Tuxedage

Karma: 1,035

Tuxedage 12 Jan 2014 8:28 UTC
23 points
in reply to: blacktrance’s comment on: AALWA: Ask any LessWronger anything
Would you rather fight one horse sized duck, or a hundred duck sized horses?

Tuxedage 6 Jan 2014 2:20 UTC
1 point
on: A proposed inefficiency in the Bitcoin markets
I mean this in the least hostile way possible—this was an awful post. It was just a complicated way of saying “historically speaking, bitcoin has gone up”. Of course it has! We already know that! And for obvious reasons, prices increase according to log scales. But it’s also a well known rule of markets that “past trends does not predict future performance”.

Of course, I am personally supportive and bullish on bitcoin (as people in IRC can attest). All I’m saying is that your argument is an unnecessarily complex way of arguing that bitcoin is likely to increase in the future because it has increased in price in the past.

Tuxedage 4 Jan 2014 21:32 UTC
1 point
in reply to: timujin’s comment on: I attempted the AI Box Experiment (and lost)
Generally speaking, there’s a long list of gatekeepers—about 20 gatekeepers for every AI that wants to play. Your best option is to post “I’m a gatekeeper. Please play me” in every AI box thread, and hope that someone will message you back. You may have to wait months for this, assuming you get a reply. If you’re willing to offer a monetary incentive, your chances might be improved.

Tuxedage 29 Dec 2013 17:47 UTC
3 points
on: Online vs. Personal Conversations
You may feel that way because many of your online conversations are with us at the LessWrong IRC, which is known for its high level of intellectual vigor. The great majority of online conversations are not as rigorous as we are. I suspect that IRL conversations with other lesswrongers will have equal dependence on citations, references, for example.

Tuxedage 23 Dec 2013 20:26 UTC
14 points
on: MIRI’s Winter 2013 Matching Challenge
I have posted this in the last open thread, but I should post here too for relevancy:

I have donated $5,000 for the MIRI 2013 Winter Fundraiser. Since I’m a “new large donor”, this donation will be matched 3:1, netting a cool $20,000 for MIRI.

I have decided to post this because of “Why our Kind Cannot Cooperate”. I have been convinced that people donating should publicly brag about it to attract other donors, instead of remaining silent about their donation which leads to a false impression of the amount of support MIRI has.

Tuxedage 10 Dec 2013 22:53 UTC
9 points
in reply to: Brillyant’s comment on: Open thread for December 9 − 16, 2013

I’m not sure this is true. Doesn’t MIRI publish its total receipts? Don’t most organizations that ask for donations?

Total receipts may not be representative. There’s a difference between MIRI getting funding from one person with a lot of money and large numbers of people donating small(er) amounts. I was hoping this post to serve as a reminder that many of us on LW do care about donating, rather than a few rather rich people like Peter Thiel or Jaan Tallinn.

Also I suspect scope neglect can be at play—it’s difficult to, on an emotional level, tell the difference between $1 million worth of donations, or ten million, or a hundred million. Seeing each donation that led to adding up to that amount may help.

Tuxedage 10 Dec 2013 19:14 UTC
87 points
on: Open thread for December 9 − 16, 2013
At risk of attracting the wrong kind of attention, I will publicly state that I have donated $5,000 for the MIRI 2013 Winter Fundraiser. Since I’m a “new large donor”, this donation will be matched 3:1, netting a cool $20,000 for MIRI.

I have decided to post this because of “Why our Kind Cannot Cooperate”. I have been convinced that people donating should publicly brag about it to attract other donors, instead of remaining silent about their donation which leads to a false impression of the amount of support MIRI has.
What links here?
- Tuxedage's comment on MIRI’s Winter 2013 Matching Challenge by lukeprog (23 Dec 2013 20:26 UTC; 14 points)

Tuxedage 23 Nov 2013 21:35 UTC
40 points
on: 2013 Less Wrong Census/Survey
I have taken the survey, as I have done for the last two years! Free karma now?

Also, I have chosen to cooperaterather than defect was because even though the money technically would stay within the community, I am willing to pay a very small amount of money from EV in order to ensure that LW has a reputation for cooperation. I don’t expect to lose more than a few cents worth of expected value, since I expect 1000+ people to do the survey.

Tuxedage 24 Oct 2013 2:32 UTC
6 points
in reply to: gwern’s comment on: Open Thread, October 20 − 26, 2013
I will be price matching whatever gwern personally puts in.

Tuxedage 14 Oct 2013 10:14 UTC
23 points
on: Open Thread, October 13 − 19, 2013
AI Box Experiment Update

I recently played and won an additional game of AI Box with DEA7TH. Obviously, I played as the AI. This game was conducted over Skype.

