Normal_Anomaly comments on Final Words - Less Wrong

71 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 27 April 2009 09:12PM

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

Comments (54)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: gjm 28 April 2009 07:05:34PM 7 points [-]

I voted Eliezer up because I think his observation was perfectly reasonable and didn't deserve downvoting, and because his action seems eminently reasonable (I'm always glad of extra karma, but I can hardly claim to be entitled to +5 rather than +4 for being an idiot and then admitting it).

I voted Guy's comment down, then up, then down again, then back to neither-up-nor-down. I hope that's sufficiently ridiculous to match his comment.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 30 January 2011 08:49:37PM 2 points [-]

I voted this down and the immediate parent up because I think this conversation was funny and I want the chain to be as long as possible for maximum funniness. And I'm willing to pay a karma point to do it.

And then I changed my downvote of gjm to an upvote, because his comment was actually good.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 30 January 2011 08:55:36PM 3 points [-]

I voted this up, and the immediate parent down, and I DON'T NEED A REASON.

Comment author: Dorikka 30 January 2011 08:59:40PM 3 points [-]

I voted this up because I wouldn't have found this page if it hadn't been posted.

Comment author: gjm 30 January 2011 11:28:23PM 4 points [-]

I voted this up, and the immediate parent down.

Bertha Jorkins voted this up and its immediate parent down, and she now has an IQ of 180 and an army of artificially intelligent robot slaves. Charlie Gordon voted this up and its immediate parent down, and gained 120 IQ points, but he lost them all again because he broke the chain.

DON'T BREAK THE CHAIN!

Comment author: Gabriel 30 January 2011 11:44:16PM 2 points [-]

I voted this down, and the immediate parent up.

And then I became enlightened.

Comment author: gwern 31 January 2011 12:39:22AM 1 point [-]

I rolled a 1d3 dice using the lambdabot in #haskell to determine what I would do, assigning 1 to vote parent and its parent up, 2 to do nothing, and 3 to downvote parent and its parent. I got a 2.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 31 January 2011 02:30:27AM 1 point [-]

I rolled 1d12 with an actual d12 (Hey, you kids! Get offa my lawn!). 1-4 to upvote gwern, 5-8 to do nothing, and 9-12 to downvote. I got a 10. Then I upvoted all the comments between gwern and Eliezer, inclusive, as a celebration of starting this thread up again. (I also found another comment of gjm's and voted it up, because the Bertha Jorkins and Charlie Gordon references are brilliant.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 31 January 2011 08:20:07AM *  2 points [-]

Hopefully a*|I voted this down and immediate parent down>*|other-stuff-1> + b*|I voted this up and immediate parent down>*|other-stuff-2> + c*|I voted this down and immediate parent up>*|other-stuff-3> + d*|I voted this up and immediate parent up>*|other-stuff-4> + e*|other possible outcomes>

with a, b, c, d having hopefully approximately the same modulus and e having small modulus, by requesting from hotbits (which claims to use a quantum source of uncertainty) one byte, taking the two lowest order bits, with the 1 bit being for the immediate comment I'm replying to and the 2 bit being for its immediate parent, going by the rule of 0 = downvote and 1 = upvote. (Well, okay, really a mixed state given how it'll all work, but there will be in the mixed state a sum of states of the form described above, so...)

Requesting byte... now:

And this blob of quantum amplitude is a blob that received FC. So let's see, that means... both low order bits zero. So downvotes for both Normal_anomaly and gwern. Awww. Well, at least there'll hopefully be other branches of equal weight in which you both got upvotes from this procedure.

(Hotbits apparently stores up random bits and generally serves requests by peeling off the stack of stored random bits the number of bytes requested. So if the pre stored stuff entangled itself with the rest of the world sufficiently that my decision to do this ended up nontrivially entangled with the particular byte I got, then no promises about other branches. But again, probably end up with basically just a whole lot of states similar to the desired one except that the "other stuff" parts are a tad different.)

Comment author: Quirinus_Quirrell 01 February 2011 02:16:02AM 4 points [-]

I voted on this and the immediate parent, but I won't reveal why, or which direction, or how many times, or which account I used.