Zachary_Kurtz

• Zachary_KurtzJun 17, 2010, 5:51 PM

  3 points

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Book Club Up­date and Chap­ter 1

  A different question about 1-8. I was able to figure out how he got A!B = !B (where ! is bar) but using the Boolean identities he provides, I couldn’t get to B!A = !A. Can anyone enlighten me on this?

• Zachary_KurtzJun 15, 2010, 7:01 PM

  4 points

  in reply to: Morendil’s comment on: Book Club Up­date and Chap­ter 1

  I never thought about the connection between logic and probability before, though now it seems obvious. I’ve read a few introductory logic texts and deductive reasoning always seemed a bit pointless to me (in RL premises are usually inferred from something). -

  To draw from a literary example, Sherlock Holmes use of the phrase “deduce” always seemed a bit deceptive. You can say “that color of dirt exists only in spot x in London. Therefore, that Londoner must have come in contact with spot x if I see that dirt on his trouser knee.” This is presented as a deduction, but really, the premises are induced and he assumes some things about how people travel.

  It seems more likely that we make inferences, not deductions, but convince ourselves that the premises must be true, without bothering to put real information about likelihood into the reasoning. An induction is still a logical statement, but I like the idea of using probability to quantify it.

  What links here?

  • Book Club Up­date and Chap­ter 1 by Morendil (Jun 15, 2010, 12:30 AM; 20 points)

• Zachary_KurtzMay 5, 2010, 2:57 PM

  2 points

  on: An­tag­o­niz­ing Opi­oid Re­cep­tors for (Preven­tion of) Fun and Profit

  This method sounds like it could be useful for unconscious habits. I have a bad one of gnawing on my finger nails. By the time I realize I’m doing it, however, the damage has been done. For whatever reason, I think my brain has connected nail biting with stress release. Taking away that association without having to rely on my poor willpower would be nice.

• Zachary_KurtzApr 28, 2010, 2:13 PM

  2 points

  in reply to: Jess_Riedel’s comment on: NYC Ra­tion­al­ist Community

  The NYC group, and olimay in particular, has certainly challenged my thinking. I might be coming from a very different place than you, however.

• Zachary_KurtzApr 27, 2010, 5:13 PM

  0 points

  on: At­ten­tion Less Wrong: We need an FAQ

  Less Wrong needs a general forum, not just an FAQ

• Zachary_KurtzApr 26, 2010, 4:38 PM

  4 points

  in reply to: Vladimir_Golovin’s comment on: Too busy to think about life

  Both really. How much time should we dedicate to making our map fit the territory before we start sacrificing optimality? Spend too long trying to improve epistemic rationality and you begin to sacrifice your ability to get to work on actual goal seeking.

  On the other end, if you don’t spend long enough to improve your map, you may be inefficiently or ineffectively trying to reach your goals.

  We’re still thinking of ways to be able to quantify these. Largely it depends on the specific goal and map/​territory as well as the person.

  Anybody else have some ideas?

• Zachary_KurtzApr 23, 2010, 7:37 PM

  3 points

  on: Too busy to think about life

  Applying optimal foraging theory to rationality is something we’ve been discussing at the NYC-LW meetup group for a few months now. I think this is related to this post.

  http://​​en.wikipedia.org/​​wiki/​​Optimal_foraging_theory

• Zachary_KurtzFeb 16, 2010, 6:14 PM

  0 points

  on: Friendly AI at the NYC Fu­ture Salon

  Sorry I won’t be able to come to your talk after all. As I suspected, I will still be in Pittsburgh. Good luck!

• Zachary_KurtzFeb 11, 2010, 3:28 PM

  2 points

  on: The Craigslist Revolu­tion: a real-world ap­pli­ca­tion of tor­ture vs. dust specks OR How I learned to stop wor­ry­ing and cre­ate one billion dol­lars out of nothing

  Do you guys think that the ‘mainstream’ takes the AI problem seriously enough (right now at least) that they’d be willing to donate money to this cause? Especially when there are other apparently worthy charities they could be joining. I’m skeptical.

• Zachary_KurtzFeb 10, 2010, 7:43 PM

  −2 points

  on: My Fun­da­men­tal Ques­tion About Omega

  Could Omega microwave a burrito so hot, that he himself could not eat it?

  and my personal favorite: http://​​www.smbc-comics.com/​​index.php?db=comics&id=1778#comic

• Zachary_KurtzFeb 2, 2010, 7:54 PM

  0 points

  on: My Failed Si­tu­a­tion/​Ac­tion Belief System

  So do you think there’s a human system which includes a closer approximation of reality? (whatever that means)

• Zachary_KurtzJan 27, 2010, 3:41 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: timtyler’s comment on: Si­mon Con­way Mor­ris: “Aliens are likely to look and be­have like us”.

