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

Comment author: Relsqui 24 October 2010 04:28:44AM 0 points [-]

Well, if you were a superintelligence from another galaxy who was nearly omniscient, what would YOU do with it?

Comment author: William 25 October 2010 02:10:25AM 0 points [-]

Fondly regard creation. </problemsleuth>

Comment author: CronoDAS 15 October 2010 02:11:37AM 2 points [-]

Ah... but who are you?

The Vorlon Question!

Comment author: William 22 October 2010 01:41:44AM 3 points [-]

Of course, in a dating context, it's at least as important to know the answer to the Shadow Question: "What do you want?"

Comment author: [deleted] 10 September 2010 07:55:16PM 1 point [-]

The original Fallout is an exception since it had a time limit. The world changed as time went on, regardless if you did anything and if you where slow enough (500 in game days I think) you could loose the game.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Memetic Hazards in Videogames
Comment author: William 11 September 2010 12:55:06AM 2 points [-]

Star Control II did something very similar--as time went on, the world changed, and eventually one of the villains would start their omnicidal rampage.

In response to comment by dclayh on Our House, My Rules
Comment author: gwern 04 November 2009 05:22:11PM 2 points [-]

So then the legal system should award status based on usefulness and intelligence, not age as in the present system.


"In most countries of the world, adolescents below the legal age of majority (adulthood) may be emancipated in some manner: through marriage, economic self-sufficiency, educational degree or diploma, military service, or obtaining medical conditions in a form of diseases such as AIDS, HPV, or other STDs."

In response to comment by gwern on Our House, My Rules
Comment author: William 05 November 2009 09:50:33PM 2 points [-]

But should stupid adults have no rights?

Comment author: David_Rotor 29 May 2009 09:14:12PM 0 points [-]

Perhaps my error ... I didn't read anything in Bond's article that suggested he was only referring to fans of fiction and movies. Are there differences between otaku and tifosi? What are they?

Comment author: William 20 August 2009 10:39:31PM 0 points [-]

Bond's article was mostly referring to fans of fiction and movies, but as someone who has spent time on fora related to both sports fandom and anime fandom, I can safely say they're very similar. You see the same sort of memetics in both--sports message boards frequently fill up with people "quoting"(I don't think this is the best word) the chants made in the stadium itself, much like you'll often see anime-related boards fill up with people quoting famous lines from certain series. You see the same sort of provincialism in both--"If you're a fan of X, you're not allowed to be a fan of Y, and vice versa" is a common refrain in certain tvtropes pages about Fan Dumb, and that's also pretty much the definition of a sports rivalry. And there's also the internecine stuff, where you have endless debates over the worth of a player or the motivations of a character.

So yeah, I'd say fandom is universal.

Comment author: hrishimittal 07 June 2009 07:06:50PM 0 points [-]

and when possible, use irrationality for the short run.

How exactly do you use irrationality?

Comment author: William 07 June 2009 08:38:22PM 0 points [-]

You don't, you use a decision model that incorporates bias.

Comment author: whpearson 22 May 2009 11:56:03AM 5 points [-]

If "AI will be dangerous to the world" became a socially accepted factoid you would get it spilling over in all sorts of unintended fashions. It might not be socially acceptable to use Wolfram Alpha as it is too AI-ish,

Comment author: William 22 May 2009 12:50:10PM 4 points [-]

It already is a socially accepted factoid. People are afraid of AI for no good reason. (As for Wolfram Alpha, it's at about the same level as ALICE. I'm getting more and more convinced that Stephen Wolfram has lost it...)

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 29 April 2009 01:07:33AM 3 points [-]

Awww, shucks! You warm my heart^H^H^H^H^H limbic system. (Consider this as a reply to (almost) everyone.)

Comment author: William 19 May 2009 11:51:43PM 2 points [-]

Next time, you can use ^W ;)

Comment author: bentarm 08 May 2009 01:37:28AM 3 points [-]

As far as I recall, in the actual game show Monty Hall was never required to open a 'goat' door and offer you the switch. In fact, he did so almost exactly often enough to make switching vs. not switching a neutral proposition. I'm not exactly sure why, but this feels very relevant to the point of this post.

Comment author: William 11 May 2009 11:00:27PM 0 points [-]

To make it look more fair than it actually is.

Comment author: pjeby 29 April 2009 03:23:23PM *  12 points [-]

Men who are introverted, sensitive, and Agreeable often make this complaint, yet they tend to perceive men without those qualities as "jerks."

The PUA community also notes that many of the men who make this complaint are in fact passive-aggressively misogynistic and/or fearful of women, and that they need to get over it.

That is, some men who have "nice" behaviors towards women do so because they are enacting a one-sided bargain, expecting to trade these behaviors in exchange for being accepted and not rejected, then become angry when the "bargain" isn't kept.

IOW, being "nice" can be just as manipulative for the typical AFC, as anything the PUAs are going to teach him. And many of the things they'll teach him will be far less manipulative and deceitful than what he was already doing, despite being less socially acceptable than being "nice".

Comment author: William 30 April 2009 08:03:56PM 1 point [-]

I know that PUA is "pickup artist" but what is AFC?

View more: Next