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

Comment author: ciphergoth 16 September 2014 08:22:08AM 0 points [-]

The Deepmind "Atari" demonstration is pretty impressive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfGD2qveGdQ

Comment author: RichardKennaway 16 September 2014 08:49:22AM 1 point [-]

Deepmind Atari technical paper.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 14 September 2014 02:54:52PM 4 points [-]

Small suggestion: Mousing over the red envelope could tell me how many new messages there are.

Medium sized suggestion: A "what links to this?" button on posts.

Big suggestion: A search feature that only returns hits on posts, comments, and wiki pages, sorted by date or karma, filterable by author.

Comment author: dspeyer 05 September 2014 04:10:03PM *  11 points [-]

For the opposite claim: If It’s Worth Doing, It’s Worth Doing With Made-Up Statistics:

Remember the Bayes mammogram problem? The correct answer is 7.8%; most doctors (and others) intuitively feel like the answer should be about 80%. So doctors – who are specifically trained in having good intuitive judgment about diseases – are wrong by an order of magnitude. And it “only” being one order of magnitude is not to the doctors’ credit: by changing the numbers in the problem we can make doctors’ answers as wrong as we want.

So the doctors probably would be better off explicitly doing the Bayesian calculation. But suppose some doctor’s internet is down (you have NO IDEA how much doctors secretly rely on the Internet) and she can’t remember the prevalence of breast cancer. If the doctor thinks her guess will be off by less than an order of magnitude, then making up a number and plugging it into Bayes will be more accurate than just using a gut feeling about how likely the test is to work. Even making up numbers based on basic knowledge like “Most women do not have breast cancer at any given time” might be enough to make Bayes Theorem outperform intuitive decision-making in many cases.

I tend to side with Yvain on this one, at least so long as your argument isn't going to be judged by its appearence. Specifically on the LHC thing, I think making up the 1 in 1000 makes it possible to substantively argue about the risks in a way that "there's a chance" doesn't.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 14 September 2014 06:48:40AM 3 points [-]

A detailed reading provides room for these to coexist. Compare:

If I added a zero to this number

with

off by less than an order of magnitude

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 12 September 2014 05:10:34PM 1 point [-]

My 30 day karma just jumped over 40 points since I checked LW this morning. Either I've said something really popular (and none of my recent comments have karma that high), or there's a bug.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 13 September 2014 06:07:09PM 2 points [-]

I got about +30 as well, ad only a small amount is due to recent upvotes. And despite the jump, I'm out of the top 30-day contributors list, which I've been in and out of the bottom of for some weeks. The other names in that list are regulars there, so they must have got some upvotes also.

Perhaps some systematic downvoter had all his votes reversed?

Comment author: CJF 13 September 2014 01:03:28AM 0 points [-]

So, what's the "content" in your example? I don't see that the example sentence has any content and so I don't see how it's relevant. If one were to say, "It is false." the natural response would be, "Huh?" or "What's the 'it'." There's nothing there that can be false. it's the same with the sentence, "This sentence is false." (Or, for that matter, "This sentence is true.") In order for something to be true or false, there need be something referred to.

I understand the stakes here and the ultimate conclusions that Godel came to with a related inquiry, but I can't get past the fact that there needs to be some content for the sentence to be admitted to the true or false game.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 13 September 2014 06:02:34PM 1 point [-]

So, what's the "content" in your example?

The part that says "you should give me all your money". This is a clearly meaningful, contentful sentence. (Unfortunately for me, a false one.) Embedded in the reflexive sentence, it gives a reflexive sentence containing content. However, such sentences render the system inconsistent, so excluding empty circularities like "this sentence is false" is insufficient to resolve the problem of deciding what circularities can be admitted.

Comment author: Ixiel 12 September 2014 11:25:53AM 2 points [-]

That is an interesting use of "work" and "leisure," and one with which I was not familiar. I am very serious about my leisure (depending how you use serious... I love semantic arguments for fun but not everybody does so I'll cut that here). The more frequent use I have heard is close to its etymology: what one is allowed to do, as opposed to what one has a duty to do. That is anecdotal to the people I know so may not be the standard. I am much more serious about what I am allowed to do, and what others are allowed to do, than even a self-created duty.

Very interesting and I'd be happy to continue, but to restate the original question with help from noticed ambiguity: is there a strong argument why spending 80000 hours in a job for jobs sake is ethically superior to selling enough time to meet ones need and using rest for ones own goals?

