= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
In HPMoR chapter 60, at the very end of the chapter Quirrell is about to tell Harry why he thinks he is different but I cannot find the rest of the text in the subsequent context switches. Where does he answer Harry?
In response to
Open Thread, February 1-14, 2012
You can find it in chapter 63:
I will say this much, Mr. Potter: You are already an Occlumens, and I think you will become a perfect Occlumens before long. Identity does not mean, to such as us, what it means to other people. Anyone we can imagine, we can be; and the true difference about you, Mr. Potter, is that you have an unusually good imagination. A playwright must contain his characters, he must be larger than them in order to enact them within his mind. To an actor or spy or politician, the limit of his own diameter is the limit of who he can pretend to be, the limit of which face he may wear as a mask. But for such as you and I, anyone we can imagine, we can be, in reality and not pretense. While you imagined yourself a child, Mr. Potter, you were a child. Yet there are other existences you could support, larger existences, if you wished. Why are you so free, and so great in your circumference, when other children your age are small and constrained? Why can you imagine and become selves more adult than a mere child of a playwright should be able to compose? That I do not know, and I must not say what I guess. But what you have, Mr. Potter, is freedom.
Agree on bulleted points, but I thought the armies arc was the best by far. I sell HPMoR to my friends by saying "Ender Wiggin goes to Hogwarts!"
The one time I tried this, it backfired terribly. It seemed like a logical sale, but the war games don't start until quite a fair way in; meanwhile, the first ten chapters (which is what the first chapter recommends trying before giving up) don't have that sort of flavour.
In response to
comment
by
on
Roger Williams (Author of Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect) on Singularity
If he thought like this while writing the novel, then he spectacularly failed to reach me. For that I'm glad.
I think you're speaking too abstractly to agree or disagree with your value judgement.
In response to
comment
by
on
Roger Williams (Author of Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect) on Singularity
- Ungrowth wasn't talked about in the novels. I remember the opposite complaint: that the overly strict implementation of the Three Laws turned humanity into kittens, with the wireheads at the extreme. Ungrowth sounds almost as bad as Peer's arbitrary obsessions in Permutation City.
- Holding all other implementation details equal, Lawrence's insistence that PI not look into people's brains results in a much better world than not. I get the impression that Roger thinks his genie could have handled people better if it analyzed them that deeply.
- The critique of the Three Laws as portrayed should have focused not on how limited it is, but on how restrictive it is. A premise Roger disagrees with when saying that Lawrence did not install a more robust ethical system when his design allowed for it. The star map above Lawrence's house gave us a glimpse of the design that made it clear how he messed up his design not just in creating a thoughtless genie, but in not allowing corrections as the everything the AI believed was not only interdependent but centered on those three pillars.
Edit: There were more words here, but your later emphasis confuses me. I'm going to pretend you didn't do that. If I'm not being clear here, please help me help me help you.
In response to
comment
by
on
Roger Williams (Author of Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect) on Singularity
In response to
comment
by
on
Roger Williams (Author of Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect) on Singularity
I think this essay drifts considerably further away from SIAI/LW thinking than his story does, though I might have forgotten things.
Actually, given a moment to reflect, I'm more confusing the essay's points and my own impressions of the story. If he thought like this while writing the novel, then he spectacularly failed to reach me. For that I'm glad.
In response to
Selfish reasons for FAI
the easier it is to develop FAI in comparison to unfriendly AI
What? What are your definitions of FAI and unfriendly AI?
Rather than unfriendly AI, I think he means a Friendly AI that's only Friendly to one person (or very few people). If we're going to be talking about this concept then we need a better term for it. My inner nerd prefers Suzumiya AI.
In response to
Q&A #2 with Singularity Institute Executive Director
Would the Institute consider hiring telecommuters (both in and out the US)?
Update: this question was left unanswered in the second Q&A.
