wedrifid

Karma: 42,545

wedrifid 24 Apr 2016 7:35 UTC
1 point
in reply to: mjk1093’s comment on: Dunbar’s Function

We have the instinct to consume sugar because it is the most concentrated form of energy that humans can process, not because it is naturally paired with vitamins.

Sugar is desirable as the most easily accessible form of energy. Being concentrated is more useful for long term storage in a mobile form, hence the use of the more concentrated fat.

wedrifid 2 Jan 2015 10:43 UTC
2 points
in reply to: NatPhilosopher’s comment on: Too good to be true

UPI Reporter Dan Olmsted went looking for the autistic Amish. In a community where he should have found 50 profound autistics, he found 3.

He went looking for autistics in a community mostly known for rejecting Science and Engineering? It ‘should’ be expected that the rate of autism is the same as in the general population? That’s… not what I would expect. Strong social penalties for technology use for many generations would be a rather effective way to cull autistic tendencies from a population.

wedrifid 31 Dec 2014 11:14 UTC
5 points
in reply to: bramflakes’s comment on: Rationality Quotes December 2014

I think this is about the only scenario on LW that someone can be justifiably downvoted for that statement.

I up-voted it for dissenting against sloppy thinking disguised as being deep or clever. Twisting the word ‘god’ to include other things that do fit the original, literal or intended meaning of the term results in useless equivocation.

wedrifid 31 Dec 2014 11:06 UTC
8 points
in reply to: arundelo’s comment on: Rationality Quotes December 2014

Hubris isn’t something that destroys you, it’s something you are punished for. By the gods!

Or by physics. Not all consequences for overconfidence are social.

wedrifid 28 Nov 2014 22:33 UTC
−4 points
in reply to: 27chaos’s comment on: The Hostile Arguer

You were willing to engage with me after I said something “inexcusably obnoxious” and sarcastic, but you draw the line at a well reasoned collection of counterarguments? Pull the other one.

For those curious, I stopped engaging after the second offense—the words you wrote after what I quoted may be reasonable but I did not and will not read them. This is has been my consistent policy for the last year and my life has been better for it. I recommend it for all those who, like myself, find the temptation to engage in toxic internet argument hard to resist.

It works even better in forums that do not lack the block feature. I was unable to avoid peripheral exposure to the parent comment when I was drawn to the thread to thank Markus.

wedrifid 28 Nov 2014 22:25 UTC
4 points
in reply to: MarkusRamikin’s comment on: The Hostile Arguer

Can’t imagine who’d have guessed your exact intention just based on your initial response, though.

You are probably right and I am responsible for managing the predictable response to my words. Thankyou for the feedback.

wedrifid 28 Nov 2014 8:33 UTC
−6 points
in reply to: 27chaos’s comment on: The Hostile Arguer

I was sarcastic, but you were sarcastic first.

I was not sarcastic. I was entirely straightforward and sincere.

I am afraid your conversation practices make me unable to engage with you further (unless, obviously, I perceive others to be negatively impacted by your words.)

wedrifid 28 Nov 2014 4:56 UTC
12 points
in reply to: 27chaos’s comment on: The Hostile Arguer

Wow, thank God you’ve settled this question for us with your supreme grasp of rationality. I’m completely convinced by the power of your reputation to ignore all the arguments common_law made, you’ve been very helpful!

Apart from the inexcusably obnoxious presentation the point hidden behind your sarcasm suggests you misunderstand the context.

Stating arguments in favour of arguing with hostile arguers is one thing. “You should question your unstated but fundamental premise” is far more than that. It uses a condescending normative dominance attempt to imply that the poster must not have ‘questioned’ or thought about a central part of the point because, presumably, if they had ‘questioned’ that they would have ended up agreeing with common_law instead.

In my judgement the opening poster deserves some moral support and protection against that kind of sniping. I chose (largely out of politeness) to express simple agreement with the poster, rather than a more aggressive and detailed rejection of common_law.

Since you (passive aggressively) asked:

Whether an argument is worthwhile depends primarily on the competence of the arguments presented, which isn’t strongly related to the sincerity of the arguer.

This argument misses the point. The reason to avoid arguing with hostile arguers is not that it is impossible to learn anything from such people (although the expected information value is likely to be low). It is because doing so is dangerous or costly on a psychological, physical or economic level.

Of course if you enjoy arguing with hostile people or think it is potentially useful practice then go ahead. In much the same way if you think getting into physical fights will teach you self defence skills then go ahead and insult drunk guys at the bar till they take a swing at you.

wedrifid 28 Nov 2014 2:22 UTC
−5 points
in reply to: common_law’s comment on: The Hostile Arguer

You should question your unstated but fundamental premise: one should avoid arguments with “hostile arguers.”

