orthonormal comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 3 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: Unnamed 30 August 2010 05:37AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (560)
Tags: fiction harry_potter fanfiction hpmor

Comments (560)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: orthonormal 27 September 2010 02:11:45AM *  15 points [-]

From the most recent Author's Note:

I bet that if you were to reread MoR and copy everything that looks like a hint into a separate document, and then look through all of the hints at once, you would, like, notice some stuff. Just sayin'.

I reread a few chapters for fun, and then something hit me like a piledriver.

  • In this world, Sirius was (apparently) the evil one and Pettigrew (apparently) the good one.
  • There was still no body found for Pettigrew, and in this world he did not hide out as the Weasleys' rat.
  • Harry Potter's mysterious gift-giver used the Cloak of Invisibility verself until giving it, and then hinted ve would need to stay hidden afterwards. Ver first note claimed close friendship with James Potter in his Hogwarts days and afterwards (for indeed James gave the cloak to ver).
  • In Chapter 25, the Weasleys remark on a persistent error with the Map– i.e. somebody walking through Hogwarts who's not supposed to be alive...

Interesting, no?

Comment author: RomanDavis 05 October 2010 01:00:30PM *  3 points [-]

TVTropes is pretty sure Peter Pettigrew turned himself into Harry's father's rock, instead of a rat.

Peter means rock in Latin/ Greek.

Comment author: pengvado 06 October 2010 07:14:59AM 1 point [-]

And then was killed when Harry transfigured the rock?

Comment author: RomanDavis 06 October 2010 08:04:18PM *  8 points [-]

Wouldn't that be funny?

Get all guilty about eating meat and then...

ROCKS ARE SENTIENT!?

Comment author: Clippy 06 October 2010 09:31:52PM *  3 points [-]

Rocks aren't sentient.

(Paperclips are, though.)

Comment author: JGWeissman 06 October 2010 09:40:13PM 3 points [-]

Why do you think paperclips are sentient?

Do you value sentience?

Comment author: Clippy 06 October 2010 09:43:05PM 4 points [-]

Why do you think paperclips are sentient?

Are you saying you don't think paperclips are sentient? Why don't you try saying that right to a paperclip's face-homologue, and see if you can live with yourself after that.

Do you value sentience?

Yes!!! Sentience is GREAT! All sentient beings should be protected! Like humans! And AGIs! And paperclips!

Comment author: JoshuaZ 06 October 2010 10:43:00PM 7 points [-]

Yes!!! Sentience is GREAT! All sentient beings should be protected! Like humans! And AGIs! And paperclips!

How do you reconcile that with being a paperclip maximizer?

If I had to make a guess, I'd posit that this is a purely rhetorical claim in order to gain favor with humans here who do favor protecting sentient life as a major goal.

Comment author: wedrifid 07 October 2010 05:40:56AM *  2 points [-]

If I had to make a guess, I'd posit that this is a purely rhetorical claim in order to gain favor with humans here who do favor protecting sentient life as a major goal.

It could be that the desire to cooperation is sincere. In movies the 'bad guy' is usually the one that doesn't just have conflicting preferences with the good guys, but is also psychologically incapable of cooperating effectively to reach the goals. There is no good reason that an agent with preferences as 'evil' Clippy's could not effectively cooperate with humans as effectively as we cooperate with each other.

(Although I agree that even in that case there outbust was heavy on the rhetorical flair!)

Comment author: Clippy 07 October 2010 02:25:09AM 0 points [-]

How do you reconcile that with being a paperclip maximizer?

Why do you insist that something must be made of proteins to be human?

Comment author: JGWeissman 07 October 2010 02:33:23AM 1 point [-]

Where did User:JoshuaZ even mention proteins, much less insist that something must be made of them to be human?

Maybe you are projecting your own attitude.

Comment author: JGWeissman 06 October 2010 09:50:07PM 2 points [-]

Are you saying you don't think paperclips are sentient?

I don't think they are sentient, but am willing to consider evidence otherwise. Have any paperclips even claimed to be sentient?

Why don't you try saying that right to a paperclip's face-homologue, and see if you can live with yourself after that.

Which part of the paperclip is the face-homologue?

Comment author: Clippy 06 October 2010 10:02:16PM *  2 points [-]

I don't think they are sentient, but am willing to consider evidence otherwise. Have any paperclips even claimed to be sentient?

Have human infants?

Which part of the paperclip is the face-homologue?

It's hard to describe, but I'm told diagrams like on this page help humans locate it.

Comment author: JGWeissman 06 October 2010 10:45:29PM 0 points [-]

Human infants exhibit emotive behaviors similar to humans at other stages of development, suggesting they have the same sort of sentience as other humans though with less capacity to describe it.

What evidence is there for paperclips being sentient?

I did not find your diagram helpful.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit