wwa

Karma: 506

wwa Jan 28, 2014, 12:19 PM
0 points
on: Skepticism about Probability

how are said axioms to be justified?

This is how I’d answer a sceptic:

If I put two apples into a bag that previously had two apples, I can take four apples out of the bag. Thus, I believe that axioms on which basic arithmetic is based are “justified”. By the same token I believe axioms of probability and I’m pretty sure you see a close approximation of a “fair coin” on a daily basis, not to mention more complex behaviors which probability theory predicts very well. If after that you’re still skeptic of the correlation, I expect you to have strong evidence against the correlation. I predict you’d say that this reasoning is circular because the whole notion of “evidence” is sort of dependent on the axioms (Bayes etc.), in which case I can’t help you any more than say that the given axioms are what they are precisely because of empirical observations.

In a huge oversimplification that’s how math theories are constructed—you add or remove axioms until the stuff it predicts corresponds to stuff we observe. The correlation is the goal.

wwa Jan 17, 2014, 1:39 PM
6 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Productivity tool: race!

Bahahah. Your current neurochemical high will wear off in 2 days.

Current? The event happened months ago, I only wrote it down now, I hope it’s obvious you can’t keep this up ²⁴⁄₇. A silly example: I learned to put on and take off my jacket while walking the stairs. Saves me few seconds every time I go out. It’s a habit now and, most importantly, it was fun to pick that habit up. It’s boring to cleanup a desk. It’s fun to try to cleanup a desk with only one hand within 20 seconds.

The story is just a feed for thought, it’s up to the reader to figure out what works for him.

wwa Jan 1, 2014, 8:11 PM
0 points
in reply to: passive_fist’s comment on: New Year’s Prediction Thread (2014)
How about an architect walking his clients though their soon-to-be house?

wwa Dec 22, 2013, 2:41 PM
13 points
on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 28, chapter 99-101

The Severing Charm wouldn’t bring down a tree, so he’d started partially Transfiguring cross-sections through the wood.

Quirell saw that. Partial transfiguration is not the power the dark lord knows not.

wwa Nov 29, 2013, 8:35 PM
−1 points
in reply to: passive_fist’s comment on: On Walmart, And Who Bears Responsibility For the Poor

I just used charity as an example; the same argument applies to taxes as well.

That does not follow. Why would I care about money I have no control over? Why would a politician care about efficiency over publicity? Why wouldn’t the recipient try to take more than he needs? There’s no incentive for anyone to do anything right.

wwa Nov 29, 2013, 8:17 PM
−1 points
in reply to: TheOtherDave’s comment on: On Walmart, And Who Bears Responsibility For the Poor

Is that right?

Yes, that’s correct. I’m arguing that redistribution in any form of giving “stuff” for free makes it worse by providing strong incentives to maintain status quo.

wwa Nov 29, 2013, 5:56 AM
3 points
in reply to: TheOtherDave’s comment on: On Walmart, And Who Bears Responsibility For the Poor
I can’t shake off the impression that you’re implicitly assuming the thesis. I’ll try to answer what I can.

In this account, how did I get so much more healthy, wealthy, and educated than you are?

Why the implicit assumption that redistribution has a net positive impact here? Another implicit assumption here is that we’re all born equal. Genetics aside, don’t the children inherit the mindset of their close ones to a large degree? Aren’t societies semi-stable, self-reinforcing, whatever their current wellbeing is? Africa is still poor, despite years of foreign aid. Middle east is still fighting, despite years of foreign interventions… What you need to do is to create incentives to break out of the current state of things and survival instinct is an excellent incentive which can be applied to poor people. What redistribution does is removing this powerful incentive and creating opposite ones. Basically, you’re rewarding people for making poor economic decisions.

Is there any way to do whatever that was to you, as well

Assuming it was redistribution that made you wealthy and educated, does it work reliably on the majority of poor people? Without forcing them somehow out of their current environment? That’s along the same lines of thought as that giving someone a million dollars reliably makes them a millionaire.

Would it have similarly been better to let me die (or kill me) before doing whatever it was that made me so much more healthy, wealthy, and educated?

This argument only makes sense if you already believe that redistribution reliably works, or anything reliably works, for that matter. People are notoriously difficult to change.

wwa Nov 29, 2013, 4:35 AM
−2 points
in reply to: passive_fist’s comment on: On Walmart, And Who Bears Responsibility For the Poor
Of course I won’t argue against effective altruism or charity and I suppose charity is technically a kind of “wealth redistribution”. However, it’s different than taxes in one very important way: it’s redistributing excess wealth after my own goals have been achieved, not before.

wwa Nov 29, 2013, 2:41 AM
4 points
in reply to: Brillyant’s comment on: On Walmart, And Who Bears Responsibility For the Poor

redistribution of wealth and other oppression-proofing liberal policies

You’re a healthy, wealthy, educated person. Being educated, you know you shouldn’t have more than, say 2 children, to be able to afford their education and ensure their good standard of living. You’ll have first child at age 25+.

I’m poor and uneducated third-world citizen. Being uneducated I don’t know how many children I can afford. Or I just don’t care, don’t think about it. I’ll have my first child at age of 18.

Now you give me half of your wealth and now you can only afford one child.

25 years from now you and your one educated child have to support me, 8 of my uneducated children… and 40 of my uneducated grandchildren. Your child can’t afford having children at all.

