fractalman

Karma: 118

fractalman Jul 21, 2013, 5:10 AM
−5 points
in reply to: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s comment on: Counterfactual Mugging
Meh, the original is badly worded.

Take 2. Omega notices a neuro-quirk. Then, based on what he’s noticed, he offers you a ⁵⁰⁄₅₀ bet of 100$ to 43.25 dollars at just the right time with just the right intonation...

NOW do you take that bet?

...Why yes, yes you do. Even you. And you know it. it’s related to why you don’t think boxing an AI is the answer. only, Omega’s already out of the box, and so can adjust your visual and auditory input with a much higher degree of precision.

fractalman Jul 21, 2013, 4:56 AM
0 points
in reply to: jimmy’s comment on: Counterfactual Mugging
The trick with eeny-meeny-miney-moe is that it’s long enough for us to not consciously and quickly identify whether the saying is odd or even, gives a 0, 1, or 2 on modulo 3, etc, unless we TRY to remember what it produces, or TRY to remember if it’s odd or even before pointing it out. Knowing that doing so consciously ruins its capacity, we can turn to memory decay to restore some of the pseudo-random quality. basically, by sufficiently decoupling “point at A” from “choose A” to our internal cognitive algorithms...we change the way we route visual input and spit out a “point at X”.

THAT”S where the randomness of eeny-meeny-miney-moe comes in...though I’ve probably got only one use left of it when it comes to situations with 2 items thanks to writing this up...

fractalman Jul 21, 2013, 4:51 AM
−7 points
in reply to: MichaelVassar’s comment on: Counterfactual Mugging
There exist QUANTUM coins, you know. when they see a fork in the road, they take it.

I’d be feeling a little queasy if omega came up to me and said that. maybe I’d say “erm, thanks for not taking advantage of me, then...I guess?”

fractalman Jul 21, 2013, 4:51 AM
−5 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Counterfactual Mugging
um… lets see....

to REALLY evaluate that, we technically need to know how long omega runs the simulation for.

now, we have two options: one, assume omega keeps running the simulation indefinitely. two, assume that omega shuts the simulation down once he has the info he’s looking for (and before he has to worry about debugging the simulation.)

in # 1, what we are left with is p(S)=1/3, p(H)=1/3, p(t)=1/3, which means we’re moving 200$/3 from part of our possibility cloud to gain 10,000$/3 in another part.
In #2, we’re moving a total of ¹⁰⁰⁄₂ $ to gain ¹⁰⁰⁰⁰⁄₂. The 100$ in the simulation is quantum-virtual.

so, unless you have reason to suspect omega is running a LOT of simulations of you, AND not terminating them after a minute or so...(aka, is not inadvertently simulation-mugging you)...

You can generally treat Omega’s simulation capacity as a dashed causality arrow from one universe to another-sortof like the shadow produced by the simulation...

fractalman Jul 21, 2013, 4:48 AM
0 points
in reply to: Nebu’s comment on: Counterfactual Mugging
Quantum Coins. seriously. they’re easy enough to predict if you accept many worlds.
as for the rest… entertainment? Could be a case of “even though I can predict these humans so well, it’s fascinating as to just how many of them two-box no matter how obvious i make it.”
It’s not impossible-we know that we exist, it is not impossible that some race resembling our own figured out a sufficient solution to the lob problem and became a race of omegas...

fractalman Jul 21, 2013, 4:10 AM
−5 points
in reply to: conchis’s comment on: Counterfactual Mugging
I’ll give you the quick and dirty patch for dealing with omega: There is no way to know that, at that moment, you are not inside of his simulation. by giving him the 100$, there is a chance you are tranfering that money from within a simulation-which is about to be terminated-to outside of the simulation, with a nice big multiplier.

fractalman Jul 21, 2013, 4:08 AM
0 points
in reply to: swestrup’s comment on: Counterfactual Mugging
Fine, then interchange “assume omega is honest” with, say, “i’ve played a billiion rounds of one-box two-box with him” …It should be close enough.

fractalman Jul 21, 2013, 4:07 AM
−5 points
in reply to: MBlume’s comment on: Counterfactual Mugging
|Perfect knowledge

use a Quantum coin-it conveniently comes up both.

fractalman Jul 21, 2013, 4:06 AM
0 points
in reply to: bogdanb’s comment on: Counterfactual Mugging
Omega is assumed to be mildly bored and mildly anthropic. And his asking you for 100$ could always be PART of the simulation.

fractalman Jul 20, 2013, 10:38 PM
2 points
in reply to: Velorien’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 24, chapter 95
“become animagus” is a bit more general than “turn into a giant snake”. The original evil-overloard rule is about how turning into a snake lets the hero kill you without losing alignment points, which is why it’s such a bad idea.

