have some knowledge to offer; if you point out the testable predictions your belief implies, they can deploy that knowledge to make yourself and them smarter.

Daniel_Starr Mar 22, 2012, 12:32 PM
5 points
on: What epistemic hygiene norms should there be?
Don’t punish yourself or others for taking time to think before responding.

If you were a kid in school who was rewarded for being quick with the answers, taking time and letting others take time is a habit that takes some training.

To express it at more length:

Don’t press yourself or others to have immediate perfect articulations of what they know.

If people are only respected if they speak immediately, the only thoughts that will be spoken are cached thoughts.

Be comfortable saying things like “I think I shouldn’t agree or disagree right away,” or “I’ll need to take some time to think through what my real opinion is on that point,” or “I didn’t quite say what I really meant earlier.” Support others who say those things.

Believe that the value of a person’s thoughts is not always the same as their speed of response.

Create a favorable environment for both you and others to figure out what they really think, notice, and remember, as opposed to what they’re able to articulate in the heat of a single conversation.

Daniel_Starr Mar 22, 2012, 6:01 AM
14 points
in reply to: buybuydandavis’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
So Harry is, in effect, an AI created by Voldemort, but one that developed an unintended value system and so turned on its creator?

Harry as Unfriendly AI. (Unfriendly from Voldemort’s point of view, anyway.) Nice.

Daniel_Starr Mar 21, 2012, 10:36 AM
13 points
in reply to: ajuc’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
Wow. I like the idea that Dumbledore burned Narcissa, told Lucius and the other Death Eaters and consciously relied on his good reputation to ensure no one else would believe he’d done it. That’s creepy. You’re right, that does take care of the “how does he have such a positive reputation, then?” objection.

I still think Fawkes would have a problem with it unless he’d tried everything else first. Fawkes is presented as quite the moral absolutist. But maybe Fawkes wasn’t around—and possibly he did try lesser measures first.

Daniel_Starr Mar 20, 2012, 11:58 PM
6 points
in reply to: Joshua Hobbes’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
I think that Harry’s “alien power” is still unclear for the same reason that readers resisted identifying MoR!Quirrell as Voldemort. The author has so much fun writing Quirrellmort-the-clever that he has great difficulty writing Quirrellmort-the-flawed.

The only flaw in Quirrellmort that the author’s actually shown is Quirrellmort’s nonbelief in goodness. The backstory suggests that Voldemort had serious problems beyond mere cynicism. But there’s a big difference between “the story asserts” and “the story demonstrates”.

(I’m using “flawed” here in the sense of “make choices that work out badly”, not “make choices that would make us readers uncomfortable.” That is, “flawed” as relevant to “power”, not “flawed” as relevant to “approval”.)

Although it’s possible that Quirrellmort is deliberately meant to be much more clearheaded than Voldemort.

Daniel_Starr Mar 20, 2012, 11:22 PM
1 point
in reply to: Alsadius’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
Interestingly, PR value did exist in the medieval world. King John suffered some serious dissent among his barons for his severity (hostage executions, etc.).

You’re right that “be restrained with everybody” is a recent values innovation. There’s a more limited version that goes way, way back in history: “be restrained with other elites, especially if they have relatives supplying you soldiers.”

Daniel_Starr Mar 20, 2012, 2:35 PM
9 points
in reply to: Anubhav’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
I would be surprised if Harry’s knowledge of Muggle science, as such, was his edge over Voldemort. This Voldemort Horcruxed a spacecraft.

And I would be surprised if Harry’s “rationality” in the general sense was his edge. Quirrellmort seems plenty clear-thinking.

On the other hand, you’re right that Harry is much more of an experimentalist than Quirrellmort seems to be. Voldemort in this fic seems to be brilliantly efficient rather than brilliantly creative.

So perhaps Harry can defeat Voldemort through the power of experimentation. Not so much Science as The Scientific Method.

Daniel_Starr Mar 20, 2012, 11:30 AM
7 points
in reply to: Alsadius’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
Or suppose Dumbledore did take Narcissa prisoner first, and that wasn’t good enough to make the enemy stop.
- Dumbledore kidnapped Narcissa and held her hostage.
- attacks on the Order’s family members continued.
- Dumbledore, heaving great sighs of regret, burned her alive to make his point, sent Lucius the evidence...
- Dumbledore informed Lucius that Draco would be taken captive next.
- attacks on the Order’s family members stopped.
That’s just cold-blooded, not gratuitously cruel, and Lucius might not be able to publicize his side of the story without admitting to more Death-Eater backstory than he wants discussed. So this could work.

(In our world, even most guerrilla and terrorist groups have routinely held significant prisoners alive for intelligence or as hostages. Even the deliberately cruel groups have found it feasible to take captives when they wanted leverage or information.

So if Dumbledore claimed that his war with Voldemort was so difficult that he just couldn’t ever take prisoners, that he had to torture innocents for leverage rather than capture them, he’d have claimed more moral exemptions than claimed by Hezbollah or the IRA or the Taliban.

That’s unlikely already. Still less likely is that Fawkes and McGonagall are mostly happy in his company now after a “cruelty because convenient” pattern of behavior in the not-so-distant past.

So I think Dumbledore has to have tried to use her as a hostage alive before killing her, for his internal behavior and his external reputation to fit what we observe.)