= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Benquo comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 23, chapter 94 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (343)
Makes sense. With slightly less confidence, I predict that:
"nyvpbea cevaprff" -> cevaprff sebz Yhzvabfvgl, Nyvpbea'f Gjvyvtug engvbanyvfg sna svpgvba -> n inzcver.
I think both your prediction and mine were made in the previous discussion thread as well. (Mine was made by someone else.)
I was actually joking about the Alicorn -> vampire thing, and will be somewhat distraught if I turn out to be right.
It seems like there's a good reason for that to happen, while there doesn't seem to be an obvious in-story reason for her to come back as a unicorn's horn. (Or as a winged unicorn.)
Well, Harry might transfigure her body into a unicorn's horn at some point.
He might also partially transfigure her body (say, the contents of her stomach) to unicorn blood. I don’t think that would work as well as one might think, since transfigured things are detected and treated differently by magic (e.g., goblins detecting transfigured gold), so I doubt the transfigured blood would work for raising the dead. (In magic logic, the ritual probably uses the blood as a symbol for a sacrificed unicorn or something.)
Interestingly, the fact that transfiguration is not permanent is not that bad. If transfigured unicorn blood worked for the duration of the transfiguration, it could still help. (For example, the temporarily revived person could create a horcrux, or get a precise and accurate brain scan for uploading, which might be the same thing in-story.)
Perhaps she'll be the princess from Goldmage (also by Alicorn).
Thankfully, EY confirmed on facebook that this is a stupid theory, except that he used a nicer wording.
If for a value of 'nicer' for which "very clever" means "stupid".
You don't think that saying 'very clever' is nicer than saying 'stupid'?
I think it has completely opposing informational content.
Yes. One could reach 'very clever' from 'stupid' either by adding a large amount of niceness or multiplying by a negative. Or, if 'very clever' is supposed to convey the meaning 'stupid' then one actually has to subtract niceness and add sarcasm or condescension.
Oh, seeing Eliezer's Facebook page, I see the entire thing was probably a joke. OK.
Oh wait, I just had a terrible thought: what if Eliezer was initially serious, but didn't expect anyone to take him seriously, but then n seeing people take him more seriously than expected decided to drop a hint that he was joking without saying so? AARRGGHH!
My model of Eliezer wouldn't troll us that blatantly.
Then again, this is the guy who wrote Quirinius One-Level-Higher-Than-You Quirrell.