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

Comment author: -necate- 26 March 2017 08:25:59AM 0 points [-]

I use a captcha, so if you block scripts this happens.

Comment author: Lumifer 26 March 2017 09:48:25PM 0 points [-]

Yeah, I guessed as much, but I find it funny that browsers unwilling to run scripts are auto-classified as bots :-)

Comment author: entirelyuseless 26 March 2017 06:36:41PM 0 points [-]

"90% of the people" etc is a statement about frequencies, not probabilities.

Comment author: Lumifer 26 March 2017 09:47:23PM 0 points [-]

Let's look at the context.

You said

90% of the people with the lesion get cancer, and 1% of the people without the lesion get cancer

That, you are saying, are frequencies and not probabilities. OK, let's continue:

Let's suppose that 50% of the people have the lesion and 50% do not, just to make the situation specific.

The probability of having the lesion given a random person ... will be 50%, and the probability of not having the lesion will be 50%.

So why having a lesion (as a function of being a human in this particular population) is a probability and having cancer (as a function of having a lesion) is a frequency?

Comment author: entirelyuseless 25 March 2017 12:59:28AM 0 points [-]

You are confusing things and probabilities. Getting cancer largely depends on having the lesion or not. But the probability of getting cancer depends, not on the thing, but on the probability of having the lesion. And the probability of having the lesion is mutable.

Comment author: Lumifer 25 March 2017 11:14:41PM 1 point [-]

Getting cancer largely depends on having the lesion or not. But the probability of getting cancer depends, not on the thing, but on the probability of having the lesion.

Let me quote your own post where you set up the problem:

90% of the people with the lesion get cancer, and 1% of the people without the lesion get cancer.

This is the probability of getting cancer which depends on the "thing", that is, the lesion. It does NOT depend on the probability of having a lesion.

Comment author: Lumifer 25 March 2017 11:10:42PM 0 points [-]

LOL. I poke my nose in there and what does it tell me?

You could not be verified. Begone, bot!

Heh.

Comment author: tristanm 24 March 2017 07:54:28PM 0 points [-]

I think I would update my position here to say that AI is different from manufacturing, in that you can have small scale manufacturing operations (like 3D printing as username2 mentioned), that satisfy some niche market, whereas I sort of doubt that there are any niche markets in AI.

I've noticed this a lot with "data science" and AI startups - in what way is their product unique? Usually its not. It's usually a team of highly talented AI researchers and engineers who need to showcase their skills until they get aqui-hired, or they develop a tool that gets really popular for a while and then it also gets bought. You really just don't see "disruption" (in the sense that Peter Thiel defines it) in the AI vertical. And you don't see niches.

Comment author: Lumifer 24 March 2017 08:04:52PM 0 points [-]

I sort of doubt that there are any niche markets in AI

Hold on. Are you talking about niche markets, or are we talking about the capability to do some sort of AI at small-to-medium scale (say, startup to university size)?

You really just don't see "disruption" (in the sense that Peter Thiel defines it) in the AI vertical. And you don't see niches.

Um. I don't think the AI vertical exists. And what do you mean about niches? Wouldn't, I dunno, analysis of X-rays be a niche? high-frequency trading another niche? forecasting of fashion trends another niche? etc. etc.

Comment author: Lumifer 24 March 2017 07:58:29PM 1 point [-]

I, for one, welcome our new paperclip Overlord.

Comment author: gjm 24 March 2017 06:03:47PM 3 points [-]

Gods, Eugine, you're boring. You've been banned from LW, you can't accept that, and the best way you can think of to handle this situation is to keep posting the same fucking comments again and again and again and again because ... what? What good outcome do you expect from doing this? Literally the only thing you are doing is adding a bit of annoyance to the lives of people who never did you any harm.

Perhaps it makes you feel like you're outsmarting the moderators or something. I do hope not. Because any idiot can copy and paste things, and anyone a step or two above idiocy can write a script to do it.

Get a life and leave us in peace.

Comment author: Lumifer 24 March 2017 07:38:16PM 0 points [-]

anyone a step or two above idiocy can write a script

LOL. First, are you quite sure you want Eugine to move in that particular direction? Of course there is that, but still...

Second, I think you notions of what people a step or two above idiocy can achieve are a bit... optimistic.

Comment author: gjm 24 March 2017 06:06:53PM *  3 points [-]

The American revolution seems to have been a pretty middle-class affair. The Czech(oslovakian) "Velvet Revolution" and the Estonian "Singing Revolution" too, I think. [EDITED to add:] In so far as there can be said to be a middle class in a communist state.

Comment author: Lumifer 24 March 2017 07:29:47PM 0 points [-]

Yeah, Eastern Europe / Russia is an interesting case. First, as you mention, it's unclear to what degree we can speak of the middle class there during the Soviet times. Second, some "revolutions" there were velvet primarily because the previous power structures essentially imploded leaving vacuum in their place -- there was no one to fight. However not all of them were and the notable post-Soviet power struggle in the Ukraine (the "orange revolution") was protracted and somewhat violent.

So... it's complicated? X-)

Comment author: ialdabaoth 23 March 2017 10:12:00PM *  1 point [-]

Well, obviously first we'd need land. What land we get will determine who is legally allowed to build a dormpartment building, and what techniques and materials they're allowed to use.

That said, if it was up to me, I'd probably want to build something out in the Arizona desert, probably near Snowflake, and I'd want to use cinderblock construction. The great thing about that is that you're basically making giant lego-houses out of hollow concrete blocks and mortar.

So step one would be getting a bulldozer to level the land, then a cement truck and a shitload of cement to make a foundation (highly recommended we get a construction company to do that part, rather than doing it ourselves), then build up from there. A backhoe to dig out large water tanks and a septic system will be necessary, assuming this will be somewhere off-grid.

The great thing is that solar is actually doable these days, so we could get REAAAALLY cheap off-grid land, build a big-ass solar farm, and then our only issue is potable water, which is doable with a reverse osmosis system and a large enough catchment tank, if you don't care about living too close to a major city.

Comment author: Lumifer 24 March 2017 03:51:25PM 2 points [-]

I think you and Alicorn have drastically different ideas about the end product :-)

Comment author: entirelyuseless 24 March 2017 03:04:17PM 0 points [-]

This amounts to saying, "the probability that matters is the probability that I will get cancer, given that I have the lesion" or "the probability that matters it the probability that I will get cancer, given that I do not have the lesion."

That's what I'm denying. What matters is the probability that you will get cancer, period.

Comment author: Lumifer 24 March 2017 03:28:31PM 1 point [-]

What matters is the probability that you will get cancer, period

That probability happens to depend on whether you have the lesion or not.

View more: Next