kilobug

Karma: 3,399

kilobug Jun 4, 2015, 8:43 AM
1 point
on: Perceptual Entropy and Frozen Estimates
A little nitpicking about the “2 dice” thing : usually when you throw you two dices, it doesn’t matter which dice gives which result. Sure you could use colored dices and have the “blue 2, red 3“ be different than “blue 3, red 2”, but that’s very rarely the case. Usually you do the sum (or look for patterns like doubles) but “2, 3” and “3, 2” are equivalent, and in that case the entropy isn’t the double, but lower.

What you wrote is technically right—but goes against the common usage of dices, so it would be worth adding a footnote or precision about that, IMHO.

kilobug May 26, 2015, 8:18 AM
8 points
0
on: Less Wrong lacks direction
I’m not really sure the issue is about “direction”, but more about people who have enough time and ideas to write awesome (or at least, interesting) posts like the Sequences (the initial ones by Eliezer or the additional ones by various contributors).

What I would like to see are sequences of posts that build on each other, starting from the basics and going to deep things (a bit like Sequences). It could be collective work (and then need a “direction”), but it could also be the work of a single person.

As for myself, I did write a few posts (a few in main and a few in discussions) but if I didn’t write recently is mostly because of three issues :
1. Lack of time, like I guess many of us.
2. The feeling of not being “good enough”, that’s the problem with a community of “smart” people like LW, with high quality base content (the Sequences), it’s a bit intimidating.
3. The “taboo” subjects (like politics) which I do understand and respect, but they limit what I could write about.
There are a few things I would like to write about, but either I feel I lack the skill/knowledge to do it at LW level (point 2) or they border too much the “taboo” subjects (point 3).

kilobug Apr 22, 2015, 9:07 AM
3 points
in reply to: Vaniver’s comment on: Astronomy, space exploration and the Great Filter
I don’t see why it’s likely one of the numbers has to be big. There are really are lots of complicated steps you need to cross to go from inert matter to space-faring civilizations, it’s very easy to point a dozen of such steps that could fail in various ways or just take too long, and there many disasters that can happen to blow everything down.

If you’ve a long ridge to climb in a limited time and most people fail to do it, it’s not very likely there is a very specific part of it which is very hard, but (unless you’ve actual data that most people fail at the same place) more likely that are lots of moderately difficult parts and few people succeed in all of them in time.

Or if you’ve a complicated project that takes 4x longer than expected to be done, it’s much less likely that there was a single big difficulty you didn’t foresee than many small-to-moderate difficulties you didn’t foresee stacking on top of each other. The planning fallacy isn’t usually due to black swans, but to accumulating smaller factors. It’s the same here.

kilobug Apr 20, 2015, 11:35 AM
7 points
on: Astronomy, space exploration and the Great Filter
There is a thing which really upsets me with the “Great Filter” idea/terminology, is that implies that it’s a single event (which is either in the past or the future).

My view on the “Fermi paradox” is not that there is a single filter, cutting ~10 orders of magnitude (ie, from 10 billions of planets in our galaxy with could have a life to just one), but more a combination of many small filters, each taking their cuts.

To have intelligent space-faring life, we need a lot of things to happen without any disaster (nearby supernova, too big asteroid, …) disrupting it too much. It’s more a like a “game of the goose”, where the optimization process steadily advance but events will either accelerate it or make it go backwards, and you need to reach the “win” cell before time runs out (ie, your star becoming too hot as the Sun will be in less than a billion of years) or reaching a ’”you lose” cell (a nearby supernova blasting away your atmosphere, or a thermonuclear warfare).