This is what redistribution does, exaggerated. You’re assuming the person you’ll give wealth to will use it in a sane way from your point of view. They won’t. You don’t want to admit the possibility that it may be long term better to let them die to stop this. Of course this is not ideal, not even good. Ideally you’d teach them, but will they listen?

wwa Nov 2, 2013, 9:30 PM
2 points
in reply to: stripey7’s comment on: Halloween thread—rationalist’s horrors.
Not necessarily. The brain pattern-matches continuous sensory experiences to something already known, which is discrete. I tend to think about it as rounding-to-nearest. Blood gradually transforming into water before your eyes doesn’t make sense to the mind.

wwa Nov 2, 2013, 1:39 AM
8 points
in reply to: gwern’s comment on: Halloween thread—rationalist’s horrors.
Yours is more spooky, but I had a similar experience.

In high school I had to get up early to be on time. In winter it meant waking up when there was still pitch black outside. Also, one teacher was exceptionally strict and would be angry at you for months if you were late or missed his class. So, when one day I woke up when there was fully bright outside I freaked out and jumped out of bed with a loud “F...F...F...”. And then I woke up and it was pitch black outside. And then the alarm clock rang. I laid there for a while trying to figure out how the hell am I supposed to figure out whether I am awake or still dreaming. I didn’t so I carried on … maybe I’m still asleep, but at least I wasn’t late.

wwa Nov 2, 2013, 1:16 AM
12 points
in reply to: gwern’s comment on: Halloween thread—rationalist’s horrors.
This has never occurred to me! Yes, this would be quite likely. On the same note: Shouting at hard drives

wwa Nov 2, 2013, 12:37 AM
22 points
in reply to: Shmi’s comment on: Halloween thread—rationalist’s horrors.
I think you misinterpreted the article. The virus can’t infect a healthy machine “through the air” (microphone). It can bridge air gaps in the sense that two already infected machines can setup network over microphone, which is orders of magnitude more likely than the former. BIOS infections have been done before, so …

wwa Nov 1, 2013, 11:56 PM
12 points
in reply to: passive_fist’s comment on: Halloween thread—rationalist’s horrors.
No, I was never able to repeat that experiment. However:

Zl fgebatrfg ulcbgurfvf vf gung gur pnoyr unq n gval culfvpny qrsrpg, juvpu pnhfrq ovg reebef zber bsgra jura orag “whfg gur evtug jnl”. Vg pbhyq or grfgrq ol ybbxvat ng gur engr bs GPC/VC ergenafzvffvbaf pnhfrq ol vainyvq cnpxrg purpxfhzf, juvpu jr qvqa’g gubhtug bs ng gur gvzr. Guvf vf fgvyy ener rabhtu gung V qba’g rkcrpg gb frr vg ntnva, rira vs V unq gur rknpg fnzr pnoyr gb rkcrevzrag jvgu. Guhf gur gehr pnhfr erznvaf haxabja.

Edit: phase of the moon bug

wwa Nov 1, 2013, 10:09 PM
29 points
on: Halloween thread—rationalist’s horrors.
I had a large file to copy from my laptop to a friend. We were on a break between lectures—no external drive, wifi way too slow—so we used cable. The copy was taking a while so eventually we started making jokes about data flowing down the cable faster because of, you know, gravity. It didn’t take long before we placed the receiving machine on the floor and… the speed increased. Not radically, but definitely more than what you’d expect from random fluctuations. We replicated the experiment three or four times, in both directions. Every time when the receiving machine was physically below the source the transfer was better. To this day I can’t explain it and to me this is a proof of how a relatively simple and well understood system can be unpredictable.

wwa Sep 7, 2013, 2:16 AM
−1 points
on: I know when the Singularity will occur

The race to win the Singularity is over, and Google has won

Counter-argument: NSA has a track record of having Math advanced decades beyond public. Also, quantum computing should be within reach in 30 years… might be NSA as well, since it’d make a perfect crypto cracker.

wwa Sep 5, 2013, 5:42 PM
6 points
on: You are the average of the five people you spend most time with.
OK, I get it, this is supposed to be one of those self-help thoughts that are supposed to make you better off if you think them (suggestions for a name for such a thing, anyone?), regardless of whether they’re actually true. Well… it doesn’t work. My thoughts, roughly in order:
- WARNING, manipulation / black arts
- WARNING, causation != correlation
- WARNING, opinion != fact
- What about, say, good leaders? 5 people closest to one can’t possibly be good leaders themselves because who’d they lead then?
- WARNING, thesis likely literally false, seek metaphorical sense?
- Silly and bogus example. You don’t transfer attributes by osmosis. If anything, to become e.g. creative, you’d be better off by meeting people who are currently becoming creative not who are already creative.

wwa Sep 1, 2013, 6:53 PM
8 points
on: P/S/A—Sam Harris offering money for a little good philosophy
This is an interesting way to setup a lottery while promoting one’s ideas.

wwa Aug 28, 2013, 2:39 PM
0 points
on: Open Thread: How much strategic thinking have you done recently?
- yes. I tend to reevaluate goals frequently (at least weekly)
- yes to the extent of future uncertainty. I am free to change my goals at any point, after all.
- yes… (obviously?) I’m having a hard time understanding how anyone could not do that.
- if you would call it “a system”, I try to restate nearest action that brings me closer to achieving my goal every day. More often than not the action is “wait” (until you acquire enough money/power/influence to make something happen, until you have enough information to make a decision, etc...)

wwa Aug 26, 2013, 9:49 PM
0 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Transparency in safety-critical systems
Thus the design (i.e. “The Math”) vs implementation (i.e. “The Code”) division. I believe design verification suffers from same problems as implementation verification, albeit maybe less severely (though I never worked with really complex, novel, abstract math… it would be interesting to see how many of those, on average, are “proved” correct and then blow up).

Still, I would argue that the problem is not that black-box testing is insufficient—it is where we are currently able to apply it—but rather that we have no idea how to properly black-box-test an abstract, novel, complex system!

PS. Your trivial example is also unfair and trivializes the technique. Black-box testing in no way implies randomizing all tests and I would expect the QuickSort to blow up very very soon in serious testing.