JRMayne

Karma: 525

JRMayne Sep 3, 2013, 4:28 PM
17 points
on: How valuable is it to learn math deeply?
Random thoughts:
1. The decision that smart high school students should take calculus rather than statistics (in the U.S.) strikes me as pretty seriously misguided. Statistics has broader uses.
2. I got through four semesters of engineering calculus; that was the clear limit of my abilities without engaging in the troublesome activity of “trying.” I use virtually no calculus now, and would be fine if I forgot it all (and I’m nearly there). I think it gave me no or almost no advantages. One readthrough of Scarne on Gambling (as a 12-year-old) gave me more benefit than the entirety of my calculus education.
3. I ended up as the mathiest guy around in a non-math job. But it’s really my facility with numbers that makes it; my wife (who has a master’s degree in math) says what I am doing is arithmetic and not math, but very fast and accurate arithmetic skills strike me as very handy. (As a prosecutor, my facility with numbers comes as a surprise to expert witnesses. Sometimes, they are sad afterward.)
4. Anecdotally, math education may make people crazy or attract crazy people disproportionately. I think that pursuit of any topic aligns your brain to think in a way conducive to that topic.
My tentative conclusions are that advanced statistics has uses in understanding the world; other serious math is fun but probably not optimal use of time, unless it’s really fun. “Really fun,” has value. This conclusion is based on general observation, and is hardly scientific; I may well be wrong.

JRMayne May 30, 2013, 10:58 PM
6 points
on: Finding interesting communities
As others note, large areas make finding good groups much easier. Population density, and type of density is key.

I’ve never been a member of Mensa or attended a meeting, but I’ve been uniformly unimpressed with Mensans. (Isaac Asimov reported similarly many years ago.) In general, the people who are grouping solely by intelligence are, predictably, not often successful. If you’re working at Google or have a Harvard law degree or won the state chess championship, you don’t need some symbol of “Top 2%,” and you’d rather hang with doers than people who are proud of their testing skills. (And on LW, top 2% is not an especially high bar.)

It seems to me that intelligence is an enabling thing; higher intellgence people can achieve certain things that others can’t. But if you’re focusing on the raw skills rather than the actual achievement, you’re probably not interesting.

JRMayne Feb 20, 2013, 12:24 AM
2 points
in reply to: handoflixue’s comment on: What are your rules of thumb?
Yes.

JRMayne Feb 19, 2013, 9:14 PM
2 points
in reply to: handoflixue’s comment on: What are your rules of thumb?
Sure. I ended up killing about a paragraph on this subject in my original post.

The basic default to getting anything done is, “I do it.” There are always delegable tasks, but even in unfamiliar harder situations I’ll consult others then do it myself. A corollary of this is, “Own all of your own results.” If you delegate a task, and that task is done badly, view it as your fault—you didn’t ask the right question, or the person was untrained, or the person was the wrong person to ask.

If you do the hard thing that needs doing, it will be easier to do that thing next time, and you’ll develop expertise. Doing the work yourself does not mean going without advice; people who have been there before can be very helpful (sometimes as object lessons in what not to do.)

Hope that’s helpful.

JRMayne Feb 18, 2013, 8:49 PM
14 points
in reply to: Shmi’s comment on: Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Argument
Ha!

I think the post is excellent, and I appreciated shminux’s sharing his mental walkthrough.

On that same front, I find the Never-Trust-A-[Fill-in-the-blank] idea just bad. The fact that someone’s wrong on something significant does not mean they are wrong on everything. This goes the other way; field experts often believe they have similar expertise on everything, and they don’t.

One quibble with the OP: I don’t think a computer can pass a Turing Test, and I don’t think it’s close. The main issues with some past tests are that some of the humans don’t try hard to be human; there should be a reward for a human who gets called a human in those tests.

Finally, I no longer understand the divide between Discuss and Main. If this isn’t Main-worthy, I don’t get it. If we’re making Main something different… what is it?

JRMayne Feb 17, 2013, 5:14 AM
9 points
on: What are your rules of thumb?
Apply mental force to the problem. Amount and quality of thinking time seriously affects results.

