= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I think you failed to notice that harry is ENTIRELY wrong and massively overreacting in this situation. He's specifically being the opposite of a mary sue in that his big brain is actively backfiring on him.
In response to
Harry Sue and The Methods of Rationality
No, he is a Black Hole Sue, because, as I said, the abuse and condescension he gave to McGonnagal did not result in any consequences. She's his goddamn TEACHER. Teachers don't expect to be treated like idiots.
And WHERE is his brain backfiring? And I know he's wrong. That's the point. But so far, he's winning anyway.
Harry Sue and The Methods of Rationality
I've been hearing about this fic for a long time, and I've been somewhat suspicious of it. I knew that Eliezer is a pretty good writer, but that his attempts to graft Bayes onto his characters are invariably rather inorganic. On top of that, OOC is irritating to me even when I expect it.
Nothing, however, prepared me for this. I just got done reading chapter 6. Up to this point, Harry's greatest sin was dumping a Less Wrong post onto poor Minerva every ten minutes. And she understood everything, including pop culture references (when in the books, most wizards don't comprehend rubber ducks).
Now, in this chapter, Harry thought he heard a strange note in the prof's voice, decided in a split second that she's trying to destroy his parents, and informed her of this suspicion in the form of a hissy fit. Then he started blackmailing her, and finished by implying that she's a nearsighted idiot, but it's alright, most people are. And he started calling her McGonnagal, then switched to Minerva, and is now planning on Minny for the future. I expected her to snap at some point and beat him to a pulp with the first heavy object that presents itself.
I read the reviews pertaining to that chapter. They all proclaimed it to be a masterpiece, the standard by which all other fiction should be measured. To me, it was what people call "epic fail". I cannot find any other way to describe my reaction. Calling it terrible just doesn't have that drop of vitriol that I think is necessary.
But this is Eliezer Yudkowsky. I KNOW he can write. I KNOW that he can detect and neutralize a Black Hole Sue. And yet...
Does he?
In response to
96 Bad Links in the Sequences [fixed]
I was torn between upvoting this, and keeping the karma at 42.
We can still try to go for 1337.
In response to
[SEQ RERUN] A Fable of Science and Politics
At one of my first jobs, the employees in my department wore either blue or green ID badges around our necks.
The blue badges were for the permanent employees (actually employed by the company) and the green badges were for contractors (actually employed by a staffing firm). The permanent employees had health insurance, higher status, company perks and worked on a salary. The contractors were paid by the hour, had lower status, used a time card, had more supervision, and had less flexible scheduling.
At the time, I hadn't heard the story of the Blue and Green Romans, but in undergrad we learned about a psychology experiment on ingroups and outgroups where they divided subjects into Blues and Greens. I found it hilarious that the company had decided to literally label their employees blue and green, as if setting the stage for an us-versus-them experiment.
I'm just wondering if you're aware of this post: http://lesswrong.com/lw/lt/the_robbers_cave_experiment/
At first, I thought it's what you're talking about, but realized that the details are different (and kinda cool in a scary way).
In response to
Official Less Wrong Redesign: Call for Suggestions
Please, please keep the color scheme. It is restful.
EDIT: removed other suggestions to put in their own comments.
I like it too, but think that just a bit more contrast would be good. Not a lot, but a little. As it is, it feels bland.
FYI: You can make quotes look extra cool by placing a '>' at the start of the line. More information on comment formatting can be found in the help link below the comment box.
I have been pointed at those pieces before. I read them originally and I have re-read them not long ago. Nothing in them changes my conviction (1) that it is dangerous to communication to use the term 'free will' in any sense other than freedom from causality, (2) I do not accept a non-material brain/mind nor a non-causal thought process. Also I believe that (3) using the phrase 'determinism' in any sense other that the ability to predict is dangerous to communication, and (4) we cannot predict in any effective way the processes of our own brain/minds. Therefore free will vs determinism is not a productive argument. Both concepts are flawed. In the end, we make decisions and we are (usually) responsible for them in a moral-ethical-legal sense. And those decision are neither the result of free will or of determinism. You can believe in magical free will or redefine the phrase to avoid the magic - but I decline to do either.
"that it is dangerous to communication to use the term 'free will' in any sense other than freedom from causality"
Why is that? There are many things that can keep your will from being done. Eliminating them makes your will more free. Furthermore, freedom from causality is pretty much THE most dangerous definition for free will, because it makes absolutely, positively no sense. Freedom from causality is RANDOMNESS.
"Therefore free will vs determinism is not a productive argument."
We don't have this argument here. We believe that free will requires determinism. You aren't free if you have no idea what the hell is about to happen.
In response to
Separate morality from free will
Right on. Free will is nonsense but morality is important. I see moral questions as questions that do not have a clear cut answer that can be found be consulting some rules (religious or not). We have to figure out what is the right thing to do. And we will be judged by how well we do it.
"Free will is nonsense"
It's not nonsense.
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will_(solution)
Have you translated the whole story, or just this quote? It sounds interesting, and stacks up next to a SF story about somewhat less-than-friendly-AI as a reason I wish I could read Russian.
Just this quote. But I found a complete translation:
What's the other story?
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
What is the point saying "yes" or "no"?
Do as Eliezer suggests in the intro "If you still don't like it after Chapter 10, give up."
As for my own opinion on the work, I'd say it's very very good in some respects, and quite bad in some others.
"What is the point saying "yes" or "no"?"
Um, none for you, I suppose. But it might mean some utilons for me. Anyway, a hint about which way the story might be heading would be good. (Comeuppance? Minister Potter? Furry slash?)