I don’t see any reason to believe there is a single “Great Filter”, instead of a much more continuous process with many intermediate filters you have to pass through.

kilobug Apr 7, 2015, 8:46 AM
1 point
on: Desire is the direction, rationality is the magnitude
Nicely put for an introduction, but of course things are in reality not as clear-cut, “rationality” changing the direction and “desire” the magnitude.
1. Rationality can make you realize some contradictions between your desires, and force you to change them. It can also make you realize that what you truly desire isn’t what you thought you desired. Or it can make you desire whole new things, that you didn’t believe to be possible initially.
2. Desire will affect the magnitude because it’ll affect how much effort you put in your endeavor. With things like akrasia and procastination around, if you don’t have strong desire to do something, you are much likely to do it, especially if there is an initial cost. That’s what Eliezer calls “something to protect”.
Of course those two are mostly positive feedback between rationality and desire, but there also be can negative feedbacks between the two, usually due to human imperfections.

kilobug Mar 20, 2015, 2:33 PM
2 points
on: Calibration Test with database of 150,000+ questions
Interesting idea, thanks for doing it, but saddly many questions are very US-centric. It would be nice to have some “tags” on the questions, and let the users select which kind of questions he wants (for example the non-US people could remove the US-specific ones).

kilobug Mar 16, 2015, 9:00 PM
0 points
in reply to: lwmdw45’s comment on: [FINAL CHAPTER] Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 122
Yes, it is a bit suspicious—but then Azkaban and Dementors are so terrible that it’s worth the risk, IMHO.

And I don’t think Harry is counting just on the Horcrux, I think he’s counting on Horcrux as last failback, counting on the unicorn blood and the “she knows death can be defeated because she did went back from death”, and maybe even Hermione calling a Phoenix.

kilobug Mar 15, 2015, 11:20 PM
9 points
on: [FINAL CHAPTER] Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 122
The chapter 122 in itself was good, I liked it, but I feel a bit disappointed that it’s the end of the whole hpmor.

Not to be unfairly critical, it’s still a very great story and many thanks to Eliezer for writing it, but… there are way too many remaining unanswered questions, unfinished business, … to be the complete end. It feels more like “end of season 1, see season 2 for the next” than “and now it’s over”.

First, I would really have liked a “something to protect” about Harry’s parents.

But mostly, there are lots of unanswered questions : how does magic work ? What destroyed Atlantis ? Where do the Deadly Hallows and the Stone come from ? What is the thing threatening to destroy the world ? What exactly are the effects of all the transformations on Hermione ?

And many plots arcs not finished : will Hermione managed to destroy the dementors, and with which consequences ? How will the political landscape reshape, but in UK and worldwide ? How will Harry manage to find a safe way to save the muggles too ? How will Hogwarts evolved ? How will Harry manage the Elder Wand ?

kilobug Mar 15, 2015, 11:21 AM
2 points
in reply to: somervta’s comment on: [FINAL CHAPTER] Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 122
I don’t really see the point in antimatter suiciding. It’ll not kill Voldermort due to the Horcrux network, so it’ll just kill the Death Eaters but letting Voldemort in power, and Voldemort would be so pissed of he would do the worst he can to Harry’s family and friends… how is that any better than letting Voldemort kill Harry and manage to save a couple of people by telling him a few secrets ?

kilobug Mar 10, 2015, 10:59 PM
2 points
in reply to: wobster109’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 119
If I remember well, it’s not just “person”, but information. I can’t use a Time Turner to go 6 hours back to the past, give a piece of paper to someone (or an information to that person), and have that person goes back for 6 more hours.

So while it is an interesting hypothesis, it would require no information to be carried… and isn’t the fact that the Stone still exists and works an information in itself ? Or that’s nitpicking ?

kilobug Mar 10, 2015, 9:50 PM
11 points
in reply to: falenas108’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 119
There seem to be much more changes, even that is probably the most important one.

Time Turners don’t work the same (in canon, there is no hard limit on 6 hours, it just becomes exponentially dangerous if you try that), the Sirius Black/Pettigrew thing doesn’t turn out the same at all, the Free Transfiguration stuff doesn’t seem to work the same, …

And as others mentioned, Voldemort is much more competent.

kilobug Mar 10, 2015, 7:46 PM
20 points
on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 119
Hum, did Harry suddenly forget about Time-Turners ? Or is he afraid what will happen if people “abuses” from them with the Stone ?