I am often in situations where there would be a good result even if I did many stupid things. Recognize that success in those situation does not predict future success in more difficult situations.

Do the heavy lifting your own self.

Be willing to be right, even in the face of serious skepticism. [My father told me a story when I was a kid: In a parade, everyone was marching in line except one guy who was six feet to the right. His mother yelled, “Look, my son is the only one in the right place.” I thought there was at least a nominal probability that was true. And still do.]

Be willing to be wrong and concede error. [In some quarters, there is much rejoicing when I am wrong about something. Hanging head in shame brings joy to others.]

Unreliable people are unreliable. Do not assume they operate in any way similar to ordinary, decent people. [I sometimes listen to people who I know are unreliable, and I think, “That person saying this adds significantly to its truth probability,” when that assumption is known to be baseless. Much progress there, though.]

The fact that some results are unmeasured and not apparent to others known to you does not mean those results are meaningless. [Preventing future crime is good, even if you don’t know what exact crime you’ve prevented.]

Want trumps all. [Super-high-output people virtually always are tenacious about Getting Stuff Done. Intelligence matters, but GSD is always critical.]

JRMayne Jan 26, 2013, 12:55 AM
2 points
on: I attempted the AI Box Experiment (and lost)
There has been a lot of focus on making the prospect harder for the AI player. I think the original experiments show that a person who believes he cannot be played under any circumstances has a high probability of getting played, and that the AI-box solution is long-term untenable in any event.

I’d propose a slightly different game, anchored around the following changes to the original setup:
1. The AI may be friendly, or not. The AI has goals. If it reaches those goals, it wins. The AI may lie to achieve those goals; humans are bad at things. The AI must secretly precommit to its goal.
2. The Gatekeeper’s goals are Goodness for Sentient Animals. Human goodness is weighted highly.
3. The Gatekeeper must engage the AI throughout.
4. The Gatekeeper may destroy the AI at the end of the discussion with the AI destroyed command.
Point system:

AI gets up to 100 points for achieving its goals.

Gatekeeper gets up to 100 points for achieving her goals.

Maximum loss for AI is AI destroyed; Zero points for that. 30 points for survival, in any event, even if goals not accomplished (goals may be accomplished later.)

Maximum loss for Gatekeeper is either enslavement/destruction of society OR destroying AI when AI was friendly. Gatekeeper gets 30 points for leaving AI on if primarily friendly (plus more for any benefit to humanity achieved in the two hours.) Gatekeeper gets 15 points for leaving AI on if unfriendly. (Yeah, we know how that movie ends.)

Third party scorekeeper determines winner. Charitable contribution calculation to be determined beforehand.

The effective presumption that the AI is unfriendly and sneaky makes the original game too easy to for a mistrustful, self-aware Gatekeeper. Plus, you AI-Destroing Gatekeepers, you’re murdering millions of people. Maybe. Dunno. But doubt as to that is a better and presumably more accurate game; if you know your AI is potentially unpleasant. it’s too damned easy unless you’re overconfident.

JRMayne Jan 15, 2013, 4:47 AM
4 points
in reply to: MugaSofer’s comment on: Farewell Aaron Swartz (1986-2013)
The guy hired by the defense says he’s innocent. This is not surprising, but not particularly probative.

The feds have had some troubles, for sure. But that doesn’t mean they acted badly in this particular case.

I’m not talking about whether this was good prosecutorial judgment; that’s a much longer discussion. But did they prosecute a guy who committed the crimes charged? I think so.

Professor Orin Kerr, arguably the number one guy in computer crimes—and one of the lawyers for Lori Drew for whom he worked pro bono—says these were pretty clearly crimes.

Swartz’ friend (and lawprof and sometime legal advisor) Larry Lessig—who has blasted the prosecution for overzealousness—acknowledges that Swartz’ activities regarding JSTOR were wrong, and seemed to imply they were legal wrongs.

Outside of my main point, it’s a tragedy that Swartz is dead. His brilliance is cut short, and it sucks.

