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

Comment author: [deleted] 03 March 2015 05:14:21AM 1 point [-]

Who is narrating he audio book?

Comment author: Coscott 03 March 2015 05:26:54AM 3 points [-]
Comment author: Coscott 03 March 2015 02:54:13AM 0 points [-]

Could you provide any kind of estimate for time/cost of the physical/audio books.

I ask because I am deciding if I should read the ebook or wait for the audio.

Comment author: Coscott 01 March 2015 08:42:54PM *  21 points [-]

Here is my tentative submission to FF.net. Please comment.

I decline to help Harry out of the box.

Harry no longer has Harry-values; he has unbreakable-vow-values. He is smart, and he will do whatever he can to "not destroy the world." In the process maximizing the probability of "not destroying the world," he will likely destroy the world.

If you would allow me, I would like to appeal to Voldemort's rationality and cast Avada Kedavra on Harry before he says or does anything.

I do not think I will be able to stop other people from getting Harry out of the box. I expected people to believe me when I tried to explain why we should not let Harry out of the box. They did not. It was frustrating. You have taught me a valuable lesson about what it is like to be an FAI researcher. Thank you.

EDIT: I have posted it.

Comment author: lerjj 23 February 2015 09:20:29PM 4 points [-]

It's not further evidence, but it's a good suggestion for a possible place for Hermione to be. It's safe from Quirrell and unexpected. It's also partially hidden by a different charm (assuming QQ can sense Harry's magic)

Comment author: Coscott 24 February 2015 07:24:55PM 4 points [-]

It is literary evidence, because EY is talking about the glasses.

Comment author: linkhyrule5 17 February 2015 05:18:06AM 3 points [-]

On a side note, note that Quirrell is wrong or lying about already fulfilling the terms of the prophecy. The person that Quirrell marked as his equal, who has powers that Quirrell knows not, is the version of Harry Potter after Quirrell forked himself.

Hence, presumably, the sense of doom.

(... what is odd, though, is that Quirrell seems to be on the losing end of that conflict of magic.)

Comment author: Coscott 19 February 2015 07:55:18AM 0 points [-]

Quirrell marked Harry as his equal. I cannot imagine anything more marking someone as your equal than replacing their mind with your own.

Comment author: Coscott 31 January 2015 05:36:02PM -2 points [-]

Rationality skills are not something you can complete and move on to the next level. If rationality moves into your system 1, then you are doing it wrong (or maybe doing it REALLY REALLY well).

Comment author: Coscott 19 January 2015 01:53:38AM *  1 point [-]

What app does less wrong recommend for to-do lists? I just started using Workflowy (recommended from a LW friend), but was wondering if anyone had strong opinions in favor of something else.

P.S. If you sign up for workflowy here, you get double space.

EDIT: The above link is my personal invite link, and I get told when someone signs up using it, and I get to see their email address. I am not going to do anything with them, but I feel obligated to give this disclaimer anyway.

In response to comment by Coscott on Je suis Charlie
Comment author: Lumifer 16 January 2015 05:39:56PM 2 points [-]

Seriously, if you define evidence as "something that sways your beliefs because it is more likely to happen under one hypothesis than the alternative hypothesis," then Bayesianism is the math of evidence, and frequentism (which is used in "Real science") is not. (and does not even really try to be)

This looks seriously misleading to me. While it may be technically correct (because neither frequentism nor "Real science" care much about swaying your beliefs), the math of deciding what's "more likely to happen under one hypothesis than the alternative hypothesis" is a standard part of frequentist statistics where it goes by the name of maximum likelihood.

You might also be interested in the concept of Fisher information.

In response to comment by Lumifer on Je suis Charlie
Comment author: Coscott 16 January 2015 06:20:37PM 1 point [-]

I agree with you criticism. Thank you.

In response to comment by Coscott on Je suis Charlie
Comment author: [deleted] 15 January 2015 10:07:13PM 1 point [-]

So, what doc on the web would most concisely rid me of exactly my misunderstanding?

In response to comment by [deleted] on Je suis Charlie
Comment author: Coscott 16 January 2015 05:16:28PM *  1 point [-]

I do not know the answer to you question. Here is my best guess after a couple minutes of trying to answer the question.

Short answer: Bayesianism is not about priors, it is about how evidence should change priors.

The Bayesian approach is all about evidence. Bayesian probability theory is the math of evidence. It needs a prior to work, because evidence is all about how much beliefs should change, so you need a prior to change. You could also do a lot of the Bayesian analysis without choosing a prior, and just write it down as "how much your beliefs would change." (but this doesn't end up with answers that are single numbers)

Seriously, if you define evidence as "something that sways your beliefs because it is more likely to happen under one hypothesis than the alternative hypothesis," then Bayesianism is the math of evidence, and frequentism (which is used in "Real science") is not. (and does not even really try to be)

Also, most of the people here would agree that if they do not have sufficient evidence, then they should still assign a probability, and you should be very quick to change it as you get evidence. This last claim might be controversial here, because people might have alternate hacks where they don't do this to avoid bias, but they will agree that if they could trust themselves, they would want to do this.

In response to Je suis Charlie
Comment author: [deleted] 15 January 2015 02:58:28PM 2 points [-]

Why do this post get so many down votes? The topic isn't really about Charlie Hebdo. I could have used any other example in which emotionally strong counter theories has arisen.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Je suis Charlie
Comment author: Coscott 15 January 2015 03:41:37PM 6 points [-]

My guess is that it is because

I guess we can agree that the most rational response would be to enter a state of aporia until sufficient evidence is at hand.

and

It sounds like a fine Bayesian approach for getting through life, but for real scientific knowledge, we can't rely on prior reasonings (even though these might involve Bayesian reasoning). Real science works by investigating evidence.

look like a significant misunderstanding of what the bayesian approach is.

View more: Prev | Next