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

Comment author: RichardKennaway 11 August 2014 08:43:04PM *  10 points [-]

Have you ever clicked on the grey envelope icon found at the bottom right of every post and comment? If you do, then immediate replies to it show up in your inbox also. Look at the parent of one of these mysterious messages and see if its envelope is green. If it is, you can click it again to turn it off.

Comment author: Thomas 12 August 2014 09:51:07AM 3 points [-]

Thanks! I had done this, inadvertently.

Comment author: alexanderwales 05 August 2014 03:26:37PM 2 points [-]

This seems like it would work a lot better as a computer program, where the crossword cube can be rotated by the user to see the different fields. Otherwise a 7 x 7 x 7 seems like it would be too large for a newspaper, where real estate is limited (not to mention the difficulty in doing the "depth" part of the crossword). Making it virtual (either a standalone app, web app, steam game) solves most of the potential problems.

Comment author: Thomas 12 August 2014 09:41:45AM 0 points [-]

Well, here is a low-tech version of a user interface. Printed (3D) crossword. Or at least printable. Perhaps it would do for some.

http://www.critticall.com/cubus_maximus/test.html

The virtual spaces could be also somewhat filled with them, yes.

Comment author: Thomas 11 August 2014 05:03:04PM 2 points [-]

I am getting the red envelope sign on the right side here, as I had a message. But then I see it's not for me. For a few days now.

Comment author: qsz 04 August 2014 03:45:59PM *  2 points [-]

That sounds really cool as a word-packing exercise. Thinking about it as a crossworder though, if you reduce or eliminate the black fields I wonder whether such a 3d puzzle would be too easy to solve as each redundant use of a letter reduces the challenge on the solver.

Could it be adapted somehow into a series of 2d slice puzzles where the full 3d solution only becomes evident, or even noticeable later on? for example suppose "puzzle 1" is the plane X=1, Y=1. There is no need for subsequent planes to be parallel to the first; puzzle 2 might be Y=2, Z=3 but without any indication of which dimensions are in play at the moment so the solver has to think about which alignment would suffice? Leaving some clues incomplete so they can only be solved by approach from other dimensions after figuring out the relative position of each sub-puzzle?

Comment author: Thomas 04 August 2014 10:58:27PM *  2 points [-]

It's a whole new ball game, actually.

Take for example a cube of 7 by 7 by 7 letters. There are 343 letters inside and we have 49 "words" which go in Up-Down direction, intersecting 49 Left-Right "words" and intersecting 49 North-South "words".

Those "words" may be words, more or less common, or a sequence of two words. Might be a blank between those two, the so called black field. But I think it is much better without blanks. A thin separator may be drawn instead, and we have a so called Italian crossword. Now in 3D.

A crossworder in the above 7 x 7 x 7 case gets between 147 and 294 queries. Each letter figured out, has another two orthogonal questions which are a bit easier to solve now. This "orthogonality" makes crosswords interesting in the first place and here in 3D we have twice the "orthogonality" of a 2D crossword.

Maybe I should try some field tests?

Leaving some clues incomplete so they can only be solved by approach from other dimensions after figuring out the relative position of each sub-puzzle?

Perhaps. This could be tested. All for the maximal pleasure of a crosswords solver.

Comment author: Thomas 04 August 2014 06:42:48AM *  9 points [-]

Testing an algorithm I developed a byproduct algorithm which outputs 3D crosswords. Automatically given a list of words. Many thousands of them are already on my PC.

This has been virtually unknown before, at least with a few or no black fields.

Now I wonder, can I sell this to newspapers, would their readers enjoy that kind of a puzzle? Six 6 by 6 square crosswords, interdependent with each other by the third dimension at every field.

Or some even bigger cubes, perhaps 10 by 10 by 10? Or a 5 by 6 by 7 crossword?

The building algorithm is here now. But I don't want to spend too much time with this anymore. A middle-man or a middle-firm to newspapers would be appreciated.

Comment author: shminux 27 July 2014 02:53:32AM *  1 point [-]

Chomsky’s response to a given international event is one of the most predictable phenomena I can think of—even the comets and the tides throw more curveballs. One could easily replace him with a chatbot.

Scott Aaronson.

EDIT: to clarify, if you can predict what a famous personality is going to say on a given topic well enough to replace it with a chatbot, listening to said personality on that topic no longer has much value.

Comment author: Thomas 31 July 2014 06:42:59AM 2 points [-]

to clarify, if you can predict what a famous personality is going to say on a given topic well enough to replace it with a chatbot, listening to said personality on that topic no longer has much value.

Not true. A chatbot (complex enough), can give you an interesting result you haven't thought about it before.

Comment author: Thomas 21 July 2014 02:33:29PM *  4 points [-]

I have devised a software which is able (among other things) to construct 3D crosswords.

I don't consider it AI, but "stupid".

Even so, (English) 3D crosswords without black fields are currently very rare, to nonexistent.

http://protokol2020.wordpress.com/2014/07/20/woshi-power/

Comment author: Thomas 21 June 2014 07:22:59AM 1 point [-]

CATE has another weapon. Humans who are ready to gladly serve her. For a real God is much better, than an imaginary one.

Comment author: Thomas 16 June 2014 10:43:47AM 0 points [-]

Intelligence and security. This combination already has some other, well established meaning.

Comment author: James_Miller 01 June 2014 09:20:25PM 30 points [-]

"Do what you love" / "Follow your passion" is dangerous and destructive career advice. We tend to hear it from (a) Highly successful people who (b) Have become successful doing what they love. The problem is that we do NOT hear from people who have failed to become successful by doing what they love. Particularly pernicious problem in tournament-style fields with a few big winners & lots of losers: media, athletics, startups. Better career advice may be "Do what contributes" -- focus on the beneficial value created for other people vs just one's own ego. People who contribute the most are often the most satisfied with what they do -- and in fields with high renumeration, make the most $. Perhaps difficult advice since requires focus on others vs oneself -- perhaps bad fit with endemic narcissism in modern culture? Requires delayed gratification -- may toil for many years to get the payoff of contributing value to the world, vs short-term happiness.

Marc Andreessen

Comment author: Thomas 02 June 2014 11:40:51AM 12 points [-]

It looks like that ANY advice from highly successful people might be dangerous, since they are only a small minority of those, who also tried those same things. Most of them much less successfully.

View more: Next