= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
The point is to imagine the event that is the least bad, but still bad. If dust specks doesn't do it for you, imagine something else. What event you choose is not supposed to be the crucial part of the dilemma.
What if torture is your low end? Think masochists.
What if we're wrong about the size of the universe?
But we aren't wrong about the observable universe, does it really matter to us what happens outside our interaction range?
In response to
Experiential Pica
Saw something like this just recently on how reading small bites on the Internet trains our "drive" (keep pushing button) rather than "satiation" (actually feel good) circuits. Can't seem to find it just now - anyone got the link?
In response to
Rationality Quotes - August 2009
Even if man really were nothing but a piano-key, even if this were proved to him by natural science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable, but would purposely do something perverse out of simple ingratitude, simply to gain his point.
—Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Notes from the Underground
(Self-promotion: this is the epigraph to the novella I'm working on, which is not really about rationality but is about what we're pleased to call "human nature", and which you may read the beginning of here if so inclined.)
Read the first chapter of your novella. Were it not for the delineation I probably would still be reading and hiding from sleep. Work tomorrow, I expect I'll come back to it after.
In response to
Rationality Quotes - August 2009
Feedback phenomena and human intuition are uncomfortable bedfellows. When people dislike where an equilibrium argument takes them, it is therefore unsurprising that they invent simpler arguments that lead to more palatable conclusions. However, the first principle of rational thought is never to allow your preferences to influence your beliefs.
Ken Binmore
The votes do not indicate the quality of the comment, Alicorn, but the quality of the commenters.
Edit for clarification: I said that poorly. It's the quality of the people that vote that is demonstrated, not the quality of the thing they've voting on. Both groups are "the commenters"; it's what they're commenting on that's different.
Further edit: Y'know, I added the above clarification because I didn't want this comment to be perceived as an insult to Alicorn, which it isn't meant to be and really isn't, but the if interpreted in another way the alternative meaning is quite accurate.
I'm pretty sure it was intended to indicate the quality of the comment.
In response to
Escaping Your Past
And the jobseeker replies, "But all those transgressions are in the past. Sunk costs can't play into my decision theory—it would hardly be helping for me to go sulk in a gutter somewhere. I can only seek to maximize expected utility now, and right now that means working ever so hard for you, O dearest future boss! Tsuyoku naritai!"
I am failing to understand how two felonies in my past are sunk costs. How are events costs? Am I missing a layer of abstraction?
They are sunk costs to the jobseeker in that he cannot do anything about them and they have a negative value. If he were to take them into account, he would no doubt throw up his hands and shout "but who would hire ME?" So he must ignore them as he would any sunk cost when deciding what to do; namely, where to apply for a job.
At least that is how I understand it.
Definitely I'm one of them. Or just me. I've been posting a lot in ineffective directions and my ideas don't seem aligned well with the group. Sorry, Eliezer. I enjoyed my LW experience -- it is a fun community. Best.
(Written later:) Reading through MrHen's comment, it is interesting to me that we are both new to the group (I'm 2 weeks older) and both feel like posers. (We have karma scores around 55). I think it is interesting that in response to a general reprimand from Eliezer, we both had similar thoughts in our heads (I claim this) but responded quite differently. I have heard before that a gender difference when it comes to grant resubmission in the sciences is that women take the first rejection personally and don't resubmit at the same rate. While MrHen requested more feedback, I wanted to make an apology and exit before I further offended, even though I wasn't certain to what extent it was me.
Was my guess that the "fool is me" an overly sensitive response to criticism? I was worried that my harping on religion might be factious, and so I already felt guilty.
How does a person know if they don't fit, or if their ideas align well enough?
Although I wouldn't go so far as to assert that I speak for the majority of the community (although I hope I do), my view is that so long as you are making a good faith effort to contribute and grow along with the community you are okay. After looking over your comment/post history I will say that I have no doubts that you are making such an effort.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
By using non-constructive notation, like BusyBeaver(10^n). Surely you can be convinced that the smallest program it takes to output a number as big as BusyBeaver(10^n) is of size 10^n, and therefore accept a 10-fold reduction in probability to increase n by 1?
Also, if you can't be convinced, then your utility function is effectively bounded.
Somewhere I missed something, is there something wrong with bounded utilities? Every usable solution to these manipulations of infinity get dismissed because they are bounded, if they work what is the problem?