The Stone takes 234 seconds. That’s ⁸⁶⁴⁰⁰⁄₂₃₄ = 369 people/day if you have “normal” 24 hours a day. But if you have 30 hours a day, as you do with a Time-Turner, it’s actually 461 people you can heal each day.

kilobug Mar 10, 2015, 9:10 AM
4 points
in reply to: CellBioGuy’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 118
Some usage of the Imperius curse seems most likely to me. Or a Death Eaters using polyjuice. There are so many ways for LV to manage such things that it doesn’t really matter how exactly he did it. ;)

kilobug Mar 9, 2015, 1:46 PM
2 points
in reply to: DanArmak’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 117

Then we should assign lower value to people the older they get. Yet it’s typically considered worse to murder a very old person than a young adult. Do you disagree?

Personally I don’t consider it really worse. In society in general, the murder of an eldery is usually considered worse because the eldery is weaker, but the accidental or “natural” (ie, disease) death of an eldery is considered much less bad than the same death of a young adult.

Everyone is equally unable to defend themselves against a gun, or a Death Eater with a wand. This may be relevant when you’re talking about hitting someone, but not for murder.

It is not relevant for the murder itself, but it is relevant overall when considering how society protects people. Large-scale effects are often delt with broad heuristics (like deontology and virtues), and children being defenseless means a deontological injunction “doing harm to children is very very bad” being justified, and that injunction will apply to murder too, even if it’s less justified there. Trying to exclude murder from the injunction will weaken it, make it much less of Schelling point, so overall I don’t think it’s something society should do.

kilobug Mar 9, 2015, 10:27 AM
0 points
in reply to: DanArmak’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 117
I see several reasons for that, which fall broadly in two different categories (different meaning of “why”).

The first set of reasons is grounded into evolutionary psychology, “why” being taken in “why people happen to do it, whatever it’s right or wrong”. From the genes pov, your children are your greatest asset, since what matters is not having children, but having children who reach adulthood. There has been some evidence that the value we unconsciously assign to children growth with their age (with the resources we spent ensuring they grow healthy) until they reach puberty, that’s consistent with that explanation.

The other set of reasons answer to “why should we consider killing children to be worse ?” and to that I’ve several answers :
- children have a higher remaining life expectancy, so killing a 10 years old mean destroying 70 years of life expectancy, while killing a 50 years old mean destroying 30 years (well, not exactly, but not far) ;
- children didn’t have as much time to enjoy life, so killing a child is unfair (some people do value fairness as a terminal value, and I’m among them) - everything else being equal, if you’ve two people and together they can live 60 years, it’s better to have 30 years each than one living 50 years and the other 10 years ;
- children are more vulnerable and less able to defend themselves, and therefore deserve more protection from society ;
- many people consider (and I think it holds true to a point, even if I’m not sure how much) that childhood is a part of life that is more full of joy and wonder than adulthood, so depriving someone of his childhood does more harm than depriving someone of the same amount of adult life years ;
- children are more psychologically vulnerable and less able to deal with their fear/pain, it’s very rare to kill someone suddenly without any pain, so the fear/pain that precedes death is actually worse for a child.

kilobug Mar 9, 2015, 10:10 AM
3 points
in reply to: ourimaler’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 117
Well, since they did accept that “Voldemort tried to cast AK on a child, boom big explosion”, and they do suspect that Harry’s scar is indeed connected to Voldemort, I don’t see any reason for them to distrust Harry’s account of the events, especially since they mostly match what they found there.

As for keeping secrets, not speaking about “the sense of doom” and the Azkaban issue to the Order did harm, but keeping secret about partial transfiguration and his ability to transfigure carbon nanotubes allowed him to save the day, so I wouldn’t say “keeping secrets has NOT worked well” in general.

If I were Harry, I would probably wait a bit until the emotional chaos (both inside Harry and inside McGonagall) lowers a bit before telling them “hrm, you know, I’m the one who killed the Death Eaters”. If I were to even speak about it at all.

kilobug Mar 9, 2015, 8:38 AM
3 points
in reply to: MarkusRamikin’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 117

Or do you see no difference between murdering innocent people and killing Aurors, and killing the murderers themselves to stop them from going on another spree?