I’m posting this in the open thread because unlike my last few AI Box Experiments, I won’t be providing a proper writeup (and I didn’t think that just posting “I won!” is enough to validate starting a new thread). I’ve been told (and convinced) by many that I was far too leaky with strategy and seriously compromised future winning chances of both myself and future AIs. The fact that one of my gatekeepers guessed my tactic(s) was the final straw. I think that I’ve already provided enough hints for aspiring AIs to win, so I’ll stop giving out information.

Sorry, folks.

This puts my current AI Box Experiment record at 2 wins and 3 losses.

Tuxedage 12 Oct 2013 17:25 UTC
9 points
in reply to: DEA7TH’s comment on: I attempted the AI Box Experiment again! (And won—Twice!)
Updates: I played against DEA7TH. I won as AI. This experiment was conducted over Skype.

Tuxedage 6 Oct 2013 5:25 UTC
1 point
in reply to: V_V’s comment on: I played the AI Box Experiment again! (and lost both games)

Do you think you could win at these conditions?

It’s not a binary. There’s a non-zero chance of me winning, and a non-zero chance of me losing. You assume that if there’s a winning strategy, it should win 100% of the time, and if it doesn’t, it should not win at all. I’ve tried very hard to impress upon people that this is not the case at all—there’s no “easy” winning method that I could take and guarantee a victory. I just have to do it the hard way, and luck is usually a huge factor in these games.

As it stands, there are people willing to pay up to $300-$750 for me to play them without the condition of giving up logs, and I have still chosen not to play. Your offer to play without monetary reward and needing to give up logs if I lose is not very tempting in comparison, so I’ll pass.

Tuxedage 4 Oct 2013 6:43 UTC
1 point
in reply to: passive_fist’s comment on: AIs and Gatekeepers Unite!
http://lesswrong.com/lw/gej/i_attempted_the_ai_box_experiment_and_lost/

Tuxedage 2 Oct 2013 8:25 UTC
0 points
in reply to: passive_fist’s comment on: AIs and Gatekeepers Unite!
I’m laughing so hard at this exchange right now (As a former AI who’s played against MixedNuts)

Tuxedage 2 Oct 2013 8:14 UTC
1 point
in reply to: V_V’s comment on: I played the AI Box Experiment again! (and lost both games)
I should add that both my gatekeepers from this writeup, but particularly the last gatekeeper went in with the full intention of being as ruthless as possible and win. I did lose, so your point might be valid, but I don’t think wanting to win matters as much as you think it does.

Tuxedage 2 Oct 2013 8:13 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Sly’s comment on: I played the AI Box Experiment again! (and lost both games)
Both my gatekeepers from this game went in with the intent to win. Granted, I did lose these games, so you might have a point, but I’m not sure it makes as large a different as you think it does.

Tuxedage 2 Oct 2013 8:12 UTC
3 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: I played the AI Box Experiment again! (and lost both games)
I’m not sure if this is something that can earn money consistently for long periods of time. It takes just one person to leak logs for all others to lose curiosity and stop playing the game. Sooner or later, some scrupulous gatekeeper is going to release logs. That’s also part of the reason why I have my hesitancy to play significant number of games.

Tuxedage 2 Oct 2013 8:10 UTC
1 point
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: I played the AI Box Experiment again! (and lost both games)

I have a question: When people imagine (or play) this scenario, do they give any consideration to the AI player’s portrayal, or do they just take “AI” as blanket permission to say anything they want, no matter how unlikely?

I interpret the rules as allowing for the later, although I do act AI-like.

(I also imagine his scripted list of strategies are strongly designed for the typical LWer and would not work on an “average” person.)

Although I have never played against an average person, I would suspect my winrate against average people would actually be higher. I do have arguments which are LW specific, but I also have many that aren’t.

Tuxedage 2 Oct 2013 7:57 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Shmi’s comment on: I played the AI Box Experiment again! (and lost both games)

However, there was a game where the gatekeeper convinced the AI to remain in the box.

I did that! I mentioned that in this post:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/iqk/i_played_the_ai_box_experiment_again_and_lost/9thk

Tuxedage 2 Oct 2013 7:56 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Pentashagon’s comment on: I played the AI Box Experiment again! (and lost both games)

Now what I really want to see is an AI-box experiment where the Gatekeeper wins early by convincing the AI to become Friendly.

I did that! I mentioned that in this post:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/iqk/i_played_the_ai_box_experiment_again_and_lost/9thk