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

Comment author: KnaveOfAllTrades 06 September 2014 07:45:47PM 1 point [-]

I'm not sure if it's because I'm Confused, but I'm struggling to understand if you are disagreeing, or if so, where your disagreement lies and how the parent comment in particular relates to that disagreement/the great-grandparent. I have a hunch that being more concrete and giving specific, minimally-abstract examples would help in this case.

Comment author: MugaSofer 07 September 2014 04:56:31PM *  -1 points [-]

I'm saying that if Sleeping Beauty's goal is to better understand the world, by performing a Bayesian update on evidence, then I think this is a form of "payoff" that gives Thirder results.

From If a tree falls on Sleeping Beauty...:

Each interview consists of one question, “What is your credence now for the proposition that our coin landed heads?”, and the answer given will be scored according to a logarithmic scoring rule, with the aggregate result corresponding to the number of utilons (converted to dollars, let’s say) she will be penalized after the experiment.

In this case it is optimal to bet 1/3 that the coin came up heads, 2/3 that it came up tails: [snip table]

Comment author: KnaveOfAllTrades 06 September 2014 06:48:09PM *  0 points [-]

I don't understand the first part of your comment. Different anthropic principles give different answers to e.g. Sleeping Beauty, and the type of dissolution that seems most promising for that problem doesn't feel like what I'd call 'using anthropic evidence'. (The post I just linked to in particular seems like a conceptual precursor to updateless thinking, which seems to me like the obviously correct perfect-logically-omniscient-reasoner solution to anthropics.)

Can you give a concrete example of what you see as an example of where anthropic reasoning wins (or would win if we performed a simple experiment)? If anything, experiments seem like they would highlight ambiguities that naïve anthropic reasoning misses; if I try to write 'halfer' and 'thirder' computer programs for Sleeping Beauty to see which wins more, I run into the problem of defining the payoffs and thereby rederive the dissolution ata gave in the linked post.

Comment author: MugaSofer 06 September 2014 07:10:14PM *  -1 points [-]

I don't understand the first part of your comment. Different anthropic principles give different answers to e.g. Sleeping Beauty, and the type of dissolution that seems most promising for that problem doesn't feel like what I'd call 'using anthropic evidence'. (The post I just linked to in particular seems like a conceptual precursor to updateless thinking, which seems to me like the obviously correct perfect-logically-omniscient-reasoner solution to anthropics.)

OK, well by analogy, what's the "payoff structure" for nuclear anthropics?

Obviously, we can't prevent it after the fact. The payoff we get for being right is in the form of information; a better model of the world.

It isn't perfectly analogous, but it seems to me that "be right" is most analogous to the Thirder payoff matrix for Sleeping-Beauty-like problems.

Comment author: MarkL 15 August 2014 08:11:12PM 12 points [-]

The point is that these speed runs presumably involve backtracking. They can rewind time and explore different paths until they find one they like.

Comment author: MugaSofer 06 September 2014 06:54:33PM *  0 points [-]

So do regular playthroughs, though; it's a video game. The first paragraph still remarks on "how different optimal play can be from normal play."

Comment author: MugaSofer 06 September 2014 05:59:53PM *  -1 points [-]

The trouble is, anthropic evidence works. I wish it didn't, because I wish the nuclear arms race hadn't come so close to killing us (and may well have killed others), and was instead prevented by some sort of hard-to-observe cooperation.

But it works. Witness the Sleeping Beauty Problem, for example. Or the Sailor's Child, a modified Sleeping Beauty that I could go outside and play a version of right now if I wished.

The winning solution, that gives the right answer, is to use "anthropic" evidence.

If this confuses you, then I (seriously) suggest you re-examine your understanding of how to perform anthropic calculations.


In fact, what you are describing is not "anthropic" evidence, but just ordinary evidence.

I (think I) know that George VI had five siblings (because you told me so.) That observation is more likely in a world where he did have five siblings (because I guessed your line of argument pretty early in the post, so I know you have no reason to trick me.) Therefore, updating on this observation, it is probable that George VI had five siblings.

Is this an explanation? Sort of.

There might be some special reason why George VI had only five siblings - maybe his parents decided to stop after five, say.

More likely, the true "explanation" is that he just happened to have five siblings, randomly. It wasn't unusually probable, it just happened by chance that it was that number.

And if that is the true explanation, then that is what I desire to believe.

