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

Comment author: James_Miller 14 January 2014 06:46:15PM 2 points [-]

Thanks, if this is true I request advancedatheist explain why he thinks I did this.

Comment author: Icehawk78 16 January 2014 02:56:02PM 0 points [-]

I can't say on behalf of advancedatheist, but others who I've heard make similar statements generally seem to base them on a manner of factor analysis; namely, assuming that you're evaluating a statement by a self-proclaimed transhumanist predicting the future development of some technology that currently does not exist, the factor which best predicts what date that technology will be predicted as is the current age of the predictor.

As I've not read much transhumanist writing, I have no real way to evaluate whether this is an accurate analysis, or simply cherry picking examples of the most egregious/popularly published examples (I frequently see Kurzweil and... mostly just Kurzeil, really, popping up when I've heard this argument before).

[As an aside, I just now, after finishing this comment, made the connection that you're the author that he cited as the example, rather than just a random commenter, so I'd assume you're much more familiar with the topic at hand than me.]

Comment author: James_Miller 12 January 2014 11:42:48PM 16 points [-]

James D. Miller does this in his Singularity Rising book. I leave articulating the logical problem with this claim as an exercise to the reader)

I would be grateful if you would tell me what the logical problem is.

Comment author: Icehawk78 14 January 2014 06:31:48PM 2 points [-]

Presumably, the implication is that these predictions are not based on facts, but had their bottom line written first, and then everything else added later.

[I make no endorsement in support or rejection of this being a valid conclusion, having given it very little personal thought, but this being the issue that advancedatheist was implying seems fairly obvious to me.]

Comment author: ThrustVectoring 05 June 2013 08:24:35PM *  12 points [-]

No person may contribute to more than one entry.

This is important, because otherwise the contest devolves into who can submit the most copies of AbsolutismBot (cooperate with programs that share it's source code, otherwise defect)

I think that any submitted program can be improved by combining it with AbsolutismBot. If you're playing with someone who submitted the same program for you, cooperate (they can't defect against you in this scenario, since they're running identical source code). If they aren't running the same code, run whatever program lies underneath it.

I think this could get generalized to cooperation with everyone who has the AbsolutismBot "wrapper", since it doesn't matter what the code after the AbsolutismBot section does. In English (since I don't know how to program in Scheme), the program would be like this:

If the first 117 characters of the other program are the same as the first 117 characters of this program, cooperate. Otherwise, do some other strategy.

All players that implement this strategy will cooperate with each other. Granted, this doesn't help them win the tournament since it isn't a relative advantage compared to other AbsolutismBots - it just makes everyone who doesn't do this lose the tournament.

Comment author: Icehawk78 06 June 2013 02:47:06PM 7 points [-]

Except that over some threshold, any Anti-Absolutism bots (which have some way of "escaping" while still containing the same first 117 characters, like having a C preprocessor directive that redefines TRUE to equal FALSE) would necessarily be superior.

Comment author: Cyan 26 November 2012 03:09:40PM *  6 points [-]

This comment is directed to the LW commentariat, not just Daniel_Burfoot.

Fill in the blank with responses covering reasonable prior probability mass:

Father: You need to be able to cook and keep a clean house, or what man would want to marry you?
Daughter: I'm not interested in getting married -- I'm going to focus on my career instead.
Father: __________

Father: You need to be able to cook and keep a clean house, or what man would want to marry you?
Daughter: I'm not interested in getting married -- to a man.
Father: __________

Father: You need to get a good job and learn how to dress well, or what woman would want to marry you?
Son: I'm not interested in getting married -- I'm going to focus on my hacking skills and RPG game design.
Father: __________

Father: You need to get a good job and learn how to dress well, or what woman would want to marry you?
Son: I'm not interested in getting married -- to a woman.
Father: __________

Comment author: Icehawk78 27 November 2012 01:54:42PM 2 points [-]

Personally, I (and I assume many others) would have a drastically different response than any of these four.

Parent: You need to [cook/clean, job/dress well], or what person would want to marry you? Child: Why should I learn these skills for the benefit of someone else, rather than for myself?

Regardless of the interest or not in marriage, these are skills/actions that are useful for anyone, marriage-oriented or not, to have, simply to live as a socially well-rounded adult. (Obviously, alternate options are available, such as getting such a well-paying job that you can pay for a maid/chef, or some alternate situation in which "getting a good job" is unnecessary to your well-being, as well.)

