ewang

Karma: 247

ewang 4 Jul 2013 3:23 UTC
0 points
in reply to: ewang’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 20, chapter 90
Never mind, I see your point, although I still disagree with your conclusion on the grounds of narrative plausibility and good writing.

ewang 4 Jul 2013 3:21 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Pentashagon’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 20, chapter 90
Here’s another, roughly isomorphic statement:

What is Gravity besides some form of superintelligence, or at least the remnants of superintelligence? The strongest evidence is that engineers and even physicists don’t really have to understand how gravity actually works in order to use it. There is information entering the system from somewhere, and it’s enough information to accurately detect when an object is unsupported or structurally unstable. And the chaotic side-effects tend to be improbably harmful. It’s like an almost-Friendly, or perhaps a broken previously-Friendly, AI. Possibly the result of some ancient Singularity that is no longer explicitly remembered.

ewang 19 Feb 2013 3:39 UTC
25 points
in reply to: Eugine_Nier’s comment on: Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Argument
I find it rather irritating when someone does this every time I use the words “soul” or “God” in a rhetorical context.

I believe in neither, but both words have their uses.

ewang 16 Feb 2013 16:25 UTC
3 points
in reply to: Larks’s comment on: What’s your hypothetical apostasy?
Actually, I think the issue is a misunderstanding of what apostasy is in the first place.

ewang 14 Feb 2013 4:54 UTC
2 points
in reply to: V_V’s comment on: [LINK] Open Source Software Developer with Terminal Illness Hopes to Opt Out of Death

Science most definitely does not mean: “Let’s try something random today and see what happens”.

That does seem to be how mathematics works, though.

ewang 29 Jan 2013 4:24 UTC
10 points
in reply to: Desrtopa’s comment on: Isolated AI with no chat whatsoever
It is a hypothetical situation of unreasonably high security that tries to probe for an upper bound on the level of containment required to secure an AI.

ewang 29 Jan 2013 2:11 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Desrtopa’s comment on: Isolated AI with no chat whatsoever
If an isolated AI can easily escape in any circumstance, it really doesn’t make sense to train gatekeepers.

ewang 27 Jan 2013 17:57 UTC
−4 points
in reply to: IlyaShpitser’s comment on: Infinitesimals: Another argument against actual infinite sets
Replace “tangentially” with “about as much as basically any other thing”.

ewang 27 Jan 2013 17:44 UTC
−3 points
in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov’s comment on: Infinitesimals: Another argument against actual infinite sets
Actually, it is; while the post is clogged with outdated ideas and plays fast and loose with the meaning of existence, I wouldn’t want to see a slew of actually sound arguments about basic set theory clogging up Discussion, either.

ewang 26 Jan 2013 19:21 UTC
−9 points
on: Infinitesimals: Another argument against actual infinite sets
I think three posts is enough for something only tangentially related to rationality.

ewang 12 Jan 2013 2:00 UTC
2 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: How to signal curiosity?
“Signaling” is a term that we’ve given a more precise definition than the other two.

ewang 5 Jan 2013 0:42 UTC
−12 points
in reply to: advancedatheist’s comment on: [SEQ RERUN] Visualizing Eutopia

raise everyone’s IQ by ten points

The average IQ is defined to be constant.

ewang 4 Jan 2013 1:49 UTC
9 points
in reply to: metaphysicist’s comment on: Can infinite quantities exist? A philosophical approach
If you’re going to dodge defining existence, please at least clarify your point by telling us which of these things “exist”:

a) irrational numbers

b) sets

c) postmodernism

d) the number of Langford pairings of length 100

e) negative numbers

f) quaternions

ewang 3 Jan 2013 16:00 UTC
1 point
in reply to: A1987dM’s comment on: [Link] Hey Extraverts: Enough is Enough
(And FYI, that’s the proper spelling: “homosexual” is common but wrong, because omo- is the proper Greek prefix.)

ewang 3 Jan 2013 5:59 UTC
6 points
in reply to: Xachariah’s comment on: Politics Discussion Thread January 2013
One reason gender politics is especially “mind-killing” is that the two least interesting/statistically significant/improbable positions (males are more THIS than females, females more THAT than males) also happen to be the two positions seen as the “strongest”.

ewang 21 Dec 2012 20:07 UTC
12 points
in reply to: pleeppleep’s comment on: Implications of an infinite versus a finite universe
Sorry, but “this’ll probably get down voted, but” just doesn’t work here.

ewang 30 Nov 2012 5:55 UTC
1 point
on: One thousand tips do not make a system
It’s refreshing to see the non-anastrophic arrangement in the title.

What LessWrong would call the “system” of rationality is the rigorous mathematical application of Bayes’ Theorem. The “one thousand tips” you speak of are what we get when we apply this system to itself to quickly guess its behavior under certain conditions, as carrying around a calculator and constantly applying the system in everyday life is rather impractical.

ewang 27 Nov 2012 23:45 UTC
7 points
in reply to: Vaniver’s comment on: [META] Retributive downvoting: Why?
Well.

ewang 27 Nov 2012 3:53 UTC
−6 points
on: [META] Retributive downvoting: Why?
I’d try removing the voting buttons from the user page; the effort required to click the permalink should deter most of these serial downvoters.
What links here?
- [deleted]'s comment on [META] Retributive downvoting: Why? by ialdabaoth (28 Nov 2012 6:25 UTC; 6 points)

ewang 21 Nov 2012 0:33 UTC
2 points
in reply to: DanArmak’s comment on: The Evil AI Overlord List
I have done so.

I can better serve you if I continue doing so.