Comment author: blogospheroid 30 August 2014 11:34:55AM 1 point [-]

I'd like to repeat the comment I had made at "outside in" for the same topic, the great filter.

I think our knowledge of all levels – physics, chemistry, biology, praxeology, sociology is nowhere near the level where we should be worrying too much about the fermi paradox.

Our physics has openly acknowledged broad gaps in our knowledge by postulating dark matter, dark energy, and a bunch of stuff that is filler for – "I don’t know". We don't have physics theories that explain the smallest to the largest.

Coming to chemistry and biology, we’ve still not demonstrated abiogenesis. We have not created any new base of life other than the twisty strands mother nature already prepared and gave us everywhere. We don't know the causes of our mutations to predict them to any extent. We simply don’t know enough to fill in these gaps.

Coming to basic sustenance, we don’t know what are the minimum requirements for a self-contained multi generational habitat. The biosphere experiments were not complete in any manner.

We don’t know the code for intelligence. We don’t know the code for preventing our own bodily degradation.

We don’t know how to balance new knowledge acquisition and sustainability run a society. Our best centres of knowledge acquisition are IQ shredders (a term meant to highlight the fact that the most successful cities attract the highest IQ people and reduce their fertility compared to if they had remained back in small towns/rural areas) and not sustainable environmentally either. Patriarchy and castes work great in in static societies. We don’t know their equivalent in a growing knowledge society.

There are still many known ways in which we can screw up. Lets get all these basics right, repeatedly right and then wonder with our new found knowledge, according to these calculations, there is a X% chance that we should have been contacted. Why are we apparently alone in the universe?

Comment author: MugaSofer 06 September 2014 05:43:56PM 1 point [-]

If you aren't sure about something, you can't just throw up your hands, say "well, we can't be sure", and then behave as if the answer you like best is true.

We have math for calculating these things, based on the probability different options are true.

For example, we don't know for sure how abiogenesis works, as you correctly note. Thus, we can't be sure how rare it ought to be on Earthlike planets - it might require a truly staggering coincidence, and we would never know for anthropic reasons.

But, in fact, we can reason about this uncertainty - we can't get rid of it, but we can quantify it to a degree. We know how soon life appeared after conditions became suitable. So we can consider what kind of frequency that would imply for abiogenesis given Earthlike conditions and anthropic effects.

This doesn't give us any new information - we still don't know how abiogenesis works - but it does give us a rough idea of how likely it is to be nigh-impossible, or near-certain.

Similarly, we can take the evidence we do have about the likelihood of Earthlike planets forming, the number of nearby stars they might form around, the likely instrumental goals most intelligent minds will have, the tools they will probably have available to them ... and so on.

We can't be sure about any of these things - no, not even the number of stars! - but we do have some evidence. We can calculate how likely that evidence would be to show up given the different possibilities. And so, putting it all together, we can put ballpark numbers to the odds of these events - "there is a X% chance that we should have been contacted", given the evidence we have now.

And then - making sure to update on all the evidence available, and recalculate as new evidence is found - we can work out the implications.

Comment author: Azathoth123 06 September 2014 03:37:23AM *  2 points [-]

Well the right wing talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh opposed it from day 1.

Also I remember left wing political cartoon from shortly after 9/11 implying that Republicans were in bed with the corporate sector for not wanting to nationalize airport security (which was then provided by private contractors).

Comment author: MugaSofer 06 September 2014 12:58:42PM *  0 points [-]

Ah, interesting! I didn't know that. Props to Limbaugh et al.

(Nationalizing airport security seems orthogonal to the TSA search issue, though.)

Comment author: ColbyDavis 30 August 2014 04:02:50PM 3 points [-]

Has anybody suggested that the great filter may be that AIs are negative utilitarians that destroy life on their planet? My prior on this is not very high but it's a neat solution to the puzzle.

Comment author: MugaSofer 06 September 2014 12:56:53PM 1 point [-]

Oh, a failed Friendly AI might well do that. But it would probably realize that life would develop elsewhere, and take steps to prevent us.

Comment author: Algernoq 23 July 2014 12:07:35AM *  6 points [-]

Wow. You just:

  1. ignored my evidence

  2. blamed me for society's problems

More politely, you fell into the cognitive bias of incorrectly discounting unpleasant information.

This kind of shit is exactly what I've read rape victims have to put up with. People don't want to believe unpleasant things, and prefer to blame the victim's normal choices instead of recognizing that there's a problem.