I think the main issue here is that expertise must be conceptualized with respect to a particular activity or set of activities in order for it to maintain its essential meaning. The nature of expertise is also restricted to a specific range of tools the brain embodies (as in "embodied cognition"); in other words, it is not the hand the knows what to type, but rather the keyboard that knows what to type. To be clear, my cognitive capacity is effectively extended and reshaped by the interaction with the keyboard, so in effect the nature of the expertise will be limited specifically to the final cause (in the philosophical sense) of the activity itself. I like to think of it as the mind further approximating the function of the game, or activity, over time serving as a kind of analogy to the ever-accumulating expertise therein.
Taking the example of chess versus a modern-day computer-enhanced strategy game, the modes of embodiment are vastly different, and so the kinds of expertise to be expected should naturally diverge. However, I would not be so pollyannaish as to assert that playing StarCraft 2 (or Chess) would be "really useful", unless you're playing for money to help you in some specific goal outside of the game itself. That is going a bit too far, in my opinion. We already know that the nature of expertise is such that it only operates at the level of the activity one is engaged in, and will not generalize (or transfer) far from that domain of activity. For instance, the expertise in knowing the layout of a keyboard and being able to type commands without a second thought (being constantly honed by a game that demands it) will transfer to the tasks (of other games) that require the same input on a keyboard (and will differentially benefit from those quick reflexes), but the specific tactics and techniques learned in-game will generally not find much use beyond that game, and I do believe that is what we're getting at with a game like SC2 insofar as "expertise" is a concern here. Similarly with chess: one might very well have excellent reflexes, honed in certain other tasks, and know many strategies and techniques for other things, but they won't apply to the space of chess, and so vice versa for chess to other activities. (And we already know that typical memorization techniques used in chess really don't help with memorizing anything else.)
Having said all that, I wonder whether or not there might be a prime example of the game of general expertise par excellence out there, one that touches on many domains simultaneously... Perhaps the Glass Bead Game? Ah, never mind. But, in all seriousness, the way of the game is probably the only way we'll ever find out if such a thing exists and will permit the mind to approximate the function of life all the more perfectly.
By the way, I don't know how it is the researchers in the article don't think there hasn't been such a "satellite view" of expertise before, particularly on the note of chess. Hasn't anyone told them of the Chess Tactics Server? ( http://chess.emrald.net/ ) Chumps to champs aplenty there.
I wonder whether or not there might be a prime example of the game of general expertise par excellence out there, one that touches on many domains simultaneously...
Probably not. While in video game design there are general competencies you can rely on, there are both mutually exclusive challenges: fast paced FPS games like Quake 3 cannot be played like slower paced FPS games like Call of Duty, players who attempt to transfer their skills without understanding this don't succeed; and balance problems, where the addition of game elements overshadow others like in Alien Swarm where there are five effective weapons even though there are fifteen other options and some of them are dismissed unfairly because they are introduced to players who haven't seen a need for the skills they ask. Both of these factors, however, mean that challenges and tradeoffs go hand in hand in your game's design.
That all said, people do try. Spore is the readiest example of this to me: the mishmash of different games doesn't really work, the way they tried to address the challenge balancing issues means that four fifths of the game design is effectively useless, but it's an instructive game nonetheless.
Aristotlean logic is obtained by assuming every probability to be either one or zero.
This is particularly interesting in light of how 1 and 0 "work" within a bayesian context.
Your link is broken, as is the one on the Wikipedia page. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.132.6744%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=PGG5TovEKsj4rQfGlaHGBg&usg=AFQjCNFMrZJFKOBU6M_ItHfkT4YB6gL8aQ&sig2=jI0CAN1iSRisyrwH4hIdaQ works.
Linkrot corrected. Thanks for the catch.
Historical notes: Eliezer disapproves of this reference; the original comment was posted on Overcoming Bias, which didn't allow nested replies, Frank Hirsch had some comments as well [1] [2].
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I wish to register my alarm at this:
Given that he was "amazed" at our performance this time, presumably an equivalent performance would pass the future test — but even if that's true it doesn't comfort me much.
I humbly beg our author to consider simply withholding updates, rather than issuing an ultimatum that may result in us never getting the "true" ending. "I won't post any more chapters until you solve this," rather than "I'm going to torch the last few years of your life if you're not smart enough."
There's nothing to worry about. We were presented with the same challenge in Three Worlds Collide. If we don't succeed, we will just get a false ending instead of a true ending.