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

Comment author: jmh 16 November 2017 07:20:24PM 0 points [-]

While not addressing the question of a role for AI I often find myself thinking we should get away for the frequent trading of financial assets and make them a bit more like the trading of mutual funds. Does all the intra-day trades really give more information or just add noise and the opportunity for the insiders to make money off retail (and even some institutional) investors?

Seem like designing the market to work a bit more like the one often used in the Econ 101 theory -- that Walrasian Auctioneer -- we could have more stable markets that do better at pricing capital assets than today. In other words, take all the order flow see that the prices are to clear and then all trade occurs at that price.

I suspect you'd still see some gaming the system with fake orders (a bit like the algos have been accused of in today's markets) but all systems get gamed.

Comment author: Rossin 05 September 2017 12:35:10AM 2 points [-]

Does anyone have any tips or strategies for making better social skills habitual? I'm trying to be more friendly, compliment people, avoid outright criticism, and talk more about other people than myself. I can do these things for a while, but I don't feel them becoming habitual as I would like. Being friendly to people I do not know well is particularly hard, when I'm tired I want to escape interaction with everyone except close friends and family.

Comment author: jmh 06 September 2017 12:28:38PM 0 points [-]

I'm going to come at this from a different angle than the others, I think. I don't claim it will work or be easy as I really identify with you question -- changing myself should be easy (I control my brain, right? I make my decisions, right?) but find that reinventing me int the person I'd rather be than who I am is a real challenge.

There was another post here on LW, http://kajsotala.fi/2017/09/debiasing-by-rationalizing-your-own-motives/ that I think might have value in this contex as well as the one it takes for the post.

We can all try making our selves to X and though effort and repetition make it something of a habit. I think that works better for the young (no idea of your age). But at some point in life the habits, and especially the mental and emotional (which probably means physiological chemical processes that drive these states) hae become near hardwired. So, what I'll call the brute force approach -- just keep practicing -- faces the problem of relative proportions. Behavoural characteristics we've developed over 20, 30 40 years (or more) will have a lot more weigh than the efforts to act differently for a few years (assuming one keeps up at the change myself routine).

Maybe at some point more effort in looking at "why am I acting like X" is as important just the effort to act differently. Perhaps to develop a new habbit will be easier than changing old habits. But if the new habbit then serves as a feedback into the old habit we setup a type of interupt for the initial impulse to behave in a way we would rather change. That might help break the old habits we don't want but have reinforced to the point they are no longer just habits we display but actually more "who we are".

So, this is off the cuff thinking to so very likely has some gapping holes!

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 02 November 2011 10:09:21PM 0 points [-]

In practice, everyone's motivation is a mixture of all sorts of stuff, and very little is even a utility function...

But in theory, this is how I would define a selfish utility: one that is defined entirely in terms of an index "me". If you have two people with exactly the same selfish utility function, completely identical (except that the "me" is different), then those two utilities are independent of each other.

Comment author: jmh 05 September 2017 11:36:48AM 0 points [-]

Would it be correct to define selfish utility as sociopathic?

Comment author: jmh 30 August 2017 12:08:11PM *  7 points [-]

I think given the scenario, I roll over and go back to sleep. Put simply that's such a silly god I'm not going to pay any attention to it.

Another thought, "exactly as it unfolded" suggests I will have no awareness of any prior loop as I certainly have none now. Moreover, such an awareness necessarily changes how my life would unfold. There simply seems no difference between the two options from a practical perspective for me.

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 14 August 2017 10:59:39AM *  2 points [-]

EDIT: Clarified some things.

Suppose we have a bunch of spherical billiard balls rolling around on an infinite plane. Suppose there is no friction and the collisions are elastic. They don't feel the influence of gravity or any other force except the collisions. At least one ball is moving. Can they ever return to their original positions and velocities?

Comment author: jmh 18 August 2017 03:54:28PM *  0 points [-]

Possibly not a rational answer (so possilbly not living up to the less wrong philosophy!) but given the assumption of an infinite plane I would think the probability is vanishingly small of returning to the original position and velocity.

Something would need to constrain the vectors taken to prevent any ball from taking off in some direction that could be described as "away from the group". Perhaps that could be understood be be on a path for which the the path of no other ball can possible intersect. At that point this ball can will never change it's current velosity and never return to it's oiginal position.