Comment author: RichardKennaway 13 September 2014 05:55:41PM *  2 points [-]

is there a strong argument why spending 80000 hours in a job for jobs sake is ethically superior to selling enough time to meet ones need and using rest for ones own goals?

To give a more direct answer, "a job for jobs sake" sounds like a lost purpose. In harder times, everyone had to work hard for as many years as they could, to support themselves, their household, and their community, and the community couldn't afford many passengers. Having broken free of the Malthusian wolves, the pressure is off, but the attitudes remain: idleness is sinful.

And then again, from the transhumanist point of view, the pressure isn't off at all, it's been replaced by a different one. We now have the prospect of a whole universe to conquer. How many passengers can the human race afford in that enterprise, among those able to contribute to it?

Comment author: Ixiel 12 September 2014 11:25:53AM 2 points [-]

That is an interesting use of "work" and "leisure," and one with which I was not familiar. I am very serious about my leisure (depending how you use serious... I love semantic arguments for fun but not everybody does so I'll cut that here). The more frequent use I have heard is close to its etymology: what one is allowed to do, as opposed to what one has a duty to do. That is anecdotal to the people I know so may not be the standard. I am much more serious about what I am allowed to do, and what others are allowed to do, than even a self-created duty.

Very interesting and I'd be happy to continue, but to restate the original question with help from noticed ambiguity: is there a strong argument why spending 80000 hours in a job for jobs sake is ethically superior to selling enough time to meet ones need and using rest for ones own goals?

Comment author: RichardKennaway 12 September 2014 12:21:03PM 1 point [-]

is there a strong argument why spending 80000 hours in a job for jobs sake is ethically superior to selling enough time to meet ones need and using rest for ones own goals?

Meeting one's needs is, by definition, necessary, and one's goals are, by definition, what one pursues. Who doesn't do that, beyond people incapable of supporting themselves and people drifting through life with no particular goals?

Comment author: RichardKennaway 12 September 2014 08:42:52AM 2 points [-]

Penny Arcade takes on the question of the economic value of a sacred thing. Script:

Gabe: Can you believe Notch is gonna sell Minecraft to MS?

Tycho: Yes! I can!

Gabe: Minecraft is, like, his baby though!

Tycho: I would sell an actual baby for two billion dollars.

Tycho: I would sell my baby to the Devil. Then, I would enter my Golden Sarcophagus and begin the ritual.

Comment author: Ixiel 11 September 2014 09:25:08PM 2 points [-]

Thanks for reply! My question was unclear, but I meant the other meaning. I strongly do believe in doing whatever one does well, but not in seeking to do more work in the first place. I mean the idea that there's something more noble about working 40+ hours a week than not, and that people with sufficient means shouldn't retire in their thirties.

Sure, one can build habits at work, but one can do so cheaper than 2000 hours of one's life per year, net of compensation. Admittedly this does not apply so much if you love your job, but hypothetically if someone values leisure more, is there a way in which choosing that leisure is less ethical?

Comment author: RichardKennaway 12 September 2014 06:28:25AM 5 points [-]

"Work" can mean different things, and so also "work ethic".

The way I use it, "work" is whatever you are serious (or at least want to be) about doing, whether it's something that matters in the larger scheme of things or not, and whether or not it earns money. (But having to earn a living makes it a lot easier to be serious about it.)

"Leisure" is whatever you like doing but choose not to be serious about.

In that sense, I'm not much interested in leisure. Idling one's days away on a tropical island is not my idea of fun, and I do not watch television. Valuing seriousness is what I would mean by "work ethic". What one should be serious about is a separate ethical question.

When other people talk about "work", they might mean service to others, and by "leisure" service to oneself. I score low on the "service to others" metric, but for EA people, that is their work ethic.

To others, "work" is earning a living, and "leisure" is whatever you do when you're not doing that. The work ethic relative to that concept is that the pay you get for your work is a measure of the value you are creating for others. If you are idling then you are neglecting your duty to create value all the years that you can, for time is the most perishable of all commodities: a day unused is a day lost to our future light-cone for ever.

Comment author: pshc 12 September 2014 04:57:26AM 7 points [-]

Would there be any interest in an iPhone app for LessWrong? I was thinking it might be a fun side project for learning Swift, and I didn't see any search results on the App Store.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 12 September 2014 05:45:16AM 3 points [-]

What do you see it doing that the web site doesn't?

View more: Next