WrongBot

• WrongBotFeb 25, 2014, 7:53 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: FiftyTwo’s comment on: What are you work­ing on? June 2012

  Hahahaha, nope.

• WrongBotDec 7, 2013, 12:13 AM

  7 points

  on: Open Thread, De­cem­ber 2-8, 2013

  I’m planning to run a rationality-friendly table-top roleplaying game over IRC and am soliciting players.

  The system is Unknown Armies, a game of postmodern magic set in a creepier, weirder version of our own world. Expect to investigate crimes, decipher the methods behind occult rituals, interpret symbols, and slowly go mad. This particular game will follow the misadventures of a group of fast food employees working for an occult cabal (well, more like a mailing list) that wants to make the world a better place.

  Sessions will be 3-4 hours once a week over IRC or google hangouts or skype or whatever people are most comfortable with. Slots for two-three players, email me at sburnstein@gmail.com if you’re interested or if I can answer any questions about the game.

• WrongBotSep 6, 2013, 4:20 PM

  2 points

  on: I at­tempted the AI Box Ex­per­i­ment again! (And won—Twice!)

  It may be possible to take advantage of multiple levels of reality within the game itself to confuse or trick the gatekeeper. For instance, must the experiment only be set in one world? Can there not be multiple layers of reality within the world you create? I feel that elaborating on this any further is dangerous. Think carefully about what this advice is trying to imply.

  This is a pretty clever way of defeating precommitments. (Assuming I’m drawing the correct inferences.) How central was this tactic to your approach, if you’re willing to comment?

• WrongBotJul 5, 2013, 7:27 PM

  2 points

  in reply to: kilobug’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 21, chap­ters 91 & 92

  The bad guy(s) relative to Harry. Hermione coming back is important whichever way his morality goes.

• WrongBotJul 5, 2013, 3:54 AM

  17 points

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 21, chap­ters 91 & 92

  I’m about 95% confident Eliezer wouldn’t do such a thing.

• WrongBotJul 4, 2013, 8:46 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: Dorikka’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 21, chap­ters 91 & 92

  By “wins” I just meant “beats the bad guy(s)”.

• WrongBotJul 4, 2013, 5:19 PM

  4 points

  on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 21, chap­ters 91 & 92

  Quirrell is That Fucker.

  Heavy spoilers for Nonjon’s excellent A Black Comedy follow.

  Va N Oynpx Pbzrql, Qnivq Zbaebr vf gur ragvgl perngrq jura gur Ubepehk va Evqqyr’f qvnel fhpprffshyyl erfheerpgf vgfrys, jvgu gur gjvfg gung vg jnf perngrq hfvat nyy bs Ibyqrzbeg’f ‘cbfvgvir’ rzbgvbaf. Guhf Qnivq Zbaebr vf bccbfrq gb Ibyqrzbeg, unf uvf zrzbevrf naq fxvyyf, naq frrf gung fgbel’f Uneel nf n cbgragvny gbby, nyyl, be rira rdhny.

  Fbhaq snzvyvne? Gur anzr whfg znxrf vg boivbhf.

• WrongBotJul 4, 2013, 5:12 PM

  2 points

  on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 21, chap­ters 91 & 92

  Hermione will be resurrected before the conclusion of this story.

  (Given that Harry wins and souls aren’t real.)

• WrongBotJun 28, 2013, 3:47 AM

  25 points

  on: Public Ser­vice An­nounce­ment Collection

  PSA: There is an actual physical sensation that accompanies religious experiences. If you feel the presence of a being of awesome power and an unusual sensation of… fullness?… in your chest, don’t panic or starting believing in a god or anything crazy.

  It’s a physiological thing that happens to people, especially in altered states (drugs, sleep deprivation, etc.), and it doesn’t mean anything.

• WrongBotFeb 24, 2013, 9:38 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: Gastogh’s comment on: Dis­cus­sion: Which fu­tures are good enough?

  Right, but not all trade-offs are equal. Thinking-rainbows-are-pretty and self-determination are worth different amounts.

• WrongBotFeb 24, 2013, 2:42 AM

  5 points

  in reply to: lukeprog’s comment on: Dis­cus­sion: Which fu­tures are good enough?

  Thank you for pointing this out; I’ve apparently lost the ability to read. Post edited.

Dis­cus­sion: Which fu­tures are good enough?

• WrongBotJan 5, 2013, 2:11 AM

  58 points

  0

  on: Just One Sentence

  “If you perform experiments to determine the physical laws of our universe, you will learn how to make powerful weapons.”

  It’s all about incentives.

• WrongBotDec 4, 2012, 10:25 PM

  −13 points

  on: Poli­tics Dis­cus­sion Thread De­cem­ber 2012

  Please don’t do this.

• WrongBotDec 4, 2012, 10:12 PM

  −1 points

  on: Fac­tions, in­equal­ity, and so­cial justice

  The Keeley book you linked has been discredited. See here, e.g.

• WrongBotNov 3, 2012, 11:41 PM

  44 points

  on: 2012 Less Wrong Cen­sus/​Survey

  Took it and laughed several times.

• WrongBotNov 1, 2012, 9:17 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s comment on: Log­i­cal Pinpointing

  In people’s brains, and in papers written by philosophy students.

• WrongBotOct 18, 2012, 6:53 AM

  0 points

  in reply to: pragmatist’s comment on: [Poll] Less Wrong and Main­stream Philos­o­phy: How Differ­ent are We?

  Sorry for the very belated reply, but I was struggling to find the words to describe exactly what I meant. Luckily, Eliezer has already done most of it for me in his latest post.

  Thing A exists with respect to Thing B iff Thing A and Thing B are both part of the same causal network. So ArisKatsaris was half-right, but things outside our past and future light cones can be said to exist with respect to us if they have a causal relationship with anything that is inside our past and future light cones.

• WrongBotSep 26, 2012, 7:59 PM

  2 points

  in reply to: Jayson_Virissimo’s comment on: [Poll] Less Wrong and Main­stream Philos­o­phy: How Differ­ent are We?

  Other: Existence is a two-valued function, not one-valued.

• WrongBotSep 7, 2012, 10:38 PM

  15 points

  in reply to: hg00’s comment on: How to deal with some­one in a LessWrong meet­ing be­ing creepy

  Creepy behavior has an evolutionary purpose, just like all human behavior.

  Humans are adaptation-executors, not fitness-maximizers. Evolution may have crafted me into a person who wants to sit at home alone all day and play video games, but sitting at home alone all day and playing video games doesn’t offer me a fitness advantage.

  (I don’t actually want to sit at home alone all day and play video games. At least, not every day.)