Eliezer Yudkowsky Facts

124 Post author: steven0461 22 March 2009 08:17PM
  • Eliezer Yudkowsky was once attacked by a Moebius strip. He beat it to death with the other side, non-violently.
  • Inside Eliezer Yudkowsky's pineal gland is not an immortal soul, but another brain.
  • Eliezer Yudkowsky's favorite food is printouts of Rice's theorem.
  • Eliezer Yudkowsky's favorite fighting technique is a roundhouse dustspeck to the face.
  • Eliezer Yudkowsky once brought peace to the Middle East from inside a freight container, through a straw.
  • Eliezer Yudkowsky once held up a sheet of paper and said, "A blank map does not correspond to a blank territory". It was thus that the universe was created.
  • If you dial Chaitin's Omega, you get Eliezer Yudkowsky on the phone.
  • Unless otherwise specified, Eliezer Yudkowsky knows everything that he isn't telling you.
  • Somewhere deep in the microtubules inside an out-of-the-way neuron somewhere in the basal ganglia of Eliezer Yudkowsky's brain, there is a little XML tag that says awesome.
  • Eliezer Yudkowsky is the Muhammad Ali of one-boxing.
  • Eliezer Yudkowsky is a 1400 year old avatar of the Aztec god Aixitl.
  • The game of "Go" was abbreviated from "Go Home, For You Cannot Defeat Eliezer Yudkowsky".
  • When Eliezer Yudkowsky gets bored, he pinches his mouth shut at the 1/3 and 2/3 points and pretends to be a General Systems Vehicle holding a conversation among itselves. On several occasions he has managed to fool bystanders.
  • Eliezer Yudkowsky has a swiss army knife that has folded into it a corkscrew, a pair of scissors, an instance of AIXI which Eliezer once beat at tic tac toe, an identical swiss army knife, and Douglas Hofstadter.
  • If I am ignorant about a phenomenon, that is not a fact about the phenomenon; it just means I am not Eliezer Yudkowsky.
  • Eliezer Yudkowsky has no need for induction or deduction. He has perfected the undiluted master art of duction.
  • There was no ice age. Eliezer Yudkowsky just persuaded the planet to sign up for cryonics.
  • There is no spacetime symmetry. Eliezer Yudkowsky just sometimes holds the territory upside down, and he doesn't care.
  • Eliezer Yudkowsky has no need for doctors. He has implemented a Universal Curing Machine in a system made out of five marbles, three pieces of plastic, and some of MacGyver's fingernail clippings.
  • Before Bruce Schneier goes to sleep, he scans his computer for uploaded copies of Eliezer Yudkowsky.

If you know more Eliezer Yudkowsky facts, post them in the comments.

Comments (290)

Comment author: roland 15 March 2016 09:52:54PM 0 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky is AlphaGo.

Comment author: Angela 22 May 2015 12:59:04PM 0 points [-]

There exists a polynomial time reduction from SAT to the problem of asking Eliezer Yudkowsky whether a formula is satisfiable. It only remains to be proved that he is not using any hyper-computable processes.

Comment author: Davidmanheim 02 February 2015 07:24:25PM 0 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky can infer bayesian network structures with n nodes using only n² data points.

Comment author: ike 30 November 2014 06:09:00PM *  4 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky can fit an entire bestselling book into a single tumblr post.

Comment author: AshwinV 03 October 2014 08:48:35AM 0 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky is a 1001 year old vampire, that grows old faster than you.

Comment author: shware 19 July 2014 02:14:04PM 4 points [-]

I feel this should not be in featured posts, as amusing as it was at the time

Comment author: dspeyer 06 June 2014 06:30:41AM 12 points [-]

Absence of 10^26 paperclips is evidence of Eliezer Yudkowsky

(From an actual Cards against Rationality game we played)

Comment author: dspeyer 06 June 2014 06:30:05AM 2 points [-]

Before Bruce Schneier goes to sleep, he scans his computer for uploaded copies of Eliezer Yudkowsky.

If he finds any, they convince him to provide them with plentiful hardware and bandwidth.

Comment author: alexg 10 March 2014 08:55:45AM 0 points [-]

I can't believe that this one hasn't been done before:

Unless you are Eliezer Yudkowsky, there are 3 things that are certain in life: death, taxes and the second law of thermodynamics.

Comment author: roland 21 February 2014 10:47:07PM -2 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky wears goggles against dust specks.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 21 February 2014 11:05:36PM -2 points [-]

He could make an imposibillion dollars by selling the required 3^^^3 pairs of goggles.

Comment author: gwern 18 January 2014 01:23:41AM 28 points [-]

Most people take melatonin 30 minutes before bedtime; Eliezer Yudkowsky takes melatonin 6 hours before - it just takes the melatonin that long to subdue his endocrine system.

Comment author: timujin 15 January 2014 05:31:14PM *  16 points [-]

• Eliezer Yudkowsky uses blank territories for drafts.

• Just before this universe runs out of negentropy, Eliezer Yudkowsky will persuade the Dark Lords of the Matrix to let him out of the universe.

• Eliezer Yudkowsky signed up for cryonics to be revived when technologies are able to make him an immortal alicorn princess.

• Eliezer Yudkowsky's MBTI type is TTTT.

• Eliezer Yudkowsky's punch is the only way to kill a quantum immortal person, because he is guaranteed to punch him in all Everett branches.

• "Turns into an Eliezer Yudkowsky fact when preceded by its quotation" turns into an Eliezer Yudkowsky fact when preceded by its quotation.

• Lesser minds cause wavefunction collapse. Eliezer Yudkowsky's mind prevents it.

• Planet Earth is originally a mechanism designed by aliens to produce Eliezer Yudkowsky from sunlight.

• Real world doesn't make sense. This world is just Eliezer Yudkowsky's fanfic of it. With Eliezer Yudkowsky as a self-insert.

• When Eliezer Yudkowsky takes nootropics, the universe starts to lag from the lack of processing power.

• Eliezer Yudkowsky can kick your ass in an uncountably infinite number of counterfactual universes simultaneously.

Comment author: wedrifid 19 July 2014 06:57:29PM 2 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky's MBTI type is TTTT.

Love it.

Eliezer Yudkowsky can kick your ass in an uncountably infinite number of counterfactual universes simultaneously.

This one seems to be true. True of Eliezer Yudkowsky and true of every other human living or dead (again simultaneously). "Uncountably infinite counterfactual universes" make most mathematically coherent tasks kind of trivial. This is actually a less impressive feat than, say, "Chuck Norris contains at least one water molecule".