that ISN’T what quirrel does. He uses it to slip into harry’s pouch instead and reduce the sense of doom. much smarter than Jafar.

fractalman Jul 20, 2013, 9:48 PM
−1 points
in reply to: CAE_Jones’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 24, chapter 95
it MIGHT be the glint of silver in chapter 1. maybe. :shrugs:

fractalman Jul 19, 2013, 2:36 PM
3 points
in reply to: hairyfigment’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 24, chapter 95
The other thing is, quirrel...is passed out. remember the azkaban fight? it decreased a bit when quirrel passed out.

it is, at best, rather weak evidence for a truly fundamental change in Quirrelmort’s view. enough to tip the scale over the 50% mark? maybe.

fractalman Jul 18, 2013, 12:48 AM
0 points
in reply to: wobster109’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 23, chapter 94
His occlumency is not the issue. In MoR, as best as we can tell, there are perfect Occlumens, but not perfect legillimens.

it’s the other little clues that get left around that may or may not give him away.

fractalman Jul 14, 2013, 8:45 PM
2 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Model Combination and Adjustment
“What does more than one model being correct mean?”

maybe something like string theory? The 5 lesser theories look totally different...and then turn out to tranform into one another when you fiddle with the coupling constant.

fractalman Jul 14, 2013, 8:19 PM
0 points
in reply to: Karl’s comment on: Robust Cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma
hm. I’m still a bit shaky on the definition of modal agent...does the following qualify?

IF(opponentcooperates with me AND I defect is a possible outcome){defect} else{ if (opponent cooperates IFF i cooperate) (cooperate){else defect}

(edit: my comment about perfect unfair bots may have been based on the wrong generalizations from an infinite-case). addendum: if what I’ve got doesn’t qualify as a model agent I’ll shut up until I understand enough to inspect the proof directly.

addendum 2: well. alright then I’ll shut up.

fractalman Jul 14, 2013, 7:08 PM
0 points
in reply to: elharo’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 23, chapter 94
on the first one, according to http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Dementor

After Apparating to Hogsmeade, Harry, Ron, and Hermione set off a Caterwauling Charm and hid under Harry’s Invisibility Cloak. Unable to find them, the Death Eaters dispatched Dementors to attack the trio, and Harry was forced to cast his Patronus to protect them from being Kissed.

My original point about patronuses turned out to be more hair-splitting than anything else...but it also turns out that Rowling’s take on the partronus totally diverges in lesser-cannon.

“Wonderbook: Book of Spells is the closest a Muggle can come to a real spellbook. I’ve loved working with Sony’s creative team to bring my spells, and some of the history behind them, to life. This is an extrodinary device that offers a reading experience like no other.” —J.K. Rowling on Wonderbook: Book of Spells -giving us a source of Rowling-approved info...

In that book, a guy called Raczidian tries to cast a Patronus. He produces, instead, a swarm of maggots....Which turn and eat him up.

MoR “dark-wizards” simply find that the spell fizzles.

fractalman Jul 14, 2013, 6:21 AM
0 points
in reply to: nshepperd’s comment on: Prisoner’s Dilemma (with visible source code) Tournament
There’s two types of mimicbots running around: fixed-rank, and random-reliant.
Which mimicbot are you analyzing?

fractalman Jul 14, 2013, 3:11 AM
3 points
in reply to: elharo’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 23, chapter 94
He has.

Eleizer has: changed the fundamental mechanism for the patronus, made dementors killable with patronus 2.0, edited the magic interactions between Harry and Voldemort to be dangerous to Harry as well as Voldemort, changed how the elder wand works (It’s...maybe a +5 wand under normal use, and is only an “infinity+/-1” wand when fed blood sacrifices), and made Harry’s invisibility cloak work against dementors-Cannon!Dumbledore (or...someone) warns Harry explicitly that invisibility cloaks do not work against dementors.

fractalman Jul 14, 2013, 2:38 AM
0 points
in reply to: Karl’s comment on: Robust Cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma
trollDetector-a fundamental part of psychbot-gets both of these to cooperate.

TrollDetector tests opponents against DefectBot. If opponent defects, it cooperates. if opponent cooperates, TrollDetector defects.

So both UnfairBot and Fairbot cooperate with it, though it doesn’t do so well against itself or DefectBot.

fractalman Jul 13, 2013, 12:59 AM
0 points
in reply to: Said Achmiz’s comment on: Effective Altruism Through Advertising Vegetarianism?
That doesn’t even pass a quick inspection test for”can do something different when handed different parameters” .

The original post looks at least as good as: int calculate_the_conclusion(string premises_acceptedbyreader[]) { int result=0; foreach(mypremise in reader’s premise){result++;} return result. }

-note the “at least”.