Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: DanielFilan 25 October 2014 10:14:21PM 0 points [-]

In Food Substitutes I wished there was an answer for ‘Neither Soylent nor MealSquares ship to my country’.

You can make your own soylent. I do so, and it's pretty tasty. http://diy.soylent.me/

Comment author: Elund 25 October 2014 10:13:32PM 0 points [-]

CEV is supposed to aim for the optimal future, not a satisficing future. My guess is that there is only one possible optimal future for any individual, unless there is a theoretical upper limit to individual utility and the FAI has sufficiently vast resources.

Also, if the terminal goals for both humans and dogs are to simply experience maximum subjective well-being for as long as possible, then their personal CEVs at least will be identical. However, since individuals are selfish, there's no reason to expect that the ideal future for one individual will, if enacted by a FAI, lead to ideal futures for the other individuals who are not being extrapolated.

Comment author: Vulture 25 October 2014 09:51:28PM 1 point [-]

I'm starting to feel rather disappointed that I took the survey so early. Should have waited around for Scott to add the interesting questions...

Comment author: Bobertron 25 October 2014 09:50:36PM 2 points [-]


Comment author: Vulture 25 October 2014 09:50:19PM 0 points [-]

I suspect it was a joke, but god only knows wrt that clusterflip...

Comment author: Vulture 25 October 2014 09:48:07PM 0 points [-]

I think you've been surveyed, rather. (Although undoubtedly surveilled as well, given the current political climate...)

Comment author: Vulture 25 October 2014 09:46:21PM 0 points [-]

I'd like more clarity about the distinction between a "supernatural" God and living in a simulation.


Comment author: Vulture 25 October 2014 09:45:56PM 0 points [-]

I was hyper-aware of this problem, since it's happened to me on internet surveys in this past, so I nervously clicked on the background at least once before scrolling down each time. If there was some way to know that this wouldn't happen it would be a bit of a weight off my mind :p

Comment author: Vulture 25 October 2014 09:42:01PM 0 points [-]

Are we being given equal chances of the monetary reward?

Presumably. I think the idea is to incentivize participation in the more difficult digit-ratio section. (Although, of course, that does create a game-theory problem...)

Comment author: Vulture 25 October 2014 09:40:23PM 0 points [-]

Even though percentages are typically used for cases where precision is less important, I'd say that in this context it would be better to err on the side of precision.

Comment author: Vulture 25 October 2014 09:36:24PM 0 points [-]

Geez, this might be the only issue so contentious that it can attract significant downvotes to a "did the survey" comment. Ironic that an alleged literal-mindkiller would become such a figurative-mindkiller.

Comment author: Elund 25 October 2014 08:57:16PM 0 points [-]

Now children sometimes want to avoid growing up, but I don't know of any such case we can't explain as simple fear of death.

They can be afraid of having to deal with adult responsibilities, or the physical symptoms of aging after they've reached their prime.

Comment author: Emile 25 October 2014 08:44:09PM 5 points [-]

I have filled in the survey (I wouldn't have minded if it was longer!)

Comment author: So8res 25 October 2014 07:44:49PM *  1 point [-]

Oh, I've spent my fair share of time around D&D 2nd ed, and I'm well acquainted with munchkining/minmaxing. However, D&D is an environment were the narrative is one of balance and tradeoffs.

For example, notice how it's OK for one class to be stronger at low levels and another class to be stronger at high levels, but how people would be pissed off if one class was stronger at all levels. This is the "narrative of balance" that I'm talking about: people think it's OK for there to be tradeoffs (e.g. early vs late dominance), but pure dominance is considered a bug and not a feature.

(I'm not bashing this generically; balance is a fine feature for many games. But I'd appreciate games where there is a narrative of exploitation rather than a narrative of balance.)

In response to Power and difficulty
Comment author: CellBioGuy 25 October 2014 07:28:01PM 0 points [-]

This strikes me as being related to the myth of meritocracy.

Comment author: radical_negative_one 25 October 2014 07:16:06PM 6 points [-]

Survey completed in full, reporting in for karma as per ancient tradition.

Thanks to Scott and Dan for all the work they put into this!

In response to Weekly LW Meetups
Comment author: lukeprog 25 October 2014 07:02:19PM 0 points [-]

Thanks again for continuing to do this!

Comment author: gwern 25 October 2014 06:55:22PM *  1 point [-]

Mainstream: 'correlation=causation' (almost all of nutrition research); contrarian: 'correlation!=causation' (Taubes); meta-contrarian: 'ah, but really, correlation~=causation!'

Comment author: army1987 25 October 2014 06:02:47PM 2 points [-]

The hardest question was choosing a single favorite LW post.

Was that question not there yesterday?

Comment author: V_V 25 October 2014 05:52:27PM 0 points [-]

Section 4.1 frames the problem in terms of the agent creating a sub-agent or successor. My point is that the issue is more general, as there are manipulative actions that don't involve creating other agents.
Theorem 6 seems to address the general case, although I would remark that even if epsilon == 0 (that is, even UN is indifferent to manipulation) you aren't safe.

View more: Next