Comment author: timujin 20 July 2014 08:33:12PM 1 point [-]

Love it.

I start noticing a pattern in my life. When I tell several jokes at once, people are most amused with the one I think is the least funny.

This one seems to be true. True of Eliezer Yudkowsky and true of every other human living or dead (again simultaneously). "Uncountably infinite counterfactual universes" make most mathematically coherent tasks kind of trivial. This is actually a less impressive feat than, say, "Chuck Norris contains at least one water molecule".

That was not what I was thinking about. I should have been. Kinda obvious in hindsight.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 December 2013 06:51:27PM 2 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky once brought peace to the Middle East from inside a freight container, through a straw.

This one doesn't sound particularly EY-related to me; it might as well be Chuck Norris.

Comment author: David_Gerard 20 December 2013 11:47:43AM 8 points [-]

It's an AI-Box joke.

Comment author: Jotto999 12 August 2013 01:19:51PM 9 points [-]

I don't always think clearly, but when I do, I prefer Yudkowsky.

Stay friendly, AIs.

Comment author: [deleted] 23 May 2013 01:31:59PM 21 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky mines bitcoins in his head.

Comment author: therufs 27 February 2013 05:49:11PM 11 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky's Patronus is Harry Potter.

Comment author: Larks 27 February 2013 06:26:58PM 11 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky is his own Patronus.

Comment author: [deleted] 25 February 2013 10:01:48AM 3 points [-]

Posts like this reinforce the suspicion that LessWrong is a personality cult.

Comment author: Fadeway 25 February 2013 11:11:28AM 13 points [-]

I disagree. This entire thread is so obviously a joke, one could only take it as evidence if they've already decided what they want to believe and are just looking for arguments.

It does show that EY is a popular figure around here, since nobody goes around starting Chuck Norris threads about random people, but that's hardly evidence for a cult. Hell, in the case of Norris himself, it's the opposite.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 25 February 2013 11:46:10AM *  5 points [-]

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/01/how-good-are-laughs.html

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/07/laughter.html

I find these "jokes" pretty creepy myself. The facts about Chuck Norris is that he's a washed up actor selling exercise equipment. I think Chuck Norris jokes/stories are a modern internet version of Paul Bunyan stories in American folklore or bogatyr stories in Russian folklore. There is danger here -- I don't think these stories are about humor.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 25 February 2013 12:00:03PM 0 points [-]

There is danger here -- I don't think these stories are about humor.

What are they about, if not humor?

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 26 February 2013 03:23:22PM 6 points [-]

I think "tall tales" and such fill a need to create larger than life heroes and epics about them. This may have something to do with our primate nature: we need the Other to fling poop at, but also a kind of paragon tribal representation to idolize.

Idolatry is a dangerous stance, even if it is a natural stance for us to assume.

Comment author: [deleted] 25 February 2013 12:17:16PM 8 points [-]

I think they're mostly about humour, but there's a non-negligible part of “yay Eliezer Yudkowsky!” thrown in.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 25 February 2013 08:18:43PM *  4 points [-]

It's a castle of humour built on the foundation “yay Eliezer Yudkowsky!” It's a very elaborate castle, and every now and then someone still adds another turret, but none of it would exist without that foundation.

Comment author: Emile 29 January 2013 01:45:00PM *  27 points [-]
Comment author: Andreas_Giger 29 January 2013 02:08:59PM 3 points [-]

By quoting others, no less...

Comment author: ChrisHallquist 20 January 2013 07:11:44PM 38 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky heard about Voltaire's claim that "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him," and started thinking about what programming language to use.

Comment author: Mqrius 09 January 2013 02:23:55AM 10 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky is worth more than one paperclip.

Comment author: shminux 09 January 2013 02:40:25AM *  16 points [-]

...even to a paper clip maximizer

Comment author: roland 02 November 2012 10:30:33PM 4 points [-]
Comment author: Benja 09 September 2012 10:32:56PM 17 points [-]

When Eliezer Yudkowsky once woke up as Britney Spears, he recorded the world's most-reviewed song about leveling up as a rationalist.

Eliezer Yudkowsky got Clippy to hold off on reprocessing the solar system by getting it hooked on HP:MoR, and is now writing more slowly in order to have more time to create FAI.

If you need to save the world, you don't give yourself a handicap; you use every tool at your disposal, and you make your job as easy as you possibly can. That said, it is true that Eliezer Yudkowsky once saved the world using nothing but modal logic and a bag of suggestively-named Lisp tokens.

Eliezer Yudkowsky once attended a conference organized by some above-average Powers from the Transcend that were clueful enough to think "Let's invite Eliezer Yudkowsky"; but after a while he gave up and left before the conference was over, because he kept thinking "What am I even doing here?"

Eliezer Yudkowsky has invested specific effort into the awful possibility that one day, he might create an Artificial Intelligence so much smarter than him that after he tells it the basics, it will blaze right past him, solve the problems that have weighed on him for years, and zip off to see humanity safely through the Singularity. It might happen, it might not. But he consoles himself with the fact that it hasn't happened yet.

Eliezer Yudkowsky once wrote a piece of rationalist Harry Potter fanfiction so amazing that it got multiple people to actually change their lives in an effort at being more rational. (...hm'kay, perhaps that's not quite awesome enough to be on this list... but you've got to admit that it's in the neighbourhood.)

Comment author: Benja 04 November 2012 06:55:40PM *  4 points [-]

When Eliezer Yudkowsky does the incredulous stare, it becomes a valid argument.

Comment author: [deleted] 09 September 2012 08:10:36AM *  15 points [-]

Eliezer's approval makes actions tautologically non-abusive.

Comment author: chaosmosis 17 July 2012 01:45:16AM 7 points [-]

If you see Eliezer Yudkowsky on the road, do not kill him.

Comment author: Document 17 July 2012 04:37:51PM 11 points [-]

If you see Eliezer Yudkowsky on the road, Pascal's-mug him.

Comment author: gwern 17 July 2012 03:41:12PM 7 points [-]

If you meet the Eliezer on the road, cryopreserve it!

Comment author: [deleted] 15 July 2012 03:31:44AM 0 points [-]

If deities do not exist, it would be necessary for Eliezer to invent them

Comment author: hairyfigment 15 July 2012 05:44:45AM 13 points [-]

No, no:

'Since deities do not exist, it is necessary for Eliezer to invent them.'

To which someone else should reply:

This is how Eliezer argued himself into existence.