  I take your point, but I wonder how many of these examples would reveal evidence ancient divergence if further genetic testing were done.

  In any case, what’s the average time line of the common ancestor between any two of these examples? I’m guessing on the order of hundreds of millions of years?

  When you draw the timeline back farther to the origin of life itself (3.5 billion years) the corresponding likelihood that evolution takes produces something similar to the present goes down.

  Although if origin of life on earth is through seeding, perhaps the OP could be more likely

• Zachary_KurtzJan 26, 2010, 5:07 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: timtyler’s comment on: Si­mon Con­way Mor­ris: “Aliens are likely to look and be­have like us”.

  Eyes have lots of genetic homology and are therefore not convergent by your own definition. Link is somewhere below in another comment.

• Zachary_KurtzJan 25, 2010, 10:29 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: SilasBarta’s comment on: Si­mon Con­way Mor­ris: “Aliens are likely to look and be­have like us”.

  I’d be very interested in seeing the results of such an experiment. Is this intended to be for AI-related research, by the way?

• Zachary_KurtzJan 25, 2010, 9:55 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: Morendil’s comment on: Adap­tive bias

  I understand and accept the premise that biases can be adaptive, and therefore beneficial to success and not evil.

  You bring up the idea of normative frameworks, which I like, but don’t expound upon the idea. Which biases, in which frameworks, lead to success? Is this something we can speculate about?

  For example, what biases and what framework would be successful for a stock market trader?

• Zachary_KurtzJan 25, 2010, 9:45 PM

  −1 points

  in reply to: timtyler’s comment on: Si­mon Con­way Mor­ris: “Aliens are likely to look and be­have like us”.

  Anecdotally, I think an emerging consensus is that convergent evolution is more rare than we have thought. Based on genetic information, things that appear convergent are merely divergent from a really long time ago.

  I posted an example of this somewhere below regarding animal eyes.

  I find the readiness to find examples of convergent evolution based on apparent physical (rather than genetic) data somewhat akin to quack medicine’s conjecture that a herb or plant structure that resembles a human body/​organ had the ability to heal ailments of that organ. (example: http://​​proliberty.com/​​observer/​​20080704.htm)

• Zachary_KurtzJan 25, 2010, 9:26 PM

  2 points

  in reply to: Alex Flint’s comment on: Si­mon Con­way Mor­ris: “Aliens are likely to look and be­have like us”.

  that list is broken, but I take your point.

  However, I’m not sure how relevant it is. Covergent evolution is quite rare, when you consider all of evolutionary history. The last common ancestor of cephalopod and vertebrates (camera eye) was 750 mya and had a distinct photorecevier. A recent studies have shown a 70% similarity in the gene expression profile between octopus and human eye tissue. This suggests that they are not so convergent as commonly thought. (source: http://​​stke.sciencemag.org/​​cgi/​​content/​​full/​​sci;313/​​5795/​​1914)

  Simmons suggest that convergent evolution, is not only possible but likely, by tacking on an extra almost 3 Billion years to this time scale? I doubt that our genetic material and/​or cell structure would even be the same, given this amount of time.

  Sounds like someone needs to check their priors.

• Zachary_KurtzJan 25, 2010, 8:22 PM

  2 points

  in reply to: ata’s comment on: Si­mon Con­way Mor­ris: “Aliens are likely to look and be­have like us”.

  natural selection seems largely consistent with how other physical laws operate (and therefore we can model genetic evolution by using physical processes such as random walks, brownian motion, etc).

  This is not a bad assumption.

  But, by the same token, there’s no reason to think that evolution will produce the same outcome everytime. Even if you have selection forces on a randomly moving particle the path and therefore outcome, will not be the same every time.

  Is this guy’s paper pretty much universally refuted by LWers?

• Zachary_KurtzJan 25, 2010, 8:17 PM

  4 points

  in reply to: LauraABJ’s comment on: Si­mon Con­way Mor­ris: “Aliens are likely to look and be­have like us”.

  No reasonable scientific evidence would suggest so. You’re supposition is most likely correct. The OP’s scientist’s conjecture is anthropocentric drivel.

• Zachary_KurtzJan 25, 2010, 5:30 PM

  5 points

  in reply to: Alex Flint’s comment on: Si­mon Con­way Mor­ris: “Aliens are likely to look and be­have like us”.

  the “sharp teeth” assumption is a silly one, because it requires evolution of earth-like mouths, digestive systems, etc. There is no reason whatsoever to assume evolution would take this course in two independent “trials.”