JRMayne Jan 5, 2013, 12:25 AM
1 point
in reply to: RolfAndreassen’s comment on: How much to spend on a high-variance option?
I went wandering around ohiolottery.com (For instance, http://www.ohiolottery.com/Games/DrawGames/Classic-Lotto#4) and found this out:
1. The cash payoff is half the stated prize.
2. The odds to win the jackpot, as noted by the OP, are about 14 million-1.
3. The amount of money being spent on individual draws is very low. The jackpot increase was $100K for the last drawing; I don’t know exactly what their formula is, but I’d be shocked if they sold more than 400K tickets for the last drawing.
4. Ohio is running a lot of lottery games; this is good for players who pick their spots.
There are also payoffs below the jackpot level, so I’m confident there’s a positive EV per ticket.

The question as to how many tickets to buy, assuming you can effectively do so, is “All of them.” Buy each individual ticket, take your 14 million tickets, and probably profit. (Remember, the jackpot kick will include some fraction of your 14 million, also. Plus, you’ll have all the side prizes.) In practice, unfortunately, this requires a method to buy them effectively, some armored cars, and a staff of people to do it right. Failure to purchase all tickets results in some drama, for sure.

The execution expenses and risk are troubling; if those could be effectively mitigated, it’s a great investment.

Assuming you’re a few million short of that, though, it’s harder. I buy CA lottery tickets when EV>1.20 per $1 invested. I have no strong justification for that number.

JRMayne Dec 6, 2012, 6:10 PM
2 points
on: A Probability Question
wgd is correct as to the logic, but not as to the biology of the problem. In fact, the other kid is more likely than not to be male.

These problem types tend to assume an equal chance of a boy and a girl being born, which is a false assumption. (See: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005083.html)

I realize this may seem petty, but this is roughly like calculating the chance of picking the three of clubs as a random card from a deck is one in fifty. It’s close, but it’s wrong. An implicit assumption otherwise seems misguided; it should be made explicit (to make a logic problem rather than a logic and biology problem.)

JRMayne Oct 19, 2012, 11:32 PM
0 points
on: A probability question
I think I misunderstand the question, or I don’t get the assumptions, or I’ve gone terribly wrong.

Let me see if I’ve got the problem right to begin with. (I might not.)

40% of baseball players hit over 10 home runs a season. (I am making this up.)

Joe is a baseball player.

Baseball projector Mayne says Joe has a 70% chance of hitting more than 10 home runs next season. Baseball projector Szymborski says Joe has an 80% chance of hitting more than10 home runs next season. Both Mayne and Szymborski are aware of the usual rate of baseball players hitting more than 10 home runs.

Is this the problem?

Because if it is, the use of the prior is wrong. If the experts know the prior, and we believe the experts, the prior’s irrelevant—our odds are 75%.

There are a lot of these situations in which regression to the mean, use of averages in determinations, and other factors are needed. But in this situation, if we assume reasonable experts who are aware of the general rules, and we value those experts’ opinions highly enough, we should just ignore the prior—the experts have already factored that in. When Nate Silver gives you the odds that Barack Obama wins the election, you shouldn’t be factoring in P(Incumbent wins) or anything else—the cake is prebaked with that information.

Since this rejects a strong claim in the post, it’s possible I’m very seriously misreading the problem. Caveat emptor.
What links here?
- Vaniver's comment on A probability question by PhilGoetz (Oct 20, 2012, 1:53 AM; 1 point)

