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

Comment author: Azathoth123 01 September 2014 06:24:17PM 3 points [-]

Ooookay, this article about prejudice is written by somebody who plays the gender card in the very first line. It's probably not worth to read it...

Also, by calling attention to the fact that this article was written by a woman which is apparently associated with not being worth reading and then proceeding to write an article that is in fact not worth reading, the author ironically provides salient evidence for the stereotype she seeks to dismiss.

Comment author: V_V 01 September 2014 09:37:23PM 0 points [-]

Ironically yes. Fortunately for women, the Bayesian update is going to be small.

Comment author: tetronian2 01 September 2014 03:04:22PM 0 points [-]

The correct deadline is Sept. 15th--I extended it by 15 days because of an error in the tournament code that went unfixed for two weeks, which delayed some people from writing their bots. I've updated the post to reflect this, thanks for catching it. Anyone who already submitted a bot is welcome to re-submit if they want to make changes to their bot before the 15th.

Comment author: V_V 01 September 2014 03:15:28PM 0 points [-]

Thanks.

Comment author: V_V 01 September 2014 02:36:31PM 0 points [-]

What is the deadline?

This post says September 1st, while the linked github repo says September 15, 2014 13:59 UTC.

Comment author: V_V 01 September 2014 09:06:57AM 7 points [-]

"checking the name of the writer Ooookay, this article about appearance is written by a woman. As was expected. It's probably not worth to read it..." If you thought something like this you confirmed how prejudices dominate our mind. And even if you didn't think something like that, you can't argue its importance away.

Ooookay, this article about prejudice is written by somebody who plays the gender card in the very first line. It's probably not worth to read it...

The Pygmalion effect, or Rosenthal effect, is the phenomenon whereby the greater the expectation placed upon people, the better they perform.[1] (Or the observer thinks it would be so!) A corollary of the Pygmalion effect is the golem effect, in which low expectations lead to a decrease in performance. (wikipedia)

Link

As Wikipedia says, this effect is difficult to replicate.

Majority influence refers to the majority trying to produce conformity on the minority, while minority influence is converting the majority to adopt the thinking of the minority group.[1] Unlike other forms of influence, minority influence usually involves a personal shift in private opinion. Minority influence is also a central component of identity politics.(wikipedia)

Link

Minority influence can be postive or negative.

Since what others think of you will modify your self-evaluation, your appearance will influence your self-evaluation, too. Also by direct feedback when looking in the mirror.

So?

Comment author: James_Miller 29 August 2014 11:15:08PM -2 points [-]

He has to, or else the US empire collapses worldwide:

Lots of leftwing intellectuals would love to see the U.S. empire collapse. We don't know Obama's opinion on the topic because he would be smart enough to hide any such anti-patriotic views.

But I doubt that letting Russia take a small NATO country would cause the collapse of U.S. power abroad. Paradoxically, it might increase our power as nations put more effort into pleasing us and begging us to station troops on their soil to act as tripwires.

You are right that Russia taking Estonia would cause lots of countries to acquire nuclear weapons. No doubt high tech countries like Japan, Germany, and South Korea have plans in place to very quickly get them.

Comment author: V_V 31 August 2014 09:19:24AM 0 points [-]

But I doubt that letting Russia take a small NATO country would cause the collapse of U.S. power abroad. Paradoxically, it might increase our power as nations put more effort into pleasing us and begging us to station troops on their soil to act as tripwires.

If Russia takes a NATO country and the US doesn't intervene then US troops obviously don't act as tripwires. This implies that the US is an unreliable ally, which would prompt the other NATO members to say a big "fuck you" to the US and take defense on their own hands, which would include turning Europe into the Fourth Reich, rebuilding the Japanese Empire, some countries preemptively siding with Russia, and so on.

Comment author: Mark_Friedenbach 29 August 2014 08:22:47PM *  0 points [-]

Which is why the experiment as described in the link I provided requires an artificial intelligence running on a reversible computing substrate to perform the experiment in order to provide the macroscopic effect.

Comment author: V_V 29 August 2014 08:38:53PM 0 points [-]

That is, it would require inverting the thermodynamic arrow of time.

Comment author: James_Miller 29 August 2014 05:07:15PM 4 points [-]

It's also possible that AI used to be hard but no longer is because something in the universe recently changed. Although this seems extremely unlikely, The Fermi paradox implies that something very unlikely is indeed occurring.

Comment author: V_V 29 August 2014 07:57:37PM 1 point [-]

The Fermi paradox implies that something very unlikely is indeed occurring.

Or space colonization is just hard.

[LINK] Utilitarian self-driving cars?

7 V_V 14 May 2014 01:00PM

When a collision is unavoidable, should a self-driving car try to maximize the survival chances of its occupants, or of all people involved?

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/the-robot-car-of-tomorrow-might-just-be-programmed-to-hit-you/

Comment author: jsteinhardt 14 May 2014 04:18:14AM 0 points [-]

That doesn't seem true without causing SU(n) to lose its privileged status as the transformation group on quantum states.

Comment author: V_V 14 May 2014 09:25:09AM 1 point [-]

Different formalisms may be more or less convenient for reasoning about certain concepts. Of course there is a reason physicists keep using complex numbers in QM.

Comment author: XiXiDu 13 May 2014 08:18:05AM -1 points [-]

Well, still better than "donate to us or you'll go to hell".

How about "don't donate to them or you'll go to hell". That's what they fear. Think about it, who is more likely to exist, according to their beliefs, Satan or God? And would Satan have a problem with using such tactics in order to make people dismiss God?

Comment author: V_V 13 May 2014 01:41:35PM 1 point [-]

ph'nglui mglw'nafh UFAI R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

View more: Next