= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Here is the paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3848041/
The narration in chapters 88 and 89 have left quite a bit of room for Weasley Twin shenanigans. They are referred to as "the twins" and "Fred or George" up until one gets beat up by the troll. Additionally, the twins gave a respectful nod to McGonagall's demand that they stay in the Great Hall; they could have stayed there the entire time. Harry might have been accompanied by, say, Future Fred and Further Future Fred during his broom flight. I am not sure what the use of this would be, but it might involve them being a hive mind.
In response to
comment
by
on
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 20, chapter 90
This has got me quite convinced that Fred and Fred is going to happen. They are probably connected magically, rather than acoustically, so they might be able to communicate across time. This setup might create the time beacon Harry was wanting.
Or, maybe their connection does not link through time. Send a pair of Weasleys back in time. You now have 4 Weasleys. Wait not-quite-an-hour, and then send 4 Weasleys back in time… 4 Weasleys is twice the number of Weasleys. Are N Weasleys N/2 times as smart as 2 Weasleys? No. It is much more interesting if it is the connections that matter. HE is the Weasley hivemind.
The narration in chapters 88 and 89 have left quite a bit of room for Weasley Twin shenanigans. They are referred to as "the twins" and "Fred or George" up until one gets beat up by the troll. Additionally, the twins gave a respectful nod to McGonagall's demand that they stay in the Great Hall; they could have stayed there the entire time. Harry might have been accompanied by, say, Future Fred and Further Future Fred during his broom flight. I am not sure what the use of this would be, but it might involve them being a hive mind.
In response to
Nonperson Predicates
By the time a non-person predicate returns 0, you have already potentially created a person. You'll need something more complicated: If I update this model with this data, does it create a person?
In response to
Recent site changes, Mon 4th July
Please do not use target="_blank" for the SIAI and FHI links in the header.
Our multitude of voices exalting Rain's donation rebound off the faster-approaching towers of the Singularity!
In response to
The Friendly AI Game
A variant of Alexandros' AI: attach a brain-scanning device to every person, which frequently uploads copies to the AI's Manager. The AI submits possible actions to the Manager, which checks for approval from the most recently available copy of each person who is relevant-to-the-action.
At startup, and periodically, the definition of being-relevant-to-an-action is determined by querying humanity with possible definitions, and selecting the best approved. If there is no approval-rating above a certain ratio, the AI shuts down.
You flick the switch, and find out that you are a component of the AI, now doomed to an unhappy eternity of answering stupid questions from the rest of the AI.
I'm sure the designer would approve of being modified to enjoy answering stupid questions. The designer might also approve of being cloned for the purpose of answering one question, and then being destroyed.
Unfortunately, it turns out that you're Stalin. Sounds like 1-person CEV.
In response to
Rationality Quotes: February 2011
The following reminded me of Arguments as Soldiers:
Statistics for the enemy. Anecdotes for the friend. -- Zach Weiner
I'm sorry to have not found his blog sooner.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Worth reading. Over-repeated some points a bit too much. The "Musk Program" looks wrong in the way that "just brute force a path to victory" is wrong.