= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I bet there are big maps of small territories somewhere.
Physically? Maybe. information-wise? I heavily doubt it.
If the map is bigger than the territory, why not go live in the map? :-/
What does this mean?
The map is smaller than the territory? I think?
In response to
Petrov Day is September 26
Wikipedia says Stanislav Petrov is still alive and well; does he know about this celebration?
It feels like he'd be interested, does anyone know how to try and contact him?
In response to
Should EA's be Superrational cooperators?
Pointing out the obvious failure mode of this strategy left as an exercise for the reader .
One becomes vulnerable to Ind pretending to be Coo?
In response to
Ways to improve LessWrong
Email alerts for new responses. Eg. when someone responds to a comment you made, or a post you've written.
I second this proposal. In the sites I've seen where it's implemented, I've found it extremely useful.
It would be a sign of wisdom if someone actually did post "I'm stupid: I can hardly ever understand the viewpoint of anyone who disagrees with me."
Ah, but would it be, though?
it would probably be some kind of weird signalling game, maybe. On the other hand, posting:"I don't understand how etc etc, please, somebody explain to me the reasoning behind it" would be a good strategy to start debating and opening an avenue to "convert" others
it just seems to be a variant on Soylent
D:
It's my company (along with my cofounder, John Maxwell, who is also a user here.) It's easily twice as rational as Soylent.
Now I really, really, really want to know in what SI units rationality is measured.
Litres, perhaps?
In response to
Another type of intelligence explosion
Maybe a form of unit testing could be useful? Create a simple and not so simple test for a range of domains and get all AI's to run them periodically.
By default the narrow AI's would fail even the simple tests in other domains, but we would be able to monitor if / as it learns other domains.
Another test could be to see if its performance in its select field suddenly jumps up in effectiveness. To give a real world example, when Google (which is the closest thing we have to an AI right now, I think) gained the ability to suggest terms based on what one has already typed, it became much easier to search for things. Or when it will eventually gain the ability to parse human language, or so on.
In response to
Why humans suck: Ratings of personality conditioned on looks, profile, and reported match
It's not really clear that judging people via looks is bad.
If I see that a person has a huge tattoo that allows me to infer something about their personality. People choose their own photos to make statements about themselves.
In response to
comment
by
on
Why humans suck: Ratings of personality conditioned on looks, profile, and reported match
And in fact, I seem to recall OkCupid doing another informal study a couple of years ago on which profile pictures were the best at getting replies and messages; and finding out that these were not the ones which explicitly showed the person's face and physique, but the ones which showed the person engaged in a cool activity (skiing, bunjee jumping, swimming etc)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Yayy! I was having a shitty day, and seeing these results posted lifted my spirits. Thank you for that! Below are my assorted thoughts:
I'm a little disappointed that the correlation between height and P(supernatural)-and-similar didn't hold up this year, because it was really fun trying to come up with explanations for that that weren't prima facie moronic. Maybe that should have been a sign it wasn't a real thing.
The digit ratio thing is indeed delicious. I love that stuff. I'm surprised there wasn't a correlation to sexual orientation, though, since I seem to recall reading that that was relatively well-supported. Oh well.
WTF was going on with the computer games question? Could there have been some kind of widespread misunderstanding of the question? In any case, it's pretty clearly poorly-calibrated Georg, but the results from the other questions are horrendous enough on their own.
On that subject, I have to say that even more amusing than the people who gave 100% and got it wrong are the people who put down 0% and then got it right -- aka, really lucky guessers :P
Congrats to the Snicket fan!
This was a good survey and a good year. Cheers!
I think the computer games question has to do with tribal identity-people who love a particularly well known game might be more inclined to list it as being the best seller ever and put down higher confidence because they love it so much.
Kind of like owners of Playstations and Xboxs will debate the superiority of their technical specs regardless of whether they're superior or not.