I cannot offer a proof that such a condition must eventually occur in your experimnt but my intuition is that it will. If so that vanishing small probablity that everyting return to some orginal state goes to zero.

Comment author: Thomas 16 August 2017 05:51:44PM 0 points [-]

Yes. And any sufficiently advanced technology is already assumed as (an impossible) magic.

I am quite sure, that a human with an IQ of 1000 or above would appear very much like a wizard Merlin or something like that. An impossible magic for the majority of people I know.

Comment author: jmh 18 August 2017 03:35:18PM 1 point [-]

Or been seen as too mundane -- like in the Hichiker's Guide series where the really smart intelligance on earth were the mice, not humans or dalphin. I suspect someone that smart might realize they do better apearing less gifted (and probably simply terribly bored with any intelectual interaction with the other humans)

Comment author: jmh 17 August 2017 04:15:08PM 0 points [-]

Two thoughts -- one perhaps very trivial. 1) If you believe the statement about the market response to stupidity then you're you essentially attempting to supply a good with very little demand?

2) Maybe part of the issue is context -- whenever the average person talks about economics I think it's more in the political economy context, so perhaps inseparable from politics -- leading to the direct linkage between market outcomes and regulatory aspects (after all, even in a pure neoclassical analysis the underlying -- if generally unstated -- assumption is that a host of rules underly and define market actions, incentives and results).

Perhaps such a comment in a setting where the discussion is more about science or engineering, or even baking, assuming the comment fits in somehow, I would think the reaction might not immediately jump to that of a pro regulatory response.

Comment author: jmh 12 April 2017 11:40:57AM 1 point [-]

I've not read the comments so perhaps repeating something (or saying something that someone has already refuted/critiques).

I think it's problematic to net all this out on an individual bases much less some aggregate level even for a single species much less multiple species.

First, we're adaptive creatures so the scale is always sliding over time and as we act.

Second, disutility feeds into actions that produce utility (using your terms which might be wrong as my meaning here is want/discomfort/non-satisfaction and satisfaction/fulfillment type internal states). If on net a person is on the plus side of the scale you defined what do they do? In this case I'm thinking of some of the scifi themes I've read/seen where some VR tool leave the person happy but then they just starve to death.

Finally, isn't the best counter here the oft stated quip "Life sucks but it's better than the alternative." If one accepts that statement then arguments the lead to the conclusion choosing death (and especially the death of others) really need to review the underlying premises. At least one must be false as a general case argument. (I'll concede that in certain special/individual cases death may be preferred to the conditions of living)

Comment author: ragintumbleweed 28 March 2017 11:01:02PM *  4 points [-]

"Figure 2 provides a basis for anticipating the unique value spatial ability might contribute to understanding intellectually talented youth. In the late 1970s, because of his interest in identifying and developing scientific talent—and knowing that by utilizing exclusively a general ability measure, Terman assessed and missed two Nobel Laurates (viz., Luis Alvarez and William Shockley, see Shurkin, 1992) Stanley gave a group of 563 SMPY participants tests of spatial ability designed for high school seniors."

"Clearly, the creative outcomes under analysis are supported by different configurations of intellectual talent. For example, among participants who secure patents, their spatial ability is commensurate with those who publish in STEM, but the latter are more impressive in mathematical and verbal reasoning. Participants who publish in Art–Humanities–Law–Social Sciences are the lowest in spatial ability of all four groups. This graph is psychologically informative, depicting the intellectual design space of creative thought."

I think this really hits at the main purpose of what I wrote -- that by over-emphasizing general intelligence, we may be missing opportunities to find more domain-specific talent indicators. Of course more general ability matters. But more specific ability applied to the right field probably matters even more.

Comment author: jmh 29 March 2017 09:08:42AM 0 points [-]

So you point was that we don't make the mistake of evaluating or thinking basketball skills are all a direct relationship with a simple metric as height but that's what everyone is doing with IQ?

Comment author: jmh 27 March 2017 02:54:47PM 2 points [-]

The answer seems fairly simple to me. You're not in any position to decide the risks others assume. If you're concerned about the potential torture the only mind you can really do anything about is yours -- you don't run around killing everyone else, just yourself.

View more: Next