I just questioned that premise. It seems sound.

wedrifid 28 Nov 2014 2:20 UTC
6 points
in reply to: dxu’s comment on: The Hostile Arguer

Trying to use reasoned discussion tactics against people who’ve made up their minds already isn’t going to get you anywhere, and if you’re unlucky, it might actually be interpreted as backtalk, especially if the people you’re arguing against have higher social status than you do—like, for instance, your parents.

At times being more reasonable and more ‘mature’ sounding in conversation style even seems to be more offensive. It’s treating them like you are their social equal and intellectual superior.

wedrifid 27 Nov 2014 13:27 UTC
5 points
in reply to: Unknowns’s comment on: Why I will Win my Bet with Eliezer Yudkowsky
I want the free $10. The $1k is hopeless and were I to turn out to lose that side of the bet then I’d still be overwhelmingly happy that I’m still alive against all expectations.

wedrifid 27 Nov 2014 13:11 UTC
−1 points
in reply to: pragmatist’s comment on: Neo-reactionaries, why are you neo-reactionary?
I consider social policy proposal harmful and reject it as applied to myself or others. You may of course continue to refrain from speaking out against this kind of behaviour if you wish.

In the unlikely event that the net positive votes (at that time) given to Azathoth123 reflect the actual attitudes of the lesswrong community the ‘public’ should be made aware so they can choose whether to continue to associate with the site. At least one prominent user has recently disaffiliated himself (and deleted his account) for a far less harmful social political concern. On the other hand other people who embrace alternate lifestyles may be relieved to see that Azathoth’s prejudiced rabble rousing is unambiguously rejected here.

wedrifid 27 Nov 2014 8:01 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Liso’s comment on: Superintelligence 11: The treacherous turn

Ignorant is fastest—only calculate answer and doesn’t care of anything else.

Just don’t accidentally give it a problem that is more complex than you expect. Only caring about solving such a problem means tiling the universe with computronium.

wedrifid 27 Nov 2014 6:22 UTC
6 points
on: Why I will Win my Bet with Eliezer Yudkowsky
Wow. I want the free money too!

wedrifid 26 Nov 2014 22:05 UTC
8 points
in reply to: Azathoth123’s comment on: Neo-reactionaries, why are you neo-reactionary?

2) Gays aren’t monogamous. One obvious way to see this is to note how much gay culture is based around gay bathhouses. Another way is to image search pictures of gay pride parades.

This user seems to to spreading an agenda of ignorant bigotry against homosexuality and polyamory. It doesn’t even temper the hostile stereotyping with much pretense of just referring to trends in the evidence.

Are the upvotes this account is receiving here done by actual lesswrong users (who, frankly, ought to be ashamed of themselves) or has Azathoth123 created sockpuppets to vote itself up?

wedrifid 26 Nov 2014 21:51 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Brillyant’s comment on: Open thread, Nov. 24 - Nov. 30, 2014

This is the gist of the AI Box experiment, no?

No. Bribes and rational persuasion are fair game too.

wedrifid 26 Nov 2014 21:46 UTC
−2 points
in reply to: Jiro’s comment on: xkcd on the AI box experiment

To quote someone else here: “Well, in the original formulation, Roko’s Basilisk is an FAI

I don’t know who you are quoting but they are someone who considers AIs that will torture me to be friendly. They are confused in a way that is dangerous.

The AI acausally blackmails people into building it sooner, not into building it at all.

It applies to both—causing itself to exist at a different place in time or causing itself to exist at all. I’ve explicitly mentioned elsewhere in this thread that merely refusing blackmail is insufficient when there are other humans who can defect and create the torture-AI anyhow.

You asked “How could it?”. You got an answer. Your rhetorical device fails.

wedrifid 26 Nov 2014 12:34 UTC
4 points
in reply to: MrMind’s comment on: Open thread, Nov. 24 - Nov. 30, 2014

Is TDT accurately described by “CDT + acausal comunication through mutual emulation”?

Communication isn’t enough. CDT agents can’t cooperate in a prisoner’s dilemma if you put them in the same room and let them talk to each other. They aren’t going to be able to cooperate in analogous trades across time no matter how much acausal ‘communicaiton’ they have.

wedrifid 26 Nov 2014 12:06 UTC
−6 points
in reply to: TheAncientGeek’s comment on: Neo-reactionaries, why are you neo-reactionary?

Evidence?

Start here.

wedrifid 26 Nov 2014 11:46 UTC
1 point
in reply to: ThisSpaceAvailable’s comment on: xkcd on the AI box experiment

By “the basilisk”, do you mean the infohazard, or do you mean the subject matter of the inforhazard? For the former, whatever causes you to not worry about it protects you from it.

Not quite true. There are more than two relevant agents in the game. The behaviour of the other humans can hurt you (and potentially make it useful for their creation to hurt you).
What links here?
- wedrifid's comment on xkcd on the AI box experiment by FiftyTwo (26 Nov 2014 21:46 UTC; -2 points)