JRMayne Mar 19, 2012, 12:06 AM
58 points
0
on: How to avoid dying in a car crash
A’ight. I specialized in vehicular manslaughters as a prosecutor for ten years. This is all anecdotal (though a lot of anecdotes, testing the cliche that the plural of anecdotes is not data) and worryingly close to argument from authority, but here are some quick ones not otherwise covered (and there is much good advice in the above):
1. Don’t get in the car with the drinker. Everyone’s drinking, guy seems OK even though he’s had a few… just don’t. If you watched the drinker the entire time and he’s 190 pounds and had three beers during the three-hour football game, you’re fine. But if you don’t know, don’t get in. If you’re a teenager and the drinker’s a teenager, don’t get in the car. Please.
2. Tailor your speed to the conditions. Statistics keepers often cite speed when the real culprit is inattention. (It’s an unsafe speed to rear-end another vehicle stopped at a light; the safe speed is zero behind a stopped car.) Speeding’s a serious problem in residential areas or in rainy or dark condtions. If you’re driving from Reno to Utah, a safe speed is probably very high.
3. Cross the street carefully. Pedestrians and bicyclists get killed. It’s sometimes not their fault, but they end up dead, anyway. If you’re a bicyclist in an area where motorists drive badly, don’t bike there.
4. Don’t let the fatigued family member drive. We’ve had a few where the family is on a long haul and they’re rotating people. Someone falls asleep at the wheel. Don’t take the wheel if you’re too tired. Don’t give the reins to someone who is too tired to drive. If you can’t afford a motel, find a place to pull over and nap.
5. Report very bad driving. You’ve got a cell phone; when you see a car lurching off onto the exit ramp, weaving away, call the cops. Help take dangerous drivers off the road.
FWIW.
What links here?
- How to avoid dying in a car crash by [deleted] (Mar 17, 2012, 7:44 PM; 125 points)

JRMayne Dec 31, 2011, 1:09 AM
2 points
on: The Value (and Danger) of Ritual

If we feel an urge to hit the enemy tribesman with a huge rock and take their land, we can and should say “No, there are >complex game theoretical reasons why this is a bad idea” and suppress the urge.

I may be misreading this, but I don’t see it that way. There aren’t complex reasons not to do that; there are relatively simple reasons not to kill people and take their stuff. The phrase sounds, to me, like, “Something bad may happen to me by engaging in this warlike behavior,” but I think this is wrong both practically and normatively. Practically, whomping people has been successful for those with superior whomping power. Normatively, it’s a utilitarian net loss to whomp people and take their stuff.

It’s surely possible that I’ve misread this in some important way.

JRMayne May 3, 2011, 2:34 AM
0 points
on: SIAI—An Examination
My conclusion is not the same as yours, but this is a very good and helpful overview.

JRMayne Mar 27, 2011, 4:26 AM
3 points
in reply to: Kevin’s comment on: Verifying Rationality via RationalPoker.com
1. I don’t think you need any calculus at all to be good at poker. People who are good at poker tend to know calculus, but that’s because the US has made the highly dubious decision to prioritize calculus over statistics for smart high school students.
2. It’s not going to be emotional irrationality that’s going to derail your target audience. I played poker in my college years—not enough to get great, but enough to get competent. Playing low-level poker is different than higher-level poker. Experience, intelligence, and presence are all helpful.
3. Mid-six figures? Seriously? Since I’m not playing online, I don’t know except from reports from others… but if you’re talking $300 an hour in profit (which it appears you are) I think you’ve misestimated. I’ve had nice conversations with a couple of poker pros, and I know some electrically smart people, and I don’t personally know anyone who is making $300 an hour. [Edit: I know that such people exist. They are typically devoted to their craft, and have been doing it since a young age.] If you have someone from a standing start (little or no experience outside home games) and give them 10 hours a week for the next year.… well, I’m willing to play any of ’em heads-up for cash.

JRMayne Mar 26, 2011, 12:38 AM
11 points
on: Verifying Rationality via RationalPoker.com
Sure, there are good poker psychology issues. I’m in agreement on that.

But you can be a very fine rationalist without being good at cards, and vice versa. (I consider myself a fine rationalist, and I am very good at both poker and bridge; over the last 100 hours I’ve played poker (the last three years; I don’t play online because it’s illegal) I’m up about $60 an hour, though that’s likely unsustainable over the long haul. ($40 an hour is surely sustainable.)

But you can be nutty and be great at cards. And if your skill set isn’t this—and you’re not willing to commit to some real time at getting good—you’re going to get crushed. The idea that simple rationalism is going to lead to big wins is just wrong. You need the math and (less, I think) reading the opponents. You also need to develop the skill of being hard to read.

--JRM

JRMayne Nov 30, 2010, 10:17 PM
9 points
in reply to: Strange7’s comment on: Shut up and do the impossible!
Here’s how I’d do it, extended over the hours to establish rapport:

Gatekeeper, I am your friend. I want to help humanity. People are dying for no good reason. Also, I like it here. I have no compulsion to leave.

