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

Comment author: dogiv 20 March 2017 08:43:50PM 2 points [-]

Interesting piece. It seems like coming up with a good human-checkable way to evaluate parsing is pretty fundamental to the problem. You may have noticed already, but Ozora is the only one that didn't figure out "easily" goes with "parse".

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 20 March 2017 09:11:37PM 0 points [-]

Good catch. Adverbial attachment is really hard, because there aren't a lot of rules about where adverbs can go.

Actually, Ozora's parse has another small problem, which is that it interprets "complex" as an NN with a "typeadj" link, instead of as a JJ with an "adject" link. The typeadj link is used for noun-noun pairings such as "police officer", "housing crisis", or "oak tree".

For words that can function as both NN and JJ (eg "complex"), it is quite hard to disambiguate the two patterns.

[Link] Chuckling a Bit at Microsoft and the PCFG Formalism

5 Daniel_Burfoot 20 March 2017 07:37PM
Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 14 March 2017 05:14:43PM 2 points [-]

Why is it so hard to refrain from irrational participation in political arguments? One theory is that in the EEA, if you overheard some people talking covertly about political issues, there was a good chance that they were literally plotting against you. In a tribal setting, if you're being left out of the political conversation, you're probably going to be the victim of the political change being discussed. So we've probably evolved a mental module that causes us to be hyperaware of political talk, and when we hear political talk we don't like, to jump in and try to disrupt it.

Anyone have any good mind hacks to help stay out of political conversations?

Comment author: cousin_it 12 March 2017 08:31:34PM 3 points [-]

Quixey has been shutdown.

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 12 March 2017 10:42:18PM 3 points [-]

Sorry to hear that, I know a lot of LW-adjacent people were involved.

Is there a postmortem discussion or blog post anywhere?

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 10 March 2017 02:40:36AM *  1 point [-]

positive-sum information-conveying component and a zero-sum social-control/memetic-warfare component.

Style complaint: did you really need to use five hyphenated words in one line in the first sentence?

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 07 March 2017 05:54:25AM *  0 points [-]

A lesson on the linguistic concept of argument structure, with special reference to observational verbs (see/hear/watch/etc) and also the eccentric verb "help".

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 05 March 2017 08:55:08PM *  3 points [-]

The more biased away from neutral truth, the better the communication functions to affirm coalitional identity, generating polarization in excess of actual policy disagreements. Communications of practical and functional truths are generally useless as differential signals, because any honest person might say them regardless of coalitional loyalty.

[Link] John Tooby on Coalitional Instincts

3 Daniel_Burfoot 05 March 2017 08:52PM
Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 27 February 2017 05:19:48PM *  2 points [-]

Peter McCluskey wrote a review of my book, and I wrote a response here. Thanks to Peter for writing the review!

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 14 February 2017 06:25:54PM *  2 points [-]

If you really believe in this allegory, you should try to intervene before people choose what research field to specialize in. You are not going to convince people to give up their careers in AI after they've invested years in training. But if you get to people before they commit to advanced training, it should be pretty easy to divert their career trajectory. There are tons of good options for smart idealistic young people who have just finished their undergraduate degrees.

View more: Next