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

Comment author: khafra 04 June 2015 11:02:13PM -1 points [-]
Comment author: Richard_Loosemore 10 May 2015 07:34:24PM -1 points [-]

The lack of understanding in this comment is depressing.

You say:

"No. The AI does not have good intentions. Its intentions are extremely bad."

If you think this is wrong, take it up with the people whose work I am both quoting and analyzing in this paper, because THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE CLAIMING. I am not the one saying that "the AI is programmed with good intentions", that is their claim.

So I suggest you write a letter to Muehlhauser, Omohundro, Yudkowsky and the various others quoted in the paper, explaining to them that you find their lack of precision depressing.

Comment author: khafra 14 May 2015 12:12:50PM 2 points [-]

If you think this is wrong, take it up with the people whose work I am both quoting and analyzing in this paper, because THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE CLAIMING. I am not the one saying that "the AI is programmed with good intentions", that is their claim.

I think I spotted a bit of confusion: The programmers of the "make everyone happy" AI had good intentions. But the AI itself does not have good intentions; because the intent "make everyone happy" is not good, albeit in a way that its programmers did not think of.

Comment author: Nornagest 13 April 2015 09:24:18PM *  2 points [-]

Short answer is I don't know. The long answer will take a little background.

I haven't bothered to read through Decoy's internals, but this sort of steganography usually hides its secret data in the least significant bits of the decoy image. If that data is encrypted (assuming no headers or footers or obvious block divisions), then it will appear to an attacker like random bytes. Whether or not that's distinguishable from the original image depends on whether the low bits of the original image are observably nonrandom, and that's not something I know offhand -- although most images will be compressed in some fashion and a good compression scheme aims to maximize entropy, so that's something. And if it's mostly random but it does fit a known distribution, then with a little more cleverness it should be possible to write a reversible function that fits the encrypted data into that distribution.

It will definitely be different from the original image on the bit level, if you happen to have a copy of it. That could just mean the image was reencoded at some point, though, which is not unheard of -- though it'd be a little suspicious if only the low bits changed.

Comment author: khafra 07 May 2015 01:20:09PM 1 point [-]

If that data is encrypted (assuming no headers or footers or obvious block divisions), then it will appear to an attacker like random bytes. Whether or not that's distinguishable from the original image depends on whether the low bits of the original image are observably nonrandom, and that's not something I know offhand

It's super-easy to spot in a histogram, so much so that there's ongoing research into making it less detectable.

Comment author: shminux 03 May 2015 08:39:29PM 5 points [-]

Is there good reason to suppose that Gal's desire for internal combustion is irrational

I am trying to steelman this statement, and the best I can come up with is "this particular terminal value of hers is potentially in conflict with some of her other terminal values and could use an adjustment." But I don't know what her other terminal values are.

Comment author: khafra 05 May 2015 12:22:01PM 2 points [-]

Presumably it's in conflict with the instrumental values of retaining resources which could be used for other terminal values (the money she would save, going with the fuel cell), and the combination of instrumental and terminal values represented by the improved acceleration of the fuel cell.

Comment author: khafra 28 April 2015 11:35:50AM 6 points [-]

Do you have plans for when your term life insurance expires, but you're still alive (which is, actuarially speaking, fairly certain)?

Comment author: cousin_it 15 March 2015 09:44:00PM *  3 points [-]

That was a great fanfic. The characters were amazingly written, and many of the scenes were genuinely emotional and moving. What's more, the ending actually worked, in a way that I hadn't expected it to work. We didn't get a resolution to the prophecies about apocalypse, the prophecies about ending death, the nature of magic, the nature of time travel, phoenix fire, and many other things... but that actually feels okay. We've been reading an origin story all along, and a great origin story it is. Eliezer, thank you!

That said, now I have a wishlist for some other fanfics I'd like to read:

1) A fanfic where Harry and Hermione use the scientific method to research the nature of magic.

2) A fanfic where smarter versions of canon characters fight each other with complicated plots.

3) A fanfic where most of Harry's successes come from making surprising but rational decisions.

Much of the promise of HPMOR was that it hinted at being all of these things, but now I feel that it doesn't do any of them really well. Maybe my standards have gone up, or maybe the promise is still there to be realized by some other author. Or has it already been done?

Comment author: khafra 16 March 2015 11:42:44AM 2 points [-]

2) A fanfic where smarter versions of canon characters fight each other with complicated plots.

Hogwarts Battle School

Comment author: khafra 03 March 2015 04:18:41PM 7 points [-]

...supporters say the opposition leader was assassinated to silence him...

I see headlines like this fairly regularly.

Does anybody know of a list of notable opposition leaders, created when all members of the list were alive? Seems like it could be educational to compare the death rate of the list (a) across countries, and (b) against their respective non-notable demographics.

Comment author: palladias 14 December 2014 02:56:16PM 8 points [-]

an atheist turned Catholic

Ditto. :)

Comment author: khafra 15 December 2014 11:58:25AM 0 points [-]

I just want to know about the actuary from Florida; I didn't think we had any other LW'ers down here.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 December 2014 09:12:05PM 0 points [-]

On your account, is my observation false?

Your observation of the reading on the scale is true, of course. Your observation that the weight is 51 grams is false.

The distinction between accuracy and precision is relevant here. I am assuming your scale is sufficiently precise.

does your judgment change if it's a standard weight that I'm using to calibrate the scale?

No, it does not. I am using "false" in the sense of the map not matching the territory. A miscalibrated scale doesn't help you with that.

Comment author: khafra 05 December 2014 11:42:54AM 2 points [-]

Your observation of the reading on the scale is true, of course. Your observation that the weight is 51 grams is false.

"This weight masses 51 grams" is not an observation, it's a theory attempting to explain an observation. It just seems so immediate, so obvious and inarguable, that it feels like an observation.

Comment author: Nominull 21 November 2014 08:33:37AM 3 points [-]

That seems like a failure of noticing confusion; some clear things are actually false.

Comment author: khafra 04 December 2014 07:44:11PM 1 point [-]

No observation is false. Any explanation for a given observation may, with finite probability, be false; no matter how obvious and inarguable it may seem.

View more: Next