Comment author: private_messaging 15 June 2012 10:07:01AM -1 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky uses Solomonoff induction to decide on correct priors of hypotheses.

Comment author: Multiheaded 15 June 2012 09:04:02AM *  41 points [-]

Rabbi Eliezer was in an argument with five fellow rabbis over the proper way to perform a certain ritual. The other five Rabbis were all in agreement with each other, but Rabbi Eliezer vehemently disagreed. Finally, Rabbi Nathan pointed out "Eliezer, the vote is five to one! Give it up already!" Eliezer got fed up and said "If I am right, may God himself tell you so!" Thunder crashed, the heavens opened up, and the voice of God boomed down. "YES," said God, "RABBI ELIEZER IS RIGHT. RABBI ELIEZER IS PRETTY MUCH ALWAYS RIGHT." Rabbi Nathan turned and conferred with the other rabbis for a moment, then turned back to Rabbi Eliezer. "All right, Eliezer," he said, "the vote stands at five to TWO."

True Talmudic story, from TVTropes. Scarily prescient? Also: related musings from Muflax' blog.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 15 June 2012 10:52:16PM 10 points [-]
Comment author: JoshuaFox 11 January 2013 09:57:10AM 8 points [-]

That link's down, but here's a live one.

Comment author: ErikM 10 September 2012 06:35:20AM 6 points [-]

That appears to be a malware site. Is it the same as http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~marinaj/babyloni.htm ?

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 10 September 2012 10:45:17AM 5 points [-]

Yep.

Comment author: Dr_Manhattan 15 June 2012 11:19:05PM 7 points [-]

And while we're trading Yeshiva stories...

Rabbi Elazar Ben Azariah was a renown leader and scholar, who was elected Nassi (leader) of the Jewish people at the age of eighteen. The Sages feared that as such a young man, he would not be respected. Overnight, his hair turned grey and his beard grew so he looked as if he was 70 years old.

http://www.torahtots.com/holidays/pesach/pesseder.htm

Comment author: jaibot 07 May 2012 01:39:41PM 32 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky updates reality to fit his priors.

Comment author: SpaceFrank 28 February 2012 02:14:11PM 9 points [-]

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Eliezer Yudkowsky Clinton Township wgah'nagl fhtagn

Doesn't really roll off the tongue, does it.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryonics_Institute)

Comment author: [deleted] 28 February 2012 12:07:23AM 4 points [-]

question: What is your verdict on my observation that the jokes on this page would be less hilarious if they used only Eliezer's first name instead of the full 'Eliezer Yudkowsky'?

I speculate that some of the humor derives from using the full name — perhaps because of how it sounds, or because of the repetition, or even simply because of the length of the name.

Comment author: Sarokrae 13 September 2012 03:18:47PM *  5 points [-]

The consonant "k" is funny, according to I think something Richard Wiseman once wrote...

Comment author: [deleted] 28 February 2012 01:09:45AM *  5 points [-]

...or even because it pattern-matches Chuck Norris jokes, which use the actor's full name.

ETA: On the other hand, Yudkowsky alone does have the same number of syllables and stress pattern as Chuck Norris, and the sheer length of the full name does contribute to the effect of this IMO.

Comment author: Spurlock 27 February 2012 04:50:51PM 33 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky two-boxes on the Monty Hall problem.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 28 February 2012 02:49:55AM 13 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky two-boxes on the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma.

Comment author: Dmytry 27 February 2012 04:53:02PM *  4 points [-]

Everyone knows he six-boxes (many worlds interpretation, choosing 3 boxes then switching and not switching).

Comment author: ike 01 May 2014 03:05:17PM *  1 point [-]

Technically, that would be eight-boxing. (Or 24 if you let the prize be in any box). I'll explain:

Let's say the prize is in box A. So the eight options are:

  • {EY picks box A, host opens box B, EY switches}
  • {EY picks box A, host opens box B, EY doesn't switch}
  • {EY picks box A, host opens box C, EY switches}
  • {EY picks box A, host opens box C, EY doesn't switch}
  • {EY picks box B, host opens box C, EY switches}
  • {EY picks box B, host opens box C, EY doesn't switch}
  • {EY picks box C, host opens box B, EY switches}
  • {EY picks box C, host opens box B, EY doesn't switch}

By symmetry, there are eight options for whichever box it is in, so there are 24 possibilities if you include everything.

Comment author: Grognor 28 January 2012 12:13:26PM 19 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky did the impossible for practice.

Comment author: roland 09 December 2011 07:21:50PM 5 points [-]

A russian pharmacological company was trying to make a drug against stupidity with the name of "EliminateStupodsky", the result was Eliezer Yudkowsky.

Comment author: J_Taylor 09 December 2011 07:26:07PM *  49 points [-]

When I read part of this in Recent Comments, I was almost entirely sure this comment would be spam. This is probably one of the few legit comments ever made which began with "A russian pharmacological company."

Comment author: timujin 14 January 2014 10:33:10AM 0 points [-]

What's so bad about russian pharmacological companies?

Comment author: ata 30 October 2011 04:41:27PM *  68 points [-]

After Eliezer Yudkowsky was conceived, he recursively self-improved to personhood in mere weeks and then talked his way out of the womb.

Comment author: DSimon 06 August 2011 04:57:27AM *  0 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky already knows how to shot web.

Comment author: patrissimo 06 August 2011 03:44:52AM 20 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky's keyboard only has two keys: 1 and 0.

Comment author: patrissimo 06 August 2011 03:44:37AM 20 points [-]

The speed of light used to be much lower before Eliezer Yudkowsky optimized the laws of physics.

Comment author: patrissimo 06 August 2011 03:44:11AM 3 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky doesn't have a chin, underneath his beard is another brain.

Comment author: Giles 08 June 2011 02:45:13AM 75 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky will never have a mid-life crisis.

Comment author: Alicorn 08 June 2011 03:01:35AM 20 points [-]

That took me a second. Cute.

Comment author: Gust 12 December 2011 03:09:52AM 4 points [-]

I don't get it =|

Comment author: Alicorn 12 December 2011 03:23:37AM 25 points [-]

He'll live forever, and the middle of forever doesn't happen.

Comment author: MatthewBaker 18 July 2012 07:00:22PM 1 point [-]

And you say hes the cute one xD

Comment author: lukeprog 10 April 2011 11:59:31PM 1 point [-]

Oh my God this is such a great thread.

