PhilGoetz comments on A My Little Pony fanfic allegedly but not mainly about immortality - Less Wrong

9 Post author: PhilGoetz 10 September 2012 01:02AM

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

Comments (45)

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

Comment author: PhilGoetz 12 September 2012 09:31:28PM *  1 point [-]

Alternate, simpler explanation: people think the situation is sad because the situation is sad.

The situation is sad, but I was expecting people to think about causality. It looks like they may just be associating emotions with salient features.

If this is what happens, the Dark Arts potential for exploiting this are enormous.

Focusing on the parts that will make the situation happy will make people realize the things about immortality that are great. Celestia never visualizes the bright and glorious future that Twilight will usher in, and how Twilight will get to experience it when she might not.

Yes; but if Celestia did visualize that, she'd trust and follow the equations.

So, a writer has to write for two completely different audiences. One understands the story and thinks about it causally. One audience understands it only on the level of "immortal is sad, immortality bad".

(Which is larger: The difference in intelligence between these two groups, or between the second group and dogs?)

Off topic: I just realized that you wrote Big Mac Reads Something Purple, which is one of my favorite MLP fanfics.

Thanks! Maybe someday I will rework it and resubmit it to EqD. They didn't like it.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 27 September 2012 03:52:48AM 4 points [-]

The situation is sad, but I was expecting people to think about causality. It looks like they may just be associating emotions with salient features.

If this is what happens, the Dark Arts potential for exploiting this are enormous.

Well, the authorial possibilities are certainly enormous. "The Sword of Good" runs on this, for example.

Comment author: Vaniver 12 September 2012 10:35:32PM 0 points [-]

Yes; but if Celestia did visualize that, she'd trust and follow the equations.

Agreed. I suspect that you probably can't explain the story you want to the audience you have. Being more explicit about it might help, but... eh.

Which is larger: The difference in intelligence between these two groups, or between the second group and dogs?

This depends on what metric you use to measure and what purpose you want to direct those intelligences towards. In general, the latter difference is larger.

Thanks! Maybe someday I will rework it and resubmit it to EqD. They didn't like it.

From my reading of their response, if you drop the first two endings and make it explicitly a one-shot, it'll pass muster on word count. It's short, but that's because it's written with beautifully economic prose. (The "very flat" description just seems odd to me- that's the point! I don't know if you just need to find a sympathetic pre-reader or explaining the reason behind it will be sufficient.)

Comment author: PhilGoetz 14 September 2012 05:35:20PM 1 point [-]

Yes, but the first two endings lead up to the third ending. Starting with the sad ending makes the happy ending happier. I really don't like making stories worse for EqD. (They're also bad about first-person narrative - the pre-readers sometimes complain about first-person narrative that isn't grammatically correct.)

The pre-reader's interpretation of the word limit rule was arbitrary - the rule just says "2500 words", nothing about alternate endings. It was silly for him to interpret the lower limit on words so that removing words makes the story appear to have more words.