If you actually have evidence to support me being unable to perceive the world accurately, please tell me what it is. Otherwise, don't tell me that I'm not feeling what I know I'm feeling.

Some of my specific examples:

I've met two sociopaths socially, coincidentally both management consultants. Trustworthy mutual friends confirmed they had long-term partners and that they also cheated a lot without regard for others' feelings. I also saw this personally: on different occasions I saw each of them with a long-term partner and with a short-term hookup. One of these people tried to seduce my long-term girlfriend, and the other tried to set me up with someone he was tired of hooking up with, without disclosing his involvement with her. Both of them failed, but it wasn't a sure thing in either case. This is an extreme example; more generally I don't like seeing people get lied to, and don't like competing in an environment where the baseline assumption is that the other people are emotionally-damaged liars (because the people with these issues tend to do the most dating). I'm also somewhat bothered that the social norm is generally to pretend not to know about cheating/lying in friends' relationships, because there's no positive reward to sharing the information.

At work, in my current job, the technically competent senior engineer with average social skills was passed over for promotion in favor of a technically incompetent senior engineer who covers for his incompetence with posturing and salesmanship. I'm also tired of frequent calls from salesmen who want me to pay 30% too much for something I don't need.

More generally, the structure of many organizations rewards sociopaths. Look up the MacLeod hierarchy for one popular theory.

Please update on this information, and let me know if you have any true or useful information that's relevant here. In other circumstances I'd recommend an apology as well, for following a conversational pattern that typically offends people and is factually incorrect.

Comment author: MugaSofer 05 September 2014 06:37:19PM *  -2 points [-]

I'm curious, how do you know they were sociopaths? You seem to imply your evidence was that they were unfaithful and generally skeevy individuals besides, but was there anything else?

(Actually, does anyone know how we know that sociopaths are better at manipulating people? I've absorbed this belief somehow, but I don't recall seeing any studies or anything.)

Comment author: Algernoq 22 July 2014 01:38:42AM *  4 points [-]

I'd like to see more "calm discussion" of status differentials in relationships, because a general solution here would address nearly all concerns about polyamory. Thanks to HPMOR for helping me understand the real world.

One recipe for being a player is to go after lower-status (less-attractive) people, fulfill their romantic needs with a mix of planned romance, lies and bravado, have lots of sex, and then give face-saving excuses when abandoning them.

This isn't illegal. It's very difficult to prosecute actually giving other people STDs, or coercing them into sex. Merely telling lies to get sex (or, to swap genders and stereotype, get status and excessive support without providing sex) isn't so bad in comparison.

I'm indignant at Evolution (not at polyamory, monogamy, men, etc.) because I strongly suspect several of my previous partners were raped, and unable to prosecute it. They sort-of got over it and just didn't tell future partners (me) about it. My evidence for this includes being told stories that sounded like half-truths (a stalker followed me! and I was drugged! and now I have this scar! but nothing happened!) and overly-specific denials (nothing's happened to me that would give me panic attacks!). Another quoted a book about recovering from sexual assault. I haven't actually asked any of them, but I don't want to because this conversation would be massively unpleasant as well as unhelpful. Hypothetically:
F: So, yeah. That happened.
M: I'm sorry, not your fault, etc...
M: So, you know who did it?
F: ...yes (in 90% of cases)
M: I want to know who so...
F: No. I'm not a barbarian. Let's move forward.
M: If (when) someone threatens you again, will you threaten them back?
F: No. Again, I'm not a barbarian. I'll avoid them socially but that's it, and I'm out of luck if they're not breaking any laws in public.
M: In my experience with bullies, they don't care about social punishment. They only care about credible physical or legal threats. They're also generally cowards...
F: That's horrifying! I'd never threaten anyone like that!
M: OK, threatening mutually assured destruction comes more naturally to some people than others. Will you at least tell me if you feel scared because someone is pushing your boundaries...
F: No!
M: Well, I don't want to let people push you around and disrupt both of our lives even more. The alternatives (getting rid of privacy, or always carrying high-powered non-lethal weapons) seem more inconvenient. What do you think?
F: I think I'm breaking up with you, because you're creepy.

