juked07

• juked07 3 Jan 2015 6:05 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Luke_A_Somers’s comment on: Dark Arts 101: Be rigor­ous, on average

  I think lines 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 are related to the argument but 3 and 7 are the “crux” of it. I mostly meant that there is a great deal of fluff surrounding the “core argument”, eg the other 5 articles in the zombie subsequence.

• juked07 2 Jan 2015 2:05 UTC

  0 points

  on: Dark Arts 101: Be rigor­ous, on average

  This happens in the zombie sequence where the crux of the argument is largely 2 lines in http://​​lesswrong.com/​​lw/​​p8/​​zombie_responses/​​

  “3. Intuitively, it sure seems like my inward awareness is causing my internal narrative to say certain things, and that my internal narrative can cause my lips to say certain things. [...]

  1. (3) seems to me to have a rather high probability of being empirically true. Therefore I evaluate a high empirical probability that the zombie world is logically impossible.”

• juked07 4 Dec 2014 10:37 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: juked07’s comment on: A hy­po­thet­i­cal ques­tion for in­vestors

  Even then I think we can make some assumptions though. If you have no prior about the pdf of pdfs, a reasonable best best guess is the pdfs you have seen already.

• juked07 4 Dec 2014 8:46 UTC

  0 points

  on: A hy­po­thet­i­cal ques­tion for in­vestors

  Even after determining your wealth, your utility function has to take whether-you-are-currently-holding-stocks as an input, because it affects the probability that you incur a transaction cost in future time steps. I think this piece cannot be evaluated without supposing some pdf of future pdfs. I think this is why people are saying the problem is “underspecified”.

• juked07 12 Nov 2014 10:19 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: kilobug’s comment on: A Cost- Benefit Anal­y­sis of Im­mu­niz­ing Healthy Adults Against Influenza

  Agree with kilobug. eric3′s numbers seem way off.

• juked07 23 Oct 2014 1:11 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Stuart_Armstrong’s comment on: An­thropic sig­na­ture: strange anti-correlations

  Then maybe “Imagine that civilization would definitely be destroyed iff there was a...”?

  The rest of the post still reads to me as if pandemic + recession is sufficient, not just necessary, for implying extinction. To be explicit, it sounds like you have ruled out the possibility of observing pandemic + recession + non-extinction, I would have thought you’d want to say that pandemic + recession = extinction, rather than the weaker statement that extinction requires pandemic + recession.

• juked07 22 Oct 2014 10:12 UTC

  0 points

  on: An­thropic sig­na­ture: strange anti-correlations

  Should the first blurb begin “Imagine that civilization would definitely be destroyed by” instead of “Imagine that the only way that civilization could be destroyed was by”? That’s what it seems like to me based on the second blurb.

• juked07 19 Sep 2014 9:50 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: blacktrance’s comment on: Un­pop­u­lar ideas at­tract poor ad­vo­cates: Be charitable

  Atheism is your example of an unpopular idea..?

• juked07 11 Sep 2014 9:33 UTC

  5 points

  in reply to: private_messaging’s comment on: The Oc­to­pus, the Dolphin and Us: a Great Filter tale

  This strikes me as very human centric. Why should another species’ hypothetical ascension look so much like the one we happened to observe in humans?