Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: AspiringRationalist 24 May 2013 11:54:25PM 0 points [-]

We were discussing the British situation. How did we suddenly jump to Guantanamo?

Comment author: AspiringRationalist 24 May 2013 03:16:39AM 0 points [-]

Yes, but in the standard Turing test, the AI is then judged on how human it seems, not how insightful.

Comment author: AspiringRationalist 23 May 2013 12:52:04PM -1 points [-]

What's your edge? What makes you think you can write a better financial guide than some random planner from Fidelity or Schwab? He at least has the experience of having talked to customers.

Professional financial planners don't have much incentive to act in their customers' best interests. Even if they have the knowledge and experience to give good advice, it doesn't necessarily mean they actually do.

Comment author: AspiringRationalist 22 May 2013 04:39:08AM 0 points [-]

Perhaps the Turing test would work better if instead of having to pass for a human, the bot's insightfulness were rated and it had to be at the same level as a human's. Insightfulness seems harder to fake than "sounds superficially like a human" and it's what we care about anyway.

As a plus, it will make it easier for autistic people to pass the Turing test.

Comment author: AspiringRationalist 15 May 2013 12:26:36AM *  7 points [-]

As a general rule, if you are linking to an external source, please don't mention irrelevant details about the author.

Relevant details, such as the fact the author is an ER doctor, provide evidence about the reliability of the information in the article.

Irrelevant details, such as the fact that the author is an objectivist, are at best just noise and at worst mind-killing distractions.

Comment author: AspiringRationalist 14 May 2013 02:30:35AM 1 point [-]

Why do you assume that the replica would be a zombie?

Comment author: AspiringRationalist 13 May 2013 12:35:09AM 10 points [-]

One workaround would be to assign high confidence only to beliefs for which you have read n academic papers on the subject.

This is dangerous, because people tend to use additional information primarily to support their existing opinion more than to improve it. See Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.

Comment author: AspiringRationalist 11 May 2013 05:10:11PM 4 points [-]

Citation needed.

I would imagine it's a lot less voluntary if you ever plan on returning to the US.

Comment author: AspiringRationalist 11 May 2013 05:01:31PM 2 points [-]

Somewhat relatedly, I sometimes find using fictional characters (or stereotypes) as anti-inspiration. For example, I may ask myself "what would Sheldon Cooper do?" and then make sure not to do that.

Comment author: AspiringRationalist 11 May 2013 04:50:11PM 1 point [-]

For books, use bigwords.com; it searches a bunch of book sellers and finds the cheapest price for the book(s) you're looking for. I got most of my college textbooks that way.

View more: Next