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

In response to comment by cousin_it on Emotional labour
Comment author: Elo 22 August 2017 09:55:15AM 0 points [-]

Later when you find out that the vase is broken. Or later when you find out that I have other plans for the anniversary, rather than fretting about it between now and the anniversary.

In response to comment by Elo on Emotional labour
Comment author: cousin_it 22 August 2017 01:27:30PM *  0 points [-]

Then I pick 2. Never had a phase when I'd pick 1.

I'm happy to do emotional labor in other situations though, when it's more clearly a net positive.

In response to Emotional labour
Comment author: cousin_it 22 August 2017 09:41:59AM *  0 points [-]

Not sure I understand the question. Let's say I broke your vase, or decided to go somewhere else on our anniversary. I have to choose between telling you now or later when the situation is "resolved"? Resolved how?

Comment author: DragonGod 20 August 2017 08:10:43AM 2 points [-]

Which bets did he make against academia?
When I eventually become an AI researcher, I do plan to try another approach apart from Neural networks though (I have an idea I think might work, and enough people are already trying their hands at neural nets).  
I agree that I do find Eliezer's overconfidence endearing.

Comment author: cousin_it 20 August 2017 08:25:48AM 2 points [-]

Which bets did he make against academia?

How about refusing to go to college, or refusing to get TDT peer reviewed, or this.

Comment author: cousin_it 20 August 2017 06:46:26AM *  3 points [-]

Yeah, your take seems right, and agrees with Wikipedia and SEP.

Though I'm not sure it's worth your time to correct Eliezer's mistakes so painstakingly. He made lots of them. The biggest ones were probably betting against academia and betting against neural networks. His attractiveness as a writer comes in part from overconfidence, but in the real world a couple big mistakes from overconfidence can wipe out all most of your wins from it.

In response to Like-Minded Forums
Comment author: cousin_it 19 August 2017 08:35:14PM *  0 points [-]

The IAFF got some interesting posts in the last two days.

Comment author: Bound_up 19 August 2017 01:54:38PM 1 point [-]

So, more that it's not so much inaccurate as it is coming from an unnecessarily unhappy place?

Comment author: cousin_it 19 August 2017 02:25:29PM 1 point [-]


Comment author: cousin_it 19 August 2017 06:00:07AM *  3 points [-]

From Abramson's article that you link to:

We needed a technology that would help us live “as if” things untrue were actually true, that would allow us to think in five and six dimensions rather than just in over-literal, excessively reality-bound terms. (If thinking in five and six dimensions sounds New Agey to you, realize that, in science, quantum mechanics already has physicists authoring equations and theories in eleven and even twelve dimensions.)

I feel that endorsing stuff like that is pretty much backpedaling from rationality.

Comment author: Bound_up 18 August 2017 06:49:38PM 0 points [-]

Would it be fair to say you don't think the post is inaccurate so much as you think it is unkind?

Comment author: cousin_it 18 August 2017 09:16:17PM *  2 points [-]

No, my objection is not about kindness to others. It's more like I feel that the post is coming from an unhappy painful feeling that doesn't realize that it's unhappy, or that alternatives are in arms reach.

Comment author: Thomas 16 August 2017 03:33:37PM *  0 points [-]

It's an old problem, cousin_it has posted:

Here's another problem that might be easier. Make an O(n log n) sorting algorithm that's simple, stable, and in place.

Radix. Except that it's not in place.

Comment author: cousin_it 17 August 2017 11:38:57AM *  0 points [-]

I know several reasonable algorithms for stable sorting in O(n log n) time and O(sqrt(n)) extra space, like Mrrl's SqrtSort. That's good enough for all practical purposes, because anyone who wants to sort a billion elements can afford an extra array of 30000 elements. And all known algorithms using less extra space essentially emulate O(sqrt(n)) bits of storage by doing swaps inside the array, which is clearly a hack.

Radix sort has its own rabbit hole. If you're sorting strings that are likely to have common prefixes, comparison sorting isn't the best way, because it needs to look at the initial characters over and over. There are many faster algorithms for string sorting based on ideas from radix sort: American flag sort, three-way radix quicksort, etc. The Haskell package Data.Discrimination generalizes the idea from strings to arbitrary algebraic datatypes, allowing you to sort them in almost linear time (in terms of total size, not number of elements).

Comment author: tadasdatys 15 August 2017 05:59:40PM 0 points [-]

Well, you used it,.

I can also use"ftoy ljhbxd drgfjh". Is that not meaningless either? Seriously, if you have no arguments, then don't respond.

What happens if a robot pain detector is invented tomorrow?

Let me answer that differently. You said invisible unicorns don't exist. What happens if an invisible unicorn detector is invented tomorrow? To make a detector for a thing, that thing has to have known properties. If they did invent a robot pain detector tomorrow, how would you check that it really detects robot pain? You're supposed to be able to check that somehow.

Comment author: cousin_it 16 August 2017 01:55:52PM *  1 point [-]

300th comment! My post only had 40 before you showed up. LW has been having some persistent people lately, but you (and the people replying to you) take the cake.

View more: Next