I am tired of realizing that people I care about were damaged by abusive relationships, and I'm tired of competing with sociopaths in dating and at work. There aren't any good alternatives (ignoring the evil is irrational and near-impossible, fighting the evil is creepy and near-impossible, and becoming a player makes me sad). The "winning" strategy seems to be narcissism and salesmanship -- a mix of Donald Trump and Richard Feynman -- and not feeling guilty about hurting other people. My current "good" strategy is being single and focusing on technical skills now to minimize baggage in the future. Given that Einstein and JFK are adored despite their numerous affairs, perhaps I should update this, or hurry up and invent (a Hobbesian) Leviathan.

without people getting indignant at you

In summary, don't fuck your cultists unless you've turned evil.

Comment author: MugaSofer 05 September 2014 06:33:52PM -1 points [-]

Firstly, I just want to second the point that this is way too interesting for, what, a fifth-level recursion?

Secondly:

One recipe for being a player is to go after lower-status (less-attractive) people, fulfill their romantic needs with a mix of planned romance, lies and bravado, have lots of sex, and then give face-saving excuses when abandoning them.

Is this ... a winning strategy? In any real sense?

I mean, yes, it's easier to sleep with unattractive people. But you don't want to sleep with unattractive people. That is what "attractiveness" refers to - the quality of people wanting you [as a sexual/romantic partner, by default.]

Now, the fact that it then becomes easy for attractive psychopaths to create relationships for nefarious purposes is ... another matter.

But I'm confused as to why you see the choices as "player, but unethical" or "non-player, but good". Surely you want to be a "player" who has sex with people you are actually attracted to?

Comment author: Algernoq 22 July 2014 01:38:42AM *  4 points [-]

I'd like to see more "calm discussion" of status differentials in relationships, because a general solution here would address nearly all concerns about polyamory. Thanks to HPMOR for helping me understand the real world.

One recipe for being a player is to go after lower-status (less-attractive) people, fulfill their romantic needs with a mix of planned romance, lies and bravado, have lots of sex, and then give face-saving excuses when abandoning them.

This isn't illegal. It's very difficult to prosecute actually giving other people STDs, or coercing them into sex. Merely telling lies to get sex (or, to swap genders and stereotype, get status and excessive support without providing sex) isn't so bad in comparison.

I'm indignant at Evolution (not at polyamory, monogamy, men, etc.) because I strongly suspect several of my previous partners were raped, and unable to prosecute it. They sort-of got over it and just didn't tell future partners (me) about it. My evidence for this includes being told stories that sounded like half-truths (a stalker followed me! and I was drugged! and now I have this scar! but nothing happened!) and overly-specific denials (nothing's happened to me that would give me panic attacks!). Another quoted a book about recovering from sexual assault. I haven't actually asked any of them, but I don't want to because this conversation would be massively unpleasant as well as unhelpful. Hypothetically:
F: So, yeah. That happened.
M: I'm sorry, not your fault, etc...
M: So, you know who did it?
F: ...yes (in 90% of cases)
M: I want to know who so...
F: No. I'm not a barbarian. Let's move forward.
M: If (when) someone threatens you again, will you threaten them back?
F: No. Again, I'm not a barbarian. I'll avoid them socially but that's it, and I'm out of luck if they're not breaking any laws in public.
M: In my experience with bullies, they don't care about social punishment. They only care about credible physical or legal threats. They're also generally cowards...
F: That's horrifying! I'd never threaten anyone like that!
M: OK, threatening mutually assured destruction comes more naturally to some people than others. Will you at least tell me if you feel scared because someone is pushing your boundaries...
F: No!
M: Well, I don't want to let people push you around and disrupt both of our lives even more. The alternatives (getting rid of privacy, or always carrying high-powered non-lethal weapons) seem more inconvenient. What do you think?
F: I think I'm breaking up with you, because you're creepy.

I am tired of realizing that people I care about were damaged by abusive relationships, and I'm tired of competing with sociopaths in dating and at work. There aren't any good alternatives (ignoring the evil is irrational and near-impossible, fighting the evil is creepy and near-impossible, and becoming a player makes me sad). The "winning" strategy seems to be narcissism and salesmanship -- a mix of Donald Trump and Richard Feynman -- and not feeling guilty about hurting other people. My current "good" strategy is being single and focusing on technical skills now to minimize baggage in the future. Given that Einstein and JFK are adored despite their numerous affairs, perhaps I should update this, or hurry up and invent (a Hobbesian) Leviathan.

without people getting indignant at you

In summary, don't fuck your cultists unless you've turned evil.

Comment author: MugaSofer 05 September 2014 06:32:35PM *  0 points [-]

double-post

View more: Next