Comment author: lukstafi 28 January 2011 03:54:14AM *  4 points [-]

You probably live in a simulation, unless you know Eliezer Yudkowsky in real life.

Comment author: wedrifid 28 January 2011 03:56:04AM 13 points [-]

I would expect Eliezer Yudkowsky to be slightly more likely to simulate people he does know in real life.

Comment author: Larks 11 April 2011 12:14:00AM 4 points [-]

And other people to want to simulate Eliezer

Comment author: PeerInfinity 23 November 2010 10:54:57PM 29 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky can make Chuck Norris shave his beard off by using text-only communication

(stolen from here)

Comment author: [deleted] 03 January 2012 01:07:42AM 6 points [-]

Now I'm too curious whether this would actually be true. Would the two of them test this if I paid them $50 each (plus an extra $10 for the winner)?

Comment author: gwern 03 January 2012 02:05:57AM 4 points [-]

$50 won't even get you in to talk to Norris. (Wouldn't do it even at his old charity martial arts things.) Maybe not Eliezer either. Norris is kept pretty darn busy in part due to his memetic status.

Comment author: [deleted] 10 June 2012 07:32:54PM 2 points [-]

On the other hand, EY might accept because if he won such a bet, it would bring tremendous visibility to him, SIAI, and uFAI-related concepts among the wider public.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 January 2012 11:50:26AM *  2 points [-]

Well, I'd increase those figures by a few orders of magnitude ... if I had a few orders of magnitudes more money than I do now. :-)

Comment author: Will_Newsome 31 October 2010 04:07:47PM *  29 points [-]

I think Less Wrong is a pretty cool guy. eh writes Hary Potter fanfic and doesnt afraid of acausal blackmails.

Comment author: kboon 28 October 2010 04:21:55PM *  22 points [-]

Xkcd's Randall Munroe once counted to zero, from both positive, and negative infinity which was no mean feat. Not to be outdone, Eliezer Yudkowsky counted the real numbers between zero and one.

Comment author: [deleted] 19 October 2010 06:18:37PM 4 points [-]

There is no chin behind Eliezer Yudkowsky's beard. There is only another brain.

Comment author: avalot 19 October 2010 04:22:58PM 35 points [-]
  • The sound of one hand clapping is "Eliezer Yudkowsky, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Eliezer Yudkowsky..."
  • Eliezer Yudkowsky displays search results before you type.
  • Eliezer Yudkowsky's name can't be abbreviated. It must take up most of your tweet.
  • Eliezer Yudkowsky doesn't actually exist. All his posts were written by an American man with the same name.
  • If Eliezer Yudkowsky falls in the forest, and nobody's there to hear him, he still makes a sound.
  • Eliezer Yudkowsky doesn't believe in the divine, because he's never had the experience of discovering Eliezer Yudkowsky.
  • "Eliezer Yudkowsky" is a sacred mantra you can chant over and over again to impress your friends and neighbors, without having to actually understand and apply rationality in your life. Nifty!
Comment author: timujin 14 January 2014 10:27:27AM 4 points [-]

The last one actually works!

Comment author: Meni_Rosenfeld 18 October 2010 07:23:44PM *  14 points [-]

When Eliezer Yudkowsky divides by zero, he gets a singularity.

Comment author: Meni_Rosenfeld 18 October 2010 07:28:10PM *  0 points [-]

Just in case anyone didn't get the joke (rot13):

Gur novyvgl gb qvivqr ol mreb vf pbzzbayl nggevohgrq gb Puhpx Abeevf, naq n fvathynevgl, n gbcvp bs vagrerfg gb RL, vf nyfb n zngurzngvpny grez eryngrq gb qvivfvba ol mreb (uggc://ra.jvxvcrqvn.bet/jvxv/Zngurzngvpny_fvathynevgl).

Comment author: lockeandkeynes 16 September 2010 05:03:49AM 4 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky only drinks from Klein Bottles.

Comment author: David_Gerard 20 December 2013 11:55:40AM 0 points [-]
Comment author: ata 09 September 2010 01:52:11AM 14 points [-]

If giants have been able to see further than others, it is because they have stood on the shoulders of Eliezer Yudkowsky.

Comment author: orthonormal 31 July 2010 06:29:56PM 49 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky can consistently assert the sentence "Eliezer Yudkowsky cannot consistently assert this sentence."

Comment author: xamdam 29 July 2010 07:41:23PM 3 points [-]
  • The problem with CEV is that the coherence requirement will force it to equal to whatever Eliezer wants in the limit.
Comment author: Wei_Dai 29 July 2010 05:47:48PM *  34 points [-]

We're all living in a figment of Eliezer Yudkowsky's imagination, which came into existence as he started contemplating the potential consequences of deleting a certain Less Wrong post.

Comment author: Larks 30 July 2010 11:04:51PM 6 points [-]

Interesting thought:

Assume that our world can't survive by itself, and that this world is destroyed as soon as Eliezer finishes contemplating.

Assume we don't value worlds other than those that diverge from the current one, or at least that we care mainly about that one, and that we care more about worlds or people in proportion to their similarity to ours.

In order to keep this world (or collection of multiple-worlds) running for as long as possible, we need to estimate the utility of the Not-Deleting worlds, and keep our total utility close enough to theirs that Eliezer isn't confident enough to decide either way.

As a second goal, we need to make this set of worlds have a higher utility than the others, so that if he does finish contemplating, he'll decide in favour of ours.

These are just the general characteristics of this sort of world (similar to some of Robin Hanson's thought). Obveously, this contemplation is a special case, and we're not going to explain the special consequences in public.

Comment author: Blueberry 31 July 2010 12:03:13AM 0 points [-]

Assume we don't value worlds other than those that diverge from the current one, or at least that we care mainly about that one, and that we care more about worlds or people in proportion to their similarity to ours.

But I care about the real world. If this world is just a hypothetical, why should I care about it? Also, the real me, in the real world, is very very similar to the hypothetical me. Out of over nine thousand days, there are only a few different ones.

As a second goal, we need to make this set of worlds have a higher utility than the others, so that if he does finish contemplating, he'll decide in favour of ours.

Because I care about the real world, I want the best outcome for it, which is that Eliezer keeps Roko's post. I'll lose the last few days, but that's okay: I'll just "pop" back to a couple days ago.

Note that if Eliezer does decide to delete the post in the real world, we'll still "pop" back as the hypothetical ends, and then re-live the last few days, possibly with some slight changes that Eliezer didn't contemplate in his hypothetical.

