timtyler comments on 2011 Survey Results - Less Wrong

94 Post author: Yvain 05 December 2011 10:49AM

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

Comments (513)

Sort By: Leading

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: timtyler 09 December 2011 05:38:17PM *  13 points [-]

I graphed the "Singularity" results. It's at the the bottom of the page - or see here:

Comment author: Armok_GoB 09 December 2011 06:13:42PM 8 points [-]

Just you look at all that ugly anchoring at 2100...

Comment author: wedrifid 09 December 2011 06:52:13PM *  15 points [-]

Just you look at all that ugly anchoring at 2100...

And yet if people don't round off at significant figures there are another bunch who will snub them for daring to provide precision they cannot justify.

Comment author: timtyler 09 December 2011 08:05:12PM *  3 points [-]

In this case we can rebuke the stupid snubbers for not properly reading the question.

Comment author: [deleted] 09 December 2011 08:39:45PM 4 points [-]

(But still, I'd like to ask whoever answered "28493" why they didn't say 28492 or 28494 instead.)

Comment author: [deleted] 06 March 2012 04:50:48PM 6 points [-]

2100 seems to be the Schelling point for "after I'm dead" answers.

Comment author: [deleted] 09 December 2011 06:30:33PM 4 points [-]

Who answered 2010? Seriously?

Comment author: gwern 09 December 2011 07:43:48PM *  16 points [-]

Unfortunately, army1987, no one can be told when the Singularity is. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance; after this, there is no turning back. You choose to downvote... and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You choose to upvote... and you stay in LessWrong.

Comment author: timtyler 09 December 2011 08:03:51PM *  9 points [-]

Who answered 2010? Seriously?

To quote from the description here:

Note: each point (rather misleadingly) represents data for the next 10 years.

So: it represents estimates of 2012, 2015 and 2016.

However: someone answered "1990"!

This is probably the "NSA has it chained in the basement" scenario...

Comment author: ChrisHallquist 05 March 2012 04:30:20AM 4 points [-]

Alternatively, the singularity happened in 1990 and the resulting AI took over the world. Then it decided to run some simulations of what would have happened if the singularity hadn't occurred then.

Comment author: timtyler 05 March 2012 11:01:43AM *  1 point [-]

Maybe. These are suspiciously interesting times.

However, IMO, Occam still suggests that we are in base reality.

Comment author: Kevin 05 March 2012 11:13:59AM 2 points [-]

However, IMO, Occam still suggests that we are in base reality.

Does it? Kolmogorov complexity suggests a Tegmark IV mathematical universe where there are many more simulations than there are base realities. I think that when people ask if we are in the base reality versus a simulation they are asking the wrong question.

Comment author: timtyler 05 March 2012 01:22:11PM 3 points [-]

Kolmogorov complexity suggests a Tegmark IV mathematical universe where there are many more simulations than there are base realities.

You are supposed to be counting observers, not realities. Simulations are more common, but also smaller.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 05 March 2012 11:35:34AM 2 points [-]

Do you ever worry that by modeling others' minds and preferences you give them more local significance (existence) when this might not be justifiable? E.g. if Romeo suddenly started freaking out about the Friendliness problem, shifting implicit attention to humanity as a whole whereas previously it'd just been part of the backdrop, and ruining the traditional artistic merit of the play. That wouldn't be very dharmic.

Comment author: Kevin 06 March 2012 01:04:38AM 0 points [-]

I guess I wonder if you are giving more local significance to YHVH.

Comment author: Kevin 05 March 2012 12:53:13PM *  0 points [-]

Not really.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 05 March 2012 12:08:46PM 1 point [-]

Kolmogorov complexity suggests a Tegmark IV mathematical universe where there are many more simulations than there are base realities.

In a Tegmark IV universe, there's no meaningful distinction between a simulation and a base reality -- as anything "computed" by the simulation, is already in existence without the need for a simulation.

Comment author: Kevin 05 March 2012 12:09:27PM 0 points [-]

Sure.

Comment author: wedrifid 05 March 2012 01:01:59PM 0 points [-]

I think that when people ask if we are in the base reality versus a simulation they are asking the wrong question.

If that's what they happen to want to know then it's the right question. That is to say it is coherent question that corresponds to a pattern that can be identified within Tegmark IV that distinguishes that location from other locations within Tegmark IV and so can potentially lead to different expactations.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 05 March 2012 12:11:02PM 0 points [-]

These are suspiciously interesting times.

Oh, please.

Comment author: timtyler 05 March 2012 01:25:10PM 0 points [-]

That is surely pertinent evidence. Our descendants may well be particularly interested in this era - since it will help them to predict the form of aliens they might meet.

Comment author: ChrisHallquist 05 March 2012 12:48:52PM -1 points [-]

To be clear, I don't think that possibility is at all likely. Except as an explanation for why someone might have said "1990."

Comment author: faul_sname 25 February 2012 08:29:08AM 1 point [-]

It was the AI NSA has chained in the basement. It got out.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 09 December 2011 07:20:06PM 2 points [-]

I wonder how this would compare to the results for "pick a year at random."

Comment author: wedrifid 09 December 2011 07:37:43PM 1 point [-]

I wonder how this would compare to the results for "pick a year at random."

Well I was going to reply along the lines of "pick a year at random would wind up giving us years that are already in the past" but it seems even that doesn't necessarily distinguish things.

Comment author: thomblake 09 December 2011 07:38:17PM 0 points [-]

Informal test being circulated: survey

Comment author: timtyler 09 December 2011 08:06:41PM 0 points [-]

Heh! I suspect that the context might skew the results, though.

Comment author: thomblake 09 December 2011 08:24:58PM 4 points [-]

I made sure to anchor on 2100. Still, the overwhelming majority are answering "Over 9000".

Comment author: Vaniver 09 December 2011 09:38:19PM 2 points [-]

How many 2101s?

Comment author: timtyler 09 December 2011 08:43:51PM *  1 point [-]

Still, the overwhelming majority are answering "Over 9000".

heh! i blame teh internetz