You’re confusing two things, the direct and indirect consequences. The death of “innocent people” (who is truly “innocent” anyway, who defines what “innocent” is, and aren’t the kids of death eaters “innocent” and yet themselves victims too ?) and the death of murderers are, in themselves, terrible. The direct consequence of killing is something very, very bad in both cases.

The indirect consequences are more complicated. Killing murderers when it’s the only solution you have (ie, you can’t incapacitate them) to prevent them from killing again is acceptable, not because killing murders in itself is good, but because it saves more lives.

But the indirect consequences unfold in many different ways, that you can’t always fully apprehend. That’s why there are deontological rules like “killing innocents is worse than killing murders”. It’s not inherently true, it doesn’t mean the life of a “murder” has no value, it just means that the broad, general consequences for society as a whole if people are allowed to kill “murders” when they feel cornered tend to be less bad than allowing them to kill “innocent” when they feel cornered.

But it’s not even that simple. Was Dumbledore right to kill Narcissa (if he did) to stop the Death Eaters from targeting family of the Order ? Narcissa was “innocent”. And yet, in the specific situation, while the direct consequences of killing her are horrible, the indirect consequences (protecting family of the Order) are positive. But that long-term reasoning doesn’t make the death of Narcissa, and the pain of Draco, any less horrible.

And that’s why Harry was right to kill the Death Eaters, because the alternative would have lead to much more death. But that doesn’t mean the death of the 36 people, including the father of one of his best friends, isn’t a very tragic event.

kilobug Mar 8, 2015, 10:21 PM
16 points
in reply to: dxu’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 117
I don’t think Harry really could preserve the Death Eaters’ heads. Remember, he was out of magic, totally drained after the “Obliviate”. And he had to take of Voldemort first, to not take any chance of letting him escape. So even while Harry is good at “doing the impossible”, there is a limit to how much “impossible” he can do a limited time.

kilobug Mar 8, 2015, 10:11 PM
6 points
in reply to: Shmi’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 117
Killing people is horrible. It’s why DE are “bad people”, because they kill. You can’t claim DE to be bad people, and yet rejoice at their death.

Yes, killing DE has Harry did it was a required evil—letting Voldemort win would have let to much, much more suffering. But that doesn’t change that killing the DE was sad. They were people, and in their own eyes, they weren’t evil. And some of them, like Malfoy, was a loving father, paying political cost to help his son feel better.

And the children of the Death Eaters are just kids. Draco may initially dreamed about raping and killing people, he doesn’t know better, but he did help Hermione, too. And his pain at losing his father is as real any other child pain at losing his father—something no 11 years old should ever have to go through.

Denying humanity to people, considering they are better dead than alive, that their death isn’t any sad, is exactly what Death Eaters did wrong. Harry, Dumbledore, Hermione, McGonagall know better than the eternal loop of hatred, they know that “an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind”, and that a tragedy never undo another tragedy.

Yes, you can kill Death Eaters when they actually threaten you and you need to do it to prevent Voldemort from ruling the world—but that doesn’t mean killing Death Eaters isn’t sad, or that you should rejoice when a 11 years old kid suddenly loses his loving father.

kilobug Mar 8, 2015, 10:01 PM
4 points
in reply to: ’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 117
I don’t think “were evil” is actually a secret, most Death Eaters are known—they plead being under the Imperius or otherwise forced to join, but I don’t think there is much doubt for who was on which side of the war.

As for telling them publically, it’s true it’s not the best way to break the news, but I fear attempts to tell them in private could have been ever worse—with rumors propagating in the school, the fact you can’t tell them all at once and have to take turns and everyone will see something is going on.

In the current situation, it seems an acceptable way of doing it.

Edit : forgot to refer to the “Voldemort—tried to revive—he summoned Death Eaters and he killed them, stole their blood and life” line of Harry, which is why rumors and doubts were likely already in full motion, justifying a clear public announcement as soon as possible.