Cool, sounds like we are converging.
I would be interested in seeing a RPS competition between programs, sounds interesting.
Sly
Karma: 419
“Suppose your opponent has thrown paper N (or X%) times and won every time they did. Is that evidence for, or evidence against, the proposition that they will play paper in the next trial? (or does the direction of evidence vary with N or X?)”
All of this is irrelevant.
So I will admit I am frustrated here. I don’t think that your analogy is even close to equivalent,
I think you are thinking about this in the wrong way.
So let’s say you were an adviser advising one of the players on what to choose. Every time you told him to throw rock over the last million games, he lost. Yet every time you told him to throw Scissors he won. Now you have thought very much about this problem, and all of your theorizing keeps telling you that your player should play Rock (the theorycrafting has told you this for quite a while now).
At what point is this evidence that you are reasoning incorrectly about the problem, and really you should just tell the player to play scissors? Would you actually continue to tell him to throw Rock if you were losing $1 every time the player you advised lost?
Now if this advising situation had been a game that you played with your strategy and I had separately played with my strategy, who would have won?
“I can play the selective quotation game too. It doesn’t make it valid.”
Except I didn’t break things up with ellipses to make things up like you just did. Nice false equivocation.
Either rock always wins or it doesn’t. I was pointing out the lack of consistency in what you said.
If you are proposing that rock does actually win, then that is completely different that what I setup in my scenario. A more accurate representation would be if paper was ALWAYS thrown by your opponents.
Then you come along and say that “no rock will actually win guys! Look at my theory that says so” before you get up and predictably lose. Just like everyone before you.
Don’t edit your post and then say you didn’t say what you said. I literally just copy pasted what you wrote and added quotes around it.
“Rock lost every time it was played ”
“rock doesn’t win when it is used means rock wins.”
One of these things is not like the other.
I disagree.
If rock always lost when people used it, that would be evidence against using rock.
Just like if you flip a coin 1000000 times and keep getting heads that is evidence of a coin that won’t be coming up tails anytime soon.
Here is another way to think about this problem.
Imagine if instead of Omega you were on a futuristic game show. As you go onto the show, you enter a future-science brain scanner that scans your brain. After scanning, the game show hosts secretly put the money into the various boxes behind stage.
You now get up on stage and choose whether to one or two box.
Keep in mind that before you got up on the show, 100 other contestants played the game that day. All of the two-boxers ended up with less money than the one-boxers. As an avid watcher of the show, you clearly remember that in every previous broadcast (one a day for ten years) the one-boxers did better than the two-boxers.
Can you honestly tell me that the superior move here is two-boxing? Where does the evidence point? If one strategy clearly and consistently produces inferior results compared to another strategy, that should be all we need to discard it as inferior.
So I was planning on doing the AI gatekeeper game as discussed in a previous thread.
My one stipulation as Gatekeeper was that I could release the logs after the game, however my opponent basically backed out after we had barely started.
Is it worth releasing the logs still, even though the game did not finish?
Ideally I could get some other AI to play against me, that way I have more logs to release. I will give you up to two hours on Skype, IRC, or some other easy method of communication. I am estimating my resounding victory with a 99%+ probability. We can put karma, small money, or nothing on the line.
Is anyone up for this?
While I am waiting for Oligopsony to play against me, I just want to say that I am up for playing the game multiple times against other people as well.
If anyone else wants to try against me, the above would still apply. Just let me know! I really want to try this game out.
Deal. Sending info.
I would still love to gatekeep against anyone with the stipulation that we release the logs.
I have offered in the past, but every AI backed out.
I will genuinely read everything you write, and can give you up to two hours. We can put karma, cash, or nothing on the line. Favorable odds too.
I don’t think I will lose with a probability over 99% because I will play to win.
EDIT: Looks like my opponent is backing out. Anyone else want to try?
I think that there is not a possible string of characters that could convince me.
When my girlfriend and I sat down last night to read the latest chapter she actually said to me after starting: “Ehh, this is a Hermione chapter, let’s do something else and read this later.”
I think I agree with you.
The planetary transportation government I find really intriguing for some reason. First I have ever heard of anything like it. Is it based off of something?
As someone who is an atheist now but raised Greek Orthodox, this is a bad idea. The lack of a Pope alone makes for a large difference.
Exactly.
I deny that the study had people all “doing it right”. In Eliezer’s case, I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was intelligent enough to avoid obvious confounders.
If someone gets sick (for example) towards the end of the study and then shows a “negative 8 percent ” fitness level then their data is crap.
If the study did not control for intensity then it is crap.
The difference between someone actually doing an effortful workout and someone just being present at the gym for a period of time is astronomical, and an extremely common occurrence.
The study had an age range from 40 and 67...
This study is garbage.
So you think my point is that exercise is magic? If you built my position out of iron instead of straw, you might find that yes, exercise is not the ONLY important factor for fitness.
Thanks for replying.
If you don’t mind the continued probing: did your ability to lift grow over that time period? Or were you about constant the whole year?
That was hideous. Poor production values and a sloppy video that oozes incompetence.