Eliezer Yudkowsky painted “The Scream” with paperclips:
roland
Karma: 513
Does a predictable punchline have high or low entropy?
From False Laughter
You might say that a predictable punchline is too high-entropy to be funny
Since entropy is a measure of uncertainty a predictable punchline should be low entropy, no?
Regarding laughter:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NbbK6YKTpQR7u7D6u/false-laughter?commentId=PszRxYtanh5comMYS
You might say that a predictable punchline is too high-entropy to be funny
Since entropy is a measure of uncertainty a predictable punchline should be low entropy, no?
You might say that a predictable punchline is too high-entropy
I’m confused. Entropy is the average level of surprise inherent in the possible outcomes, a predictable punchline is an event of low surprise. Where does the high-entropy come from?
For the most point, admitting to having done Y is strong evidence that the person did do Y so I’m not sure if it can generally be considered a bias.
Not generally but I notice that the argument I cited is usually invoked when there is a dispute, e.g.:
Alice: “I have strong doubts about whether X really did Y because of...”
Bob: “But X already admitted to Y, what more could you want?”
What is the name of the following bias:
X admits to having done Y, therefore it must have been him.
if I am seeing a bomb in Left it must mean I’m in the 1 in a trillion trillion situation where the predictor made a mistake, therefore I should (intuitively) take Right. UDT also says I should take Right so there’s no problem here.
It is more probable that you are misinformed about the predictor. But your conclusion is correct, take the right box.
It’s pretty uncharitable of you to just accuse CfAR of lying like that!
I wasn’t, I rather suspect them of being biased.
As the same time I accept the idea of intellectual property being protected even if that’s not the case they are claiming.
I suspect that this is the real reason. Although if the much vaster sequences by Yudkowsky are freely available I don’t see it as a good justification for not making the CFAR handbook available.
Is the CFAR handbook publicly available? If yes, link please. If not, why not? It would be a great resource for those who can’t attend the workshops.
Is the CFAR handbook publicly available? If yes, link please. If not why not? It would be a great resource for those who can’t attend the workshops.
What is the conclusion of the polyphasic sleep study?
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QvZ6w64JugewNiccS/polyphasic-sleep-seed-study-reprise
Just a reminder, the Solomonoff induction dialogue is still missing:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/muKEBrHhETwN6vp8J/arbital-scrape#tKgeneD2ZFZZxskEv
Seconded, that part is missing. Thanks for pointing out that very interesting dialogue.
Can asking for advice be bad? From Eliezer’s post Final Words:
You may take advice you should not take.
I understand that this means to just ask for advice, not necessarily follow it. Why can this be a bad thing? For a true Bayesian, information would never have negative expected utility. But humans aren’t perfect Bayes-wielders; if we’re not careful, we can cut ourselves. How can we cut ourselves in this case? I suppose you could have made up your mind to follow a course of action that happens to be correct and then ask someone for advice and the someone will change your mind.
Is there more to it? Please reply at the original post: Final Words.
You may take advice you should not take.
I understand that this means to just ask for advice, not necessarily follow it. Why can this be a bad thing?
For a true Bayesian, information would never have negative expected utility. But humans aren’t perfect Bayes-wielders; if we’re not careful, we can cut ourselves. How can we cut ourselves in this case? I suppose you could have made up your mind to follow a course of action that happens to be correct and then ask someone for advice and the someone will change your mind.\
Lets say you already have lots of evidence for one hypothesis so asking someone is unlikely to change your mind. Yet if you are underconfident you might still be tempted to ask and if someone gives you contradictory advice you as a human will still feel the uncertainty and doubt inside you. This will just be a wasted motion.
Is there more to it?
There were Indians fighting along with Germans:
From: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bfbiyTogEKWEGP96S/fake-justification
In The Bottom Line, I observed that only the real determinants of our beliefs can ever influence our real-world accuracy, only the real determinants of our actions can influence our effectiveness in achieving our goals.
Is it ok to omit facts to you lawyer? I mean is the lawyer entitled to know everything about the client?