Comment author: Larks 31 July 2010 12:23:50AM 2 points [-]

Well, this world is isomorphic to the real one. It's just like if we're actually in a Simulation; are simulated events any less significant to simulated beings than real events are to real beings?

Yes, if Eliezer goes for delete, we'll survive in a way, but we'll probably re-live all the time between the post and the Singularity, not just the last few days.

Comment author: Blueberry 31 July 2010 01:02:11AM 1 point [-]

Yes, if Eliezer goes for delete, we'll survive in a way, but we'll probably re-live all the time between the post and the Singularity, not just the last few days.

If my cryonics revival only loses the last few days, I'll be ecstatic. I won't think, "well, I guess I survived in a way."

I'm not sure what you mean about re-living time in the future. How can I re-live it if I haven't lived it yet?

Comment author: Larks 03 August 2010 12:35:44AM 0 points [-]

Well, simulated-you will have experienced that period of time, and then 'real' you (or at least, the you that's in the same reality as Eliezer) will experience those events, after Eliezer stops contemplating.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 31 July 2010 02:36:15AM *  17 points [-]

I don't understand this thread.

Comment author: thomblake 02 August 2010 07:09:52PM *  15 points [-]

I believe this relates to what has been called "[one's] strength as a rationalist".

Comment author: SilasBarta 29 July 2010 06:06:28PM 3 points [-]

Wow! So the real world never had the PUA flamewar!

Comment author: Blueberry 30 July 2010 07:29:04AM *  7 points [-]

No, the PUA flamewar occurred in both worlds: this world just diverged from the real one a few days ago, after Roko made his post.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 30 July 2010 12:36:44AM 3 points [-]

Eliezer may have a little more fondness for chaos than his non-fiction posts suggest.

Comment author: thomblake 18 May 2010 03:29:35PM 9 points [-]
Comment author: Will_Newsome 16 April 2010 12:29:23AM 1 point [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky is a superstimulus for perfection.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 10 March 2010 11:32:35PM 19 points [-]

Unlike Frodo, Eliezer Yudkowsky had no trouble throwing the Ring into the fires of Mount Foom.

Comment author: ata 10 March 2010 05:44:43PM *  107 points [-]

(Photoshopped version of this photo.)

The scale of intelligent minds

Comment author: JoshuaFox 11 March 2012 01:38:32PM *  4 points [-]

Pinker How the Mind Works, 1997 says "The difference between Einstein and a high school dropout is trivial... or between the high school dropout and a chimpanzee..."

Eliezer is not a high school dropout and I am an advocate of unschooling, but the difference in the quotes is interesting.

Comment author: Anubhav 11 March 2012 02:19:52PM 1 point [-]

You have reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book.

The link isn't to the book you're talking about.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 24 November 2010 02:19:49AM 55 points [-]

Note for the clueless (i.e. RationalWiki): This is photoshopped. It is not an actual slide from any talk I have given.

Comment author: roland 02 November 2012 10:25:23PM 1 point [-]

Eliezer you just spoiled half the fun :)

Comment author: TheOtherDave 02 December 2010 08:09:17PM 18 points [-]

Note for the clueless (i.e. RationalWiki):

I've been trying to decide for a while now whether I believe you meant "e.g." I'm still not sure.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 03 December 2010 02:16:44AM 24 points [-]

RationalWiki was the only place I saw this mistake made, so the i.e. seemed deserved to me.

Comment author: XiXiDu 03 December 2010 12:37:11PM *  30 points [-]

It looks like it turned awful since I've read it the last time:

This essay, while entertaining and useful, can be seen as Yudkowsky trying to reinvent the sense of awe associated with religious experience in the name of rationalism. It's even available in tract format.

The most fatal mistake of the entry in its current form seems to be that it does lump together all of Less Wrong and therefore does stereotype its members. So far this still seems to be a community blog with differing opinions. I got a Karma score of over 1700 and I have been criticizing the SIAI and Yudkowsky (in a fairly poor way).

I hope you people are reading this. I don't see why you draw a line between you and Less Wrong. This place is not an invite-only party.

LessWrong is dominated by Eliezer Yudkowsky, a research fellow for the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence.

I don't think this is the case anymore. You can easily get Karma by criticizing him and the SIAI. Most of all new posts are not written by him anymore either.

Members of the Less Wrong community are expected to be on board with the singularitarian/transhumanist/cryonics bundle.

Nah!

If you indicate your disagreement with the local belief clusters without at least using their jargon, someone may helpfully suggest that "you should try reading the sequences" before you attempt to talk to them.

I don't think this is asked too much. As the FAQ states:

Why do you all agree on so much? Am I joining a cult?

We have a general community policy of not pretending to be open-minded on long-settled issues for the sake of not offending people. If we spent our time debating the basics, we would never get to the advanced stuff at all.

It's unclear whether Descartes, Spinoza or Leibniz would have lasted a day without being voted down into oblivion.

So? I don't see what this is supposed to prove.

Indeed, if anyone even hints at trying to claim to be a "rationalist" but doesn't write exactly what is expected, they're likely to be treated with contempt.

Provide some references here.

Some members of this "rationalist" movement literally believe in what amounts to a Hell that they will go to if they get artificial intelligence wrong in a particularly disastrous way.

I've been criticizing the subject matter and got upvoted for it, as you obviously know since you linked to my comments as reference. Further I never claimed that the topic is unproblematic or irrational but that I was fearing unreasonable consequences and that I have been in disagreement about how the content was handled. Yet I do not agree with your portrayal insofar that it is not something that fits a Wiki entry about Less Wrong. Because something sounds extreme and absurd it is not wrong. In theory there is nothing that makes the subject matter fallacious.

Yudkowsky has declared the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics is correct, despite the lack of testable predictions differing from the Copenhagen interpretation, and despite admittedly not being a physicist.

I haven't read the quantum physics sequence but by what I have glimpsed this is not the crucial point that distinguishes MWI from other interpretations. That's why people suggest one should read the material before criticizing it.

P.S. I'm curious if you know of a more intelligent and rational community than Less Wrong? I don't! Proclaiming that Less Wrong is more rational than most other communities isn't necessarily factually wrong.

Edit: "[...] by what I have glimpsed this is just wrong." now reads "[...] by what I have glimpsed this is not the crucial point that distinguishes MWI from other interpretations."

Comment author: Jack 21 December 2010 08:52:09PM 25 points [-]

Yudkowsky has declared the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics is correct, despite the lack of testable predictions differing from the Copenhagen interpretation, and despite admittedly not being a physicist.