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 11 July 2012 08:38:14PM 8 points [-]

Prediction 8: Apart from the belief that the animated personality would be visual, this is a near-perfect description of Siri and similar assistants. The term "ubiquitous" is tricky, but if we interpret it to mean "to be found everywhere" (rather than "everyone has one"), then the prediction is somewhat true (knocked down from true because of the uncertainty about ubiquity).

I suggest that you are underestimating their ubiquity by focusing on Siri. Almost every large corporation has a phone tree where at least the initial stages are served by an AI using voice recognition, with "enter that umber on the keypad" as backup. Notice the reference to "routine business transactions".

Comment author: Icehawk78 12 July 2012 01:55:59PM 5 points [-]

These don't use any form of natural language recognition - they work by having very rigidly defined responses that they can interpret (ie "say 'one' for hard to recognize or easily obfuscated department").

Comment author: philh 11 July 2012 10:21:09AM 1 point [-]

Apart from the belief that the animated personality would be visual, this is a near-perfect description of Siri and similar assistants. True.

It seems strange to call Siri ubiquitous when smartphone penetration among teenagers is less than 50%. (My own social circle seems to have below-average smartphone penetration, so I may not be well-calibrated.)

When you call 5 partially true and 20 partially false, which are you saying is more correct? 5 seems more correct to me, but "partially false" sounds more correct than "partially true".

Beyond musical recordings, images, and movie videos, the most popular type of digital entertainment object is virtual experience software.

Does this mean virtual experience software is more popular than the others, or that it's the most popular type of digital entertainment when you look beyond the others?

Comment author: Icehawk78 11 July 2012 02:06:59PM *  2 points [-]

It seems strange to call Siri ubiquitous when smartphone penetration among teenagers is less than 50%.

It also seems strange to call Siri ubiquitous when, on top of that, iOS only has (as of March 2012) between 30-45% market share (depending on how you measure it), which includes numerous models of iPhone that do not have/support Siri, as well as the numerous people who have access to, but don't primarily use Siri on their iPhones. (In my biased sample of software developer/cubicle dweller coworkers, as well as friends and family, I'd estimate maybe 5-10% of those who I know that have iPhones with Siri actually use Siri on a daily basis.)

Does this mean virtual experience software is more popular than the others, or that it's the most popular type of digital entertainment when you look beyond the others?

By my reading, the statement is saying that music, pictures and movies are more popular than "virtual experience software", and that VES is the next most popular.

Additionally, to respond to Stuart_Armstrong below, without a direct reference, I'd imagine that the Economist simply took into account popularity by sales data, which would ignore things like Pandora/Spotify/YouTube/Reddit usage/browsing that may happen significantly more than paid consumption of music/video (at least for certain segments of society with ubiquitous internet access).

Comment author: Icehawk78 07 February 2012 04:00:17AM 3 points [-]

I came via MoR which was posted in an IRC chat by [random internet person] for [random unrelated activity]. I've since gotten at least three others (two females, one male) to read MoR, of whom one female (my SO) has come to an LW meetup but doesn't read LW itself much, and one other may start reading the Sequences in the somewhat near future.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 February 2012 05:23:42PM 0 points [-]

Thank you for posting this update! It passed out of my mind to do so.

I am pretty certain we have 3 members who will be at the Reason Rally anyways though. Next time I see them, I'll ask them to post here.

Comment author: Icehawk78 05 February 2012 01:41:29AM 0 points [-]

Oh, that's right, I forgot that a few people were already going.

Comment author: Icehawk78 04 February 2012 05:03:16PM 0 points [-]

For reference to other commenters, I think the majority of the Ohio LW meetup group decided against going ourselves, due to a lack of interest in this as a specific event, though you're obviously still free to go.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 28 January 2012 10:07:40AM 8 points [-]

On the other hand, "Bayes" could make people say: "It is about some advanced statistics, that's not for me."

I guess the goal is to provide rationality to everyone who cares, not to appear like something for-specialists-only.

Comment author: Icehawk78 29 January 2012 11:43:57PM 3 points [-]

I'm not sure that "Bayes" or "Bayesian" has a strong public association with anything unless you're already interested in statistics. I've used it in several discussions and every time had to give a quick explanation of what it meant. (Good practice for honing my explanations and reinforcing the concept in my own brain, as well.)

View more: Next