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

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 30 August 2014 08:54:55PM 1 point [-]

Well, someone needs to fly there and copy all their know-how. Are we rational enough to coordinate at this?

Comment author: Morendil 31 August 2014 10:04:00AM 2 points [-]

Suggestion: start a new discussion thread titled something like "European Rationality Solstice Ritual". That will be a start. I'm based in France, experienced at the logistics of running unconferences and community meetings, willing to help.

Comment author: Morendil 28 August 2014 11:02:03PM 0 points [-]

Haga, William J. "Perils of professionalism." Management Quarterly (1974): 3-10.

Comment author: VincentYu 19 August 2014 11:01:58AM *  3 points [-]
Comment author: Morendil 28 August 2014 08:36:12PM 1 point [-]

Awesome, thanks!

Comment author: Morendil 17 August 2014 04:10:08PM 2 points [-]

Donating "for free" is now down to 25 STR, about a nickel. (Sent to MIRI.)

Also, your Facebook account is only considered valid if you allow Stellar access to your photos.

Comment author: Morendil 17 August 2014 09:33:54AM 0 points [-]

(2011) Costa, AC. and Anderson, NR., Measuring trust in teams: development and validation of a multi-faceted measure of formative and reflexive indicators of team trust, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 20 (1) : 119- 154

or in a pinch

(2003) Costa, AC., Work team trust and effectiveness, Personnel Review 32 (5) : 605- 622

Comment author: tgb 10 June 2014 02:19:58PM 2 points [-]

I don't think that was a judge conversation. That was just someone using the online chat program:

"I logged on to what I think is the Goostman program. Here’s the transcript of our conversation: (Eugene is supposed to be around 13 years old.)"

Not only that, but it's an old version from a year ago. (Not that I think the real judges' conversation would be significantly better.)

Comment author: Morendil 10 June 2014 10:21:18PM 3 points [-]

You're very likely right, I misinterpreted.

Comment author: KnaveOfAllTrades 23 August 2013 07:56:48AM 1 point [-]

Reply to this comment if you’re interested in being part of a rationalist house in London, UK.

Comment author: Morendil 09 June 2014 01:42:09PM 1 point [-]

Any progress with this? I'm probably going to hang out briefly with the NYC group when I visit there in August.

Comment author: Morendil 09 June 2014 01:38:04PM *  14 points [-]

This isn't strictly speaking "this month", but more "since the last time this thread was around", perhaps three or four months. (ETA: actually, the last such I took part in was October '13.)

Built a 3D printer from a kit. Learnt enough G-Code and OpenScad to be dangerous. Designed a few parts of my own, including some that replaced original parts.

Lost about 6 kilos from my max weight. Anecdotally, what seems to have worked in my case was eating lots more vegs, liberal amounts of meat, and about half my previous quantity of carbs. Also increased exercise a fair bit, incorporating a lot more walking (to or near the oft recommended 10K steps a day) in addition to a weekly run (typically 10K). One of my major objectives was to not feel like I'd gone on a diet, but instead to rewire my preferences so that eating whatever I enjoyed would lead to weight loss. I worked quite a bit on identifying and removing the trivial inconveniences that were keeping me from enjoying vegs and salad more often.

Switched banks. Sounds easy when you write it like this but it's an insane amount of hassle.

Comment author: Morendil 09 June 2014 01:17:18PM *  12 points [-]

Let's discuss a new type of Reverse Turing Test.

This simply consists of coming up with a general class of question that you think would reliably distinguish between a chatbot and a human within about 5 minutes of conversation, and explaining which feature of "intelligence" this class of question probes.

If you're not able to formulate the broad requirements for such a class of question, you have no business being the judge in a Turing Test. You're only playing the chatbot as you would play a video game.

One of my candidates for questions of this kind: ask the interviewee to explain a common error of reasoning that people make, or can make. For instance: "If you look at the numbers, there's quite a correlation between sales of ice cream in coastal locations and number of drownings. Some people might be tempted to conclude that ice cream causes people to drown. Do you think that's right, and if not, why not?"

For another example, Dennett discusses having the chatbot explain a joke.

ETA: Scott Aaronson passes with flying colors. Chatbots are likely to lack basic encyclopedic knowledge about the world which every human possesses. (To some extent things like the Wolfram platform could overcome this for precise questions such as Scott's first - but that still leaves variants like "what's more dangerous, a tiger or an edible plant" that are vague enough that quantitative answers probably won't be accessible to a chatbot.)

Comment author: Morendil 09 June 2014 12:26:52PM 8 points [-]

I've read one transcript of a judge conversation. What I find striking is that the judge seems to be doing their best to be fooled! Of course, no one wants to get a 13 year old upset.

In a Turing Test situation I'd start by trying a bunch of Winograd Schemas.

View more: Next