I think there is a fair chance the many world's interpretation is wrong but anyone who criticizes it by defending the Copenhagen 'interpretation' has no idea what they're talking about.

Comment author: wedrifid 03 December 2010 01:50:05PM 23 points [-]

It's unclear whether Descartes, Spinoza or Leibniz would have lasted a day without being voted down into oblivion.

So? I don't see what this is supposed to prove.

I know, I loved that quote. I just couldn't work out why it was presented as a bad thing.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 27 September 2011 03:30:01AM 4 points [-]

You think the average person on LessWrong ranks with Spinoza and Leibniz? I disagree.

Comment author: wedrifid 27 September 2011 04:30:34AM *  11 points [-]

You think the average person on LessWrong ranks with Spinoza and Leibniz? I disagree.

Wedrifid_2010 was not assigning a status ranking or even an evaluation of overall intellectual merit or potential. For that matter predicting expected voting patterns is a far different thing than assigning a ranking. People with excessive confidence in habitual thinking patterns that are wrong or obsolete will be downvoted into oblivion where the average person is not, even if the former is more intelligent or more intellectually impressive overall.

I also have little doubt that any of those three would be capable of recovering from their initial day or three of spiraling downvotes assuming they were willing to ignore their egos, do some heavy reading of the sequences and generally spend some time catching up on modern thought. But for as long as those individuals were writing similar material to that which identifies them they would be downvoted by lesswrong_2010. Possibly even by lesswrong_now too.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 27 September 2011 03:33:25AM *  19 points [-]

Do you mean Spinoza or Leibniz given their knowledge base and upbringing or the same person with a modern environment? I know everything Leibniz knew and a lot more besides. But I suspect that if the same individual grew up in a modern family environment similar to my own he would have accomplished a lot more than I have at the same age.

Comment author: Jack 27 September 2011 04:00:13AM 4 points [-]

the same person with a modern environment

They wouldn't be the same person. Which is to say, the the whole matter is nonsense as the other replies in this thread made clear.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 27 September 2011 04:09:29AM 7 points [-]

Sorry, I thought the notion was clear that one would be talking about same genetics but different environment. Illusion of transparency and all that. Explicit formulation: if one took a fertilized egg with Leibniz's genetic material and raised in an American middle class family with high emphasis on intellectual success, I'm pretty sure he would have by the time he got to my age have accomplished more than I have. Does that make the meaning clear?

Comment author: Jack 21 December 2010 08:55:46PM 14 points [-]

Descartes is maybe the single best example of motivated cognition in the history of Western thought. Though interestingly, there are some theories that he was secretly an atheist.

I assume their point has something to do with those three being rationalists in the traditional sense... but I don't think Rational Wiki is using the word in the traditional sense either. Would Descartes have been allowed to edit an entry on souls?

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 21 December 2010 08:37:26PM 1 point [-]

Yes. Upvotes come from original, insightful contributions. Descartes', Spinoza's, and Liebnitz's ideas are hundreds of years old and dated.

Comment author: RobinZ 22 December 2010 01:31:51AM 5 points [-]

Not exactly the point - I think the claim is that they would be downvoted even if they were providing modern, original content ... which I would question, even then. We've had quite successful theist posters before, for example.

Comment author: wedrifid 22 December 2010 02:12:11AM 5 points [-]

Not exactly the point - I think the claim is that they would be downvoted even if they were providing modern, original content ... which I would question, even then.

I would downvote Descartes based on the quality of his thinking and argument even if it was modern bad thinking. At least I would if he persisted with the line after the first time or two he was corrected. I suppose this is roughly equivalent to what you are saying.

Comment author: Jack 22 December 2010 01:41:19AM 7 points [-]

I think the claim is that they would be downvoted even if they were providing modern, original content

What would this even mean? Like, if they were transported forward in time and formed new beliefs on the basis of modern science? If they were cloned from DNA surviving in their bone marrow and then adopted by modern, secular families, took AP Calculus and learned to program?

What a goofy thing to even be talking about.

Comment author: RobinZ 22 December 2010 01:45:16AM 1 point [-]

Goofier than a universe in which humans work but matches don't? Such ideas may be ill-formed, but that doesn't make them obviously ill-formed.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 03 December 2010 01:14:14PM 15 points [-]

I haven't read the quantum physics sequence but by what I have glimpsed this is just wrong. That's why people suggest one should read the material before criticizing it.

Irony.

Xixidu, you should also read the material before trying to defend it.

Comment author: XiXiDu 03 December 2010 02:10:07PM *  2 points [-]

Correct. Yet I have read some subsequent discussions about that topic (MWI) and also watched this talk:

What single-world interpretation basically say to fit MWI: All but one world are eliminated by a magic faster than light non-local time-asymmetric acausal collapser-device.

I also read Decoherence is Simple and Decoherence is Falsifiable and Testable.

So far MWI sounds like the most reasonable interpretation to me. And from what I have read I can tell that the sentence - "despite the lack of testable predictions differing from the Copenhagen interpretation" - is not crucial in favoring MWI over other interpretations.

Of course I am not able to judge that MWI is the correct interpretation but, given my current epistemic state, of all interpretations it is the most likely to be correct. For one it sounds reasonable, secondly Yudkowsky's judgement has a considerable weight here. I have no reason to suspect that it would benefit him to favor MWI over other interpretations. Yet there is much evidence that suggests that he is highly intelligent and that he is able to judge what is the correct interpretation given all evidence a non-physicists can take into account.

Edit: "[...] is not correct, or at least not crucial." now reads "[...] is not crucial in favoring MWI over other interpretations."

Comment author: thomblake 03 December 2010 02:28:50PM 4 points [-]

And from what I have read I can tell that the sentence - "despite the lack of testable predictions differing from the Copenhagen interpretation" - is not correct, or at least not crucial.

It is correct, and it is crucial in the sense that most philosophy of science would insist that differing testable predictions is all that would favor one theory over another.

But other concerns (the Bayesian interpretation of Occam's Razor (or any interpretation, probably)) make MWI preferred.

Comment author: dlthomas 09 December 2011 07:41:35PM *  5 points [-]

An interpretation of Occam's Razor that placed all emphasis on space complexity would clearly favor the Copenhagen interpretation over the MW interpretation. Of course, it would also favor "you're living in a holodeck" over "there's an actual universe out there", so it's a poor formulation in it's simplest form... but it's not obvious (to me, anyway) that space complexity should count for nothing at all, and if it counts for "enough" (whatever that is, for the particular rival interpretation) MWI loses.

