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

Comment author: Strilanc 09 October 2015 06:02:26PM 6 points [-]

I like this quote by Stephen Hawking from one of his answers:

The real risk with AI isn’t malice but competence.

Comment author: casebash 10 June 2015 12:16:57PM 1 point [-]

I would appreciate it if someone explained to me what the last two sets of letters are, plus Snedecor. Please don't spoil it for others though

Comment author: Strilanc 10 June 2015 02:00:16PM 2 points [-]

Rot13: Svfure–Farqrpbe qvfgevohgvba

Comment author: Strilanc 28 March 2015 02:22:18AM 5 points [-]

Could you convert the tables into graphs, please? It's much harder to see trends in lists of numbers.

Another possible hypothesis could be satiation. When I first read wikipedia, it dragged me into hours long recursive article reading. Over time I've read more and more of the articles I find interesting, so any given article links to fewer unread interesting articles. Wikipedia has essentially developed a herd immunity against me. Maybe that pattern holds over the population, with the dwindling infectiousness overcoming new readers?

On second thought, I'm not sure that works at all. I guess you could check the historical probability of following to another article.

Comment author: [deleted] 17 March 2015 10:24:28AM -1 points [-]

Why not to use explanations for magic that actual "thaumaturgical" traditions used? Basically that reality is a projection of our minds, and sufficiently concentrated and focused minds can change reality in ways that is perceptible for others too, and thus magical rituals and chanting and spells are ways to concentrate and focus the mind. You can also give it a neat theistic angle, such as when god made man in his own likeness it meant also giving him some of his creative power, to make things ex nihilo just with his mind.

Comment author: Strilanc 18 March 2015 05:26:56PM *  1 point [-]

"reality is a projection of our minds and magic is ways to concentrate and focus the mind" is too non-reductionist of an explanation. It moves the mystery inside another mystery, instead of actually explaining it.

For example: in this universe minds seem to be made out of brains. But if reality is just a projection of minds, then... brains are made out of minds? So minds are made out of minds? So where does the process hit bottom? Or are we saying existence is just a fractal of minds made out of minds made out of minds all the way down?

Comment author: yaeiou 04 March 2015 09:30:52PM 1 point [-]

I'm not sure how Quirrell's last plot could still come to fruition. Slytherin have won the house cup and one of the professors awarding house points to Ravenclaw at this stage would feel like Quirrell's plotting had failed.

Comment author: Strilanc 04 March 2015 10:38:19PM 3 points [-]

Hm, my take-away from the end of the chapter was a sad feeling that Quirrel simply failed at or lied about getting both houses to win.

Comment author: gedymin 04 March 2015 02:43:39PM 4 points [-]

Is there some reason to think that physiognomy really works? Reverse causation is probably the main reason, e.g. tall people are more likely to be seen as leaders by others, so they are more likely to become leaders. Nevertheless, is there something beyond that?

Comment author: Strilanc 04 March 2015 04:17:31PM *  3 points [-]

The 2014 LW survey results mentioned something about being consistent with a finger-length/feminism connection. Maybe that counts?

Some diseases impact both reasoning and appearance. Gender impacts both appearance and behavior. You clearly get some information from appearance, but it's going to be noisy and less useful than what you'd get by just asking a few questions.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 March 2015 09:49:13AM 7 points [-]

I regularly see on Reddit and recently around here too ideas like "there is no free will hence nobody deserves anything, good or bad, no merits etc." and I am puzzled by them, because to me it is so that merit or desert or even justice means roughly like incentives that happen to work. If a reward makes people behave the way I want them to, I call the reward merited or deserved. Basically a sound investment. "you deserve punishment" is nothing more than "I think punishing you will make you or others behave the way I want to". "this punishment is just" means "it works, and it is also not harsher than necessary" i.e. executing pickpockets would likely work but unnecessarily harsh. "you earned your wealth" largely means I don't think your behavior or other people's behavior would become more desirable to me if I took away your wealth and gave it to someone else.

Maybe I am overly cynical as my account does not have an ethical aspect. I think it is rather than other people expect cosmic justice where there is none. People were said they merited and deserved medals for burning hostile soldiers to death alive with a flamethrower in war and I shouldn't be cynical about this?

OTOH almost everybody seems to disagree. People think deserving, earning, merit, justice, things like this have some "cosmic ethic/justice" to them and are very upset when they learn about determinism and figure it is not the case.

Likely I am missing something. What am I missing?

In response to comment by [deleted] on Stupid Questions March 2015
Comment author: Strilanc 04 March 2015 04:13:34PM 3 points [-]

There's a radiolab episode about blame that glances this subject. They talk about, for example, people with brain damage not being blamed for their crimes (because they "didn't have a choice"). They also have a guest trying to explain why legal punishment should be based on modelling probabilities of recidivism. One of the hosts usually plays (is?) the "there is cosmic blame/justice/choice" position you're describing.

Comment author: Jost 01 March 2015 08:29:01PM 1 point [-]

Assuming you can take down the death eaters

That’s one heck of an assumption …

In addition, you’re making the implicit assumption that LV will not react to Harry taking down the Death Eaters, which is an interesting assumption, as well.

Comment author: Strilanc 01 March 2015 08:33:26PM 2 points [-]

Well, yeah. The particular case I had in mind was exploiting partial+ordered transfiguration to lobotomize/brain-acid the death eaters, and I grant that that has practical problems.

But I found myself thinking about using patronus and other complicated things to take down LV after, instead of exploiting weak spells being made effective by the resonance. So I put the idea out there.

Comment author: noahpocalypse 01 March 2015 05:33:50AM 3 points [-]

I think you forgot the 37(?) Death Eaters pointing their wands at Harry. You also forgot Voldie's famed reflexes, and a bullet definitely goes faster than a spell.

Comment author: Strilanc 01 March 2015 05:58:15AM 2 points [-]

If I may quote from my post:

Assuming you can take down the death eaters, I think the correct follow-up


LV is way up high, too far away to have good accuracy with a hand gun.

Comment author: Strilanc 01 March 2015 02:56:38AM *  1 point [-]

I made my suggestion.

Assuming you can take down the death eaters, I think the correct follow-up for despawning LV is... massed somnium.

We've seen somnium be effective at range in the past, taking down an actively dodging broomstick rider at range. We've seen the resonance hit LV harder than Harry, requiring tens of minutes to recover versus seconds.

LV is not wearing medieval armor to block the somnium. LV is way up high, too far away to have good accuracy with a hand gun.If LV dodges behind something, Harry has time to expecto patronum a message out.

... I think the main risk is LV apparating away, apparating back directly behind harry, and pulling the trigger.

View more: Next