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

Comment author: reguru 11 September 2016 12:26:20AM -2 points [-]

http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/nwu/reality_is_arational/

-8 Yet still no one being able to refute my arguments.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 11 September 2016 07:06:34PM *  3 points [-]

It's really silly.

If we lived in the kind of universe where learning didn't help, where drawing more-correct conclusions and fitting your behavior better to the environment didn't help, then evolution and indeed biological life wouldn't work either. The kind of world where maps don't have anything to do with territories is a dead world, one in which there are no maps because becoming a mapper is worthless.

"Every communication is inaccurate" is inaccurate, but more-or-less true. "Every communication is equally inaccurate" is very much less accurate, to the point of being a flat lie.

After all, if communication didn't work (better than non-communication), then there wouldn't be any. The existence of falsehoods implies the existence of (relatively accurate) truths, because if there wasn't such a thing as a truth, then why would we bother making up lies? A lie only fools anyone because they believe it to be a truth.

Comment author: sdr 05 September 2016 02:35:48PM 6 points [-]

Elo,

You seem to be posting, like, a lot. This is good, this is what we have personal blogs for.

I do have an issue with syndicating your content straight to here, regardless of state, amount of research, amount of prior discussion with other people, confidence, or epistemic status. This introduces an asymetric opportunity cost on behalf of the lesswrong community; specifically, writing these is much easier, and lower effort, than the amount of effort these will collectively soak up for no gain.

For this reason, I have downvoted this post as is. I will also kindly ask of you to introduce a pre-syndication filter, which respects other people's limited amount of time, and attention; and cross-post only the ones where you have 1, a coherent thesis, and 2, validated interest coming from other people (as in, someone explicitely remarked "that's interesting").

Thanks.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 05 September 2016 05:49:02PM 2 points [-]

It's not as if LW has a problem of too much material these days.

Comment author: Viliam 17 August 2016 07:34:59AM 4 points [-]

What’s going on in someone’s head when they encounter something like the trolley problem, and say “you can’t just place a value on a human life”?

Maybe: "Here is someone who is practicing excuses for killing people, using fictional scenarios. Is this some kind of wannabe killer, exploring the terrain to find out under which circumstances would his actions be socially acceptable? I'd better explain him that this approach wouldn't work here."

Comment author: fubarobfusco 17 August 2016 09:27:02PM *  1 point [-]

This seems plausible to me. Also compare "torture vs. dust specks" (intended as a thought experiment about aggregating disutility over hypothetical people) with "the ticking bomb scenario" (intended as an actual justification for actual societies developing torture practices for actually torturing actual people).

Comment author: ChristianKl 23 June 2016 01:21:28PM 2 points [-]

For instance, if the contract is triggered by the delivery of physical goods - how can you define what the goods are, what constitutes delivery, what constitutes possession of them, and so on.

With the internet of things physical goods can treat their owner differently than other people. A car can be programmed to only be driven by their owner.

Reputation and escrow are also mechanisms that can be used. SilkRoad managed delivery of physical goods via reputation and escrew. SilkRoad did however had central servers that could be attacked. An Ethereum based system couldn't be taken down in a similar way.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 23 June 2016 08:07:44PM 1 point [-]

With the internet of things physical goods can treat their owner differently than other people. A car can be programmed to only be driven by their owner.

Theoretically yes, but that doesn't seem to be how "smart" devices are actually being programmed.

In response to Crazy Ideas Thread
Comment author: James_Miller 18 June 2016 12:34:45AM 10 points [-]

Someone should create a free speech Twitter that doesn't censor anything protected by the U.S. 1st amendment.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 18 June 2016 07:20:03AM *  -1 points [-]

Someone should pay to install and maintain a printing press and supply of ink and paper, installed in the public square, for all comers to print pamphlets and disseminate their views, ads, rants, wedding invitations, conspiracy allegations, and so on. Surely this would be an excellent and effective contribution to public discourse... and if not, to the wage of the cleaner who sweeps up litter.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 11 May 2016 01:38:38AM *  2 points [-]
  • Legislating for individuals to be held more accountable for large-scale catastrophic errors that they may make (including by requiring insurance premiums for any risky activities)

If I blow up the planet, neither my insurance nor your lawsuit is going to help anything. Which is to say, this proposal is just a wealth transfer to insurance companies, since they never have to pay out.

Comment author: ChristianKl 06 May 2016 09:58:03PM 5 points [-]

Let's take the best computer programmer. Imagine he tries to write down all his important knowledge in a book. He writes down all statements where he believes that he can justify that they are true in a book.

Then he gives the book to a person who never programmed with equal IQ.

How much of the knowledge of the expert knowledge get's passed down through this process? I grant that some knowledge get's passed down, but I don't think that all knowledge does get passed down. The expert programmer has what's commonly called "unconscious competence".

Allen might call that kind of knowledge part of the best knowledge of our civilization. It's crucial knowledge for our technological progress.

But to get back to the main point, to accept that the contemplative, logocentric approach has flaws is not simply about focusing on it itself but on demonstrating alternatives.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 06 May 2016 10:08:22PM 4 points [-]

This seems to be a complicated, abstruse way of saying "reading statements of knowledge doesn't thereby convey practical skills".

Comment author: morganism 30 April 2016 12:09:07AM 0 points [-]

The first legal ruling for an AI or robot may be in the pipe, and it was filed by the DoJ. this may set a precedent for an AI to have legal standing, as the ruling is filed against an electronic device.

United States of America v. Apple MacPro Computer, et al

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160428/07395434297/so-much-fifth-amendment-man-jailed-seven-months-not-turning-over-password.shtml

Comment author: fubarobfusco 30 April 2016 07:50:18AM *  4 points [-]

The 1916 case United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola did not recognize Coca-Cola as containing an incipient intelligence, nor did 2013's United States v. One Tyrannosaurus Bataar Skeleton contemplate dinosaur necromancy.

Titles like this just represent the legal fiction for in rem cases, in which a case is brought against a piece of property — originally e.g. unclaimed property or contraband.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction

Comment author: Diadem 26 April 2016 09:46:40AM 8 points [-]

I think that's somewhat missing the point of a lot of advice like that though. Often advice in the form of proverbs or popular quotes is not meant to be taken literally. It's meant to offer you a new angle from which to look at the problem.

Just because two quotes contradict each other, doesn't mean they can't both be good advice. If you think someone is being too rash, quoting a proverb like "discretion is the better part of valour" can be good advice. But if you think they are being too cautious, the opposite ("nothing ventured, nothing gained") can also be good advice.

Most advice is context dependent.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 26 April 2016 06:40:30PM 0 points [-]

"discretion is the better part of valour"

This is a (slight paraphrase of a) quote from a character who is offering a rationalization for cowardice. It wasn't intended as a positive thing in the original work.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 22 April 2016 06:28:42AM 1 point [-]

I didn't know there were supersedes in nntp. Cool.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 22 April 2016 07:51:58AM 0 points [-]

Super pedantic nitpick: the netnews medium predates NNTP.

View more: Next