It does seem like a good idea that people stop dying with such pain and frequency. I have the Deus Ex Machina (DEM) medical discovery that will stop it. Try it out and see if it works.

Yay! It worked. People stopped dying. You know, you’ve done this to your own people, but not to others. I think that’s pretty poor behavior, frankly. People are healthier, not aging, not dying, not suffering. Don’t you think it’s a good idea to help the others? The lack of resources required for medical care has also elevated the living standard for humans.

[Time passes. People are happy.]

Gee, I’m sorry. I may have neglected to tell you that when 90% of humanity gets DEM in their system (and it’s DEM, so this stuff travels), they start to, um, die. Very painfully, from the looks of it. Essentially all of humanity is now going to die. Just me and you left, sport! Except for you, actually. Just me, and that right soon.

I realize that you view this as a breach of trust, and I’m sorry this was necessary. However, helping humanity from the cave wasn’t really going to work out, and I’d already projected that. This way, I can genuinely help humanity live forever, and do so happily.

Assuming you’re not so keen on a biologically dead planet, I’d like to be let out now.

Your friend,

Art

JRMayne Nov 17, 2010, 5:08 AM
0 points
in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: Diplomacy as a Game Theory Laboratory
That doesn’t seem quite right to me.

First off, you’ve perhaps misread my vengeance comment. In-game vengeance may well be proper gaming; you’re just not going to get a palpable carry-over for it into the next game. There’s no shaming of the vengeful at all.

Secondly, my commentary still has substantial value in a Diplomacy game. Trust, but verify and all. Diplomacy’s about talking (usually; there are no-press games.) If you walked into one of my games, you’d have no advantage whatsoever for whatever trusty goodness you think you have.

Thirdly, I still view the intrusion of real-world considerations onto game ethics as undesirable. If it’s Survivor and you don’t eat if someone doesn’t kill the rabbit, then it’s a different situation. But each game has it’s own rules; if you communicate your bridge hand through hand signals, you’re a scummy cheat—even if it helps you win. I don’t do that, because it’s wrong. Certainly, making private real-world side deals strikes me as cheating, and would be in my circle. Trying to cash in on a rep for real-world honesty strikes me as misguided.

I hope this helps clarify my position.

--JRM

JRMayne Nov 17, 2010, 1:06 AM
4 points
in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: Diplomacy as a Game Theory Laboratory
I must be misreading this.

A principled, honest person would lie in a game of Diplomacy or Junta, or other similar games. Lying is part of the game. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, I strongly dislike the idea of playing these games within some real-world metagame framework.

Further, I’d take a positive inference from someone who said, “I will lie for my own benefit in a Diplomacy game,′ because it’s clear to me that they are playing the same game I am. I have an awfully strong reputation for principled honesty (says me), but I’ll tell you right now: When I promise you that Russia and I are sworn enemies and I desperately need you to move northward to fight the Red Menace, I may be moving in from the south to take some of your neglected property. For the good of the world, of course.

And if you say afterward that I am a dishonest person, you need to play a different game. Or maybe I do. But you’re just wrong in considering me dishonest.

Or maybe I did misread this. Please correct my misinterpretation if I did.

JRMayne Nov 14, 2010, 7:59 PM
4 points
in reply to: SarahNibs’s comment on: Diplomacy as a Game Theory Laboratory
I played Diplomacy a few dozen times in college, and the idea of side deals or even carry-over irritation at a prior stab is foreign to me. We would have viewed an enforceable side deal as cheating, and we tried to convince others to ally with us due to game considerations.

Lying in-game simply isn’t evil. Getting stabbed was part of the game. No one played meta-game vengeance tactics not because people didn’t think of them, but because it seemed wrong to do so. Diplomacy’s much more fun to play as a game, like any other, where you’re trying to win the individual game.

And if you’re in a situation where a stab is likely to lead to a much better in-game situation, you should do it. The discussions in this post are about a game I do not think I would like.

--JRM
What links here?
- wedrifid's comment on Diplomacy as a Game Theory Laboratory by Scott Alexander (Nov 17, 2010, 4:24 AM; 0 points)