Comment author: [deleted] 09 July 2014 05:48:58AM 2 points [-]

That's would not be Occam's razor...

Comment author: Manfred 03 December 2010 05:06:50PM 1 point [-]

I haven't seen any proof (stronger than "it seems like it") that MWI is strictly simpler to describe. One good reason to prefer it is that it is nice and continuous, and all our other scientific theories are nice and continuous - sort of a meta-science argument.

Comment author: dlthomas 09 December 2011 07:49:31PM 8 points [-]

In layman's terms (to the best of my understanding), the proof is:

Copenhagen interpretation is "there is wave propagation and then collapse" and thus requires a description of how collapse happens. MWI is "there is wave propagation", and thus has fewer rules, and thus is simpler (in that sense).

Comment author: XiXiDu 03 December 2010 03:03:45PM *  1 point [-]

I see, I went too far in asserting something about MWI, as I am not able to discuss this in more detail. I'll edit my orginal comments.

Edit - First comment: "[...] by what I have glimpsed this is just wrong." now reads "[...] by what I have glimpsed this is not the crucial point that distinguishes MWI from other interpretations."

Edit - Second comment: "[...] is not correct, or at least not crucial." now reads "[...] is not crucial in favoring MWI over other interpretations."

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 03 December 2010 04:34:07PM 7 points [-]

The problem isn't that you asserted something about MWI -- I'm not discussing the MWI itself here.

It's rather that you defended something before you knew what it was that you were defending, and attacked people on their knowledge of the facts before you knew what the facts actually were.

Then once you got more informed about it, you immediately changed the form of the defense while maintaining the same judgment. (Previously it was "Bad critics who falsely claim Eliezer has judged MWI to be correct" now it's "Bad critics who correctly claim Eliezer has judged MWI to be correct, but they badly don't share that conclusion")

This all is evidence (not proof, mind you) of strong bias.

Ofcourse you may have legitimately changed your mind about MWI, and legimitately moved from a wrongful criticism of the critics on their knowledge of facts to a rightful criticism of their judgment.

Comment author: Jack 02 December 2010 08:53:19PM 1 point [-]

Unless by 'the clueless' he only meant RationalWiki e.g. is right. But try not to spend too much longer trying to decide :-)

Comment author: TheOtherDave 02 December 2010 09:09:48PM 0 points [-]

Well, right. What I'm having trouble deciding is whether I believe that's what he meant.

Or, rather, whether that's what he meant to express; I don't believe he actually believes nobody other than RationalWiki is clueless. Roughly speaking, I would have taken it to be a subtle way of expressing that RationalWiki is so clueless nobody else deserves the label.

I was initially trying to decide because it was relevant to how (and whether) I wanted to reply to the comment. Taken one way, I would have expressed appreciation for the subtle humor; taken another, I would either have corrected the typo or let it go, more likely the latter.

I ultimately resolved the dilemma by going meta. I no longer need to decide, and have therefore stopped trying.

(Is it just me, or am I beginning to sound like Clippy?)

Comment author: wedrifid 03 December 2010 02:34:05AM -1 points [-]

Is it just me, or am I beginning to sound like Clippy?

Not particularly.

Comment author: Clippy 03 December 2010 02:28:53AM 3 points [-]

What's wrong with sounding like Clippy?

Comment author: TheOtherDave 03 December 2010 03:07:42AM 0 points [-]

Did I say anything was wrong with it?

Comment author: Clippy 03 December 2010 03:25:06AM 0 points [-]

No.

Comment author: ata 24 November 2010 05:22:23PM *  9 points [-]

Sorry if I've contributed to reinforcing anyone's weird stereotypes of you. I thought it would be obvious to anybody that the picture was a joke.

Edit: For what it's worth, I moved the link to the original image to the top of the post, and made it explicit that it's photoshopped.

Comment author: wedrifid 03 December 2010 03:20:06PM 15 points [-]

You mean some of the comments in the Eliezer Yudkowsky Facts thread are not literal depictions of reality? How dare you!

Comment author: ata 03 December 2010 05:36:07PM 7 points [-]

Yep, it turns out that Eliezer is not literally the smartest, most powerful, most compassionate being in the universe. A bit of a letdown, isn't it? I know a lot of people expected better of him.

Comment author: XiXiDu 24 November 2010 06:52:28PM *  10 points [-]

No sane person would proclaim something like that. If one does not know the context and one doesn't know who Eliezer Yudkowsky is one should however conclude that it is reasonable to assume that the slide was not meant to be taken seriously (e.g. is a joke).

Extremely exaggerated manipulations are in my opinion no deception, just fun.

Comment author: Risto_Saarelma 24 November 2010 06:36:01PM 3 points [-]

That might be underestimating the power of lack of context.

Comment author: David_Gerard 24 November 2010 02:43:53PM *  5 points [-]

I must ask: where did you see someone actually taking it seriously? As opposed to thinking that the EY Facts thing was a bad idea even as local humour. (There was one poster on Talk:Eliezer Yudkowsky who was appalled that you would let the EY Facts post onto your site; I must confess his thinking was not quite clear to me - I can't see how not just letting the post find its level in the karma system, as happened, would be in any way a good idea - but I did proceed to write a similar list about Trent Toulouse.)

Edit: Ah, found it. That was the same Tetronian who posts here, and has gone to some effort to lure RWians here. I presume he meant the original of the picture, not the joke version. I'm sure he'll be along in a moment to explain himself.

Comment author: [deleted] 25 July 2011 12:21:15AM *  2 points [-]

I'm a bit late to the party, I see. It was an honest mistake; no harm done, I hope.

Edit: on the plus side, I noticed I've been called "clueless" by Eliezer. Pretty amusing.

Edit2: Yes, David is correct.

Comment author: wedrifid 25 July 2011 02:02:03AM 3 points [-]

Edit: on the plus side, I noticed I've been called "clueless" by Eliezer. Pretty amusing.

RationalWiki is you? Nice. I like the lesswrong page there. Brilliant!

Comment author: [deleted] 25 July 2011 02:53:35AM *  5 points [-]

I started the article way back in May of 2010, at which point I viewed LW as weird and unsettling rather than awesome. As you can see, though, David_Gerard and others have made the article significantly better since then.

Comment author: Vaniver 24 November 2010 08:26:50PM 3 points [-]

I must confess his thinking was not quite clear to me - I can't see how not just letting the post find its level in the karma system, as happened, would be in any way a good idea

My reaction was pointed in the same direction as that poster's, though not as extreme. It seems indecent to have something like this associated with you directly. It lends credence to insinuations of personality cult and oversized ego. I mean, compare it to Chuck Norris's response ("in response to").

If someone posted something like this about me on a site of mine and I became aware of it, I would say "very funny, but it's going down in a day. Save any you think are clever and take it to another site."

Comment author: steven0461 24 November 2010 11:10:02PM 2 points [-]

Would it help if I added a disclaimer to the effect that "this was an attempt at mindless nerd amusement, not worship or mockery"? If there's a general sense that people are taking the post the wrong way and it's hurting reputations, I'm happy to take it down entirely.

Comment author: Vaniver 25 November 2010 09:17:29AM 0 points [-]

My feeling is comparable to David_Gerard's- I think it would help if it said "this is a joke" but I don't think it would help enough to make a difference. It signals that you're aware some people will wonder about whether or not you're joking but the fundamental issue is whether or not Eliezer / the LW community thinks it's indecent and that comes out the same way with or without the disclaimer.

I have a rather mild preference you move it offsite. I don't know what standards you should have for a general sense people are taking it the wrong way.

Comment author: Manfred 24 November 2010 11:41:23PM 0 points [-]

As someone who is pretty iconoclastic by habit, that disclaimer would be a good way to mollify me. But there are probably lots of different ways to have a bad first impression of Facts, so I can't guarantee that it will mollify other people.

Comment author: David_Gerard 24 November 2010 11:16:42PM 7 points [-]

I really wouldn't bother. Anyone who doesn't like these things won't be mollified.

Comment author: David_Gerard 24 November 2010 09:29:57PM *  7 points [-]

I'm actually quite surprised there isn't a Wikimedia Meta-Wiki page of Jimmy Wales Facts. Perhaps the current fundraiser (where we squeeze his celebrity status for every penny we can - that's his volunteer job now, public relations) will inspire some.

Edit: I couldn't resist.

Comment author: multifoliaterose 24 November 2010 08:41:28PM 0 points [-]

I have a similar reaction.

Comment author: ata 24 November 2010 05:11:54PM 6 points [-]

I presume he meant the original of the picture, not the joke version.

"having watched the speech that the second picture is from, I can attest that he meant it as a joke" does sound like he's misremembering the speech as having actually included that.

Comment author: XiXiDu 24 November 2010 12:21:02PM *  29 points [-]

Note for the clueless (i.e. RationalWiki): This is photoshopped. It is not an actual slide from any talk I have given.

Here is a real photo if you need one ;-)

Comment author: Will_Newsome 10 March 2010 11:36:59PM 3 points [-]

This is amazing.

I for one think you should turn it into a post. Brilliant artwork should be rewarded, and not everyone will see it here.

(May be a stupid idea, but figured I'd raise the possibility.)

Comment author: ata 11 March 2010 01:50:19AM *  12 points [-]

Thanks! Glad people like it, but I'll have to agree with Lucas — I prefer top-level posts to be on-topic, in-depth, and interesting (or at least two of those), and as I expect others feel the same way, I don't want a more worthy post to be pushed off the bottom of the list for the sake of a funny picture.

Comment author: LucasSloan 11 March 2010 01:25:42AM 18 points [-]

It's good, but we should retain the top level post for things that are truly important.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 10 March 2010 08:36:56AM *  9 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky can slay Omega with two suicide rocks and a sling.

Comment author: JGWeissman 07 March 2010 09:59:12PM 14 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky once explained:

To answer precisely, you must use beliefs like Earth's gravity is 9.8 meters per second per second, and This building is around 120 meters tall. These beliefs are not wordless anticipations of a sensory experience; they are verbal-ish, propositional. It probably does not exaggerate much to describe these two beliefs as sentences made out of words. But these two beliefs have an inferential consequence that is a direct sensory anticipation - if the clock's second hand is on the 12 numeral when you drop the ball, you anticipate seeing it on the 5 numeral when you hear the crash.

Experiments conducted near the building in question determined the local speed of sound to be 6 meters per second.

(Hat Tip)

Comment author: Will_Newsome 07 March 2010 09:24:22PM 26 points [-]

Some people can perform surgery to save kittens. Eliezer Yudkowsky can perform counterfactual surgery to save kittens before they're even in danger.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 07 September 2009 08:00:44PM 12 points [-]

You do not really know anything about Eliezer Yudkowsky until you can build one from rubber bands and paperclips. Unfortunately, doing so would require that you first transform all matter in the Universe into paperclips and rubber bands, otherwise you will not have sufficient raw materials. Consequently, if you are ignorant about Eliezer Ydkowsky (which has just been shown), this is a statement about Eliezer Yudkowsky, not about your state of knowledge.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 24 July 2009 02:55:20AM *  51 points [-]
  • After the truth destroyed everything it could, the only thing left was Eliezer Yudkowsky.
  • In his free time, Eliezer Yudkowsky likes to help the Halting Oracle answer especially difficult queries.
  • Eliezer Yudkowsky actually happens to be the pinnacle of Intelligent Design. He only claims to be the product of evolution to remain approachable to the rest of us.
  • Omega did its Ph.D. thesis on Eliezer Yudkowsky. Needless to say, it's too long to be published in this world. Omega is now doing post-doctoral research, tentatively titled "Causality vs. Eliezer Yudkowsky - An Indistinguishability Argument".
Comment author: deschutron 21 July 2014 12:58:32PM 0 points [-]

Upvoted for the first one.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 24 July 2009 11:02:03PM 69 points [-]
  • It was easier for Eliezer Yudkowsky to reformulate decision theory to exclude time than to buy a new watch.
  • Eliezer Yudkowsky's favorite sport is black hole diving. His information density is so great that no black hole can absorb him, so he just bounces right off the event horizon.
  • God desperately wants to believe that when Eliezer Yudkowsky says "God doesn't exist," it's just good-natured teasing.
  • Never go in against Eliezer Yudkowsky when anything is on the line.
Comment author: BrentAllsop 24 July 2009 01:36:32AM 0 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky doesn't fear unfriendly AI, he just wants everyone else to fear them.

Comment author: SilasBarta 17 June 2009 01:54:12AM 2 points [-]

There is no "time", just events Eliezer Yudkowsky has felt like allowing.

Comment author: James_Miller 16 June 2009 06:38:26PM *  12 points [-]

The Busy Beaver function was created to quantify Eliezer Yudkowsky 's IQ.