= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Nonfiction Books Thread
In response to
March 2014 Media Thread
I read "Quantum Computing Since Democritus" by Scott Aaronson and loved it but can only hesitantly recommend it. I think I got significantly more utility out of it than most would as I happened to hit the "sweet spot" for being sufficiently equipped to not be hindered by its (clearly marked and understandable) omissions while still having enough gaping holes in my knowledge that I got a lot out of it. For the record, my background is in math with one course in quantum mechanics, one in intro course in quantum computation and no training in complexity classes.
I have never had as much fun with a book this technical before. Please take that as a challenge and recommend me some competitors!
It covers a huge range of material in a very light and enjoyable manner - I frequently found myself laughing out loud. His exercises were, for me, impressively at the level of being just hard enough that they look ridiculously challenging (in one case, apparently impossible!) at first read over but still having an approachable solution after five minutes of thought. He goes over many things that are directly interesting to this community (the anthropic principle, self-identification assumption, Newcomb's problem, even time travel) and even though I have already read up on those a significant amount found a lot of good stuff in those sections where he does actually manage to relate it to quantum computation.
This is not a traditional book on quantum computing and its title is perhaps misleading. It really is about computational complexity. You will not learn Shor's algorithm for factoring numbers and Aaronson gives only a slight overview of, for example, what quantum gates do. Prior knowledge of this would be helpful but you could still get something out of it. Don't expect to learn this or you will be disappointed. The computational complexity material is however first rate.
It's based off of freely available lecture notes from his website under the same name. I enjoyed this book enough that I like owning a physical copy, but you could probably read it online without much loss. The main difference is some updates for results that came out since the course was originally held (which are valuable). In some sense, I suspect that the online lecture notes are margnially better - for example the book doesn't have colored diagrams even though the text in at least one case refers to colors on the diagram.
In response to
Is IQ what we actually need to know?
This post reads like it's taken out of context from a larger conversation. (Also, the title commits relational projection fallacy - who needs to know, and for what purpose?)
It actually was from a larger conversation. Nancy brought it up at the last Philadelphia meet up. I don't think any relevant details are missing and we didn't come to any thoughts that haven't already been brought up in the comments here. Was some part unclear?
In response to
"Smarter than us" is out!
What, if anything, should regular LessWrong readers expect to get from reading this book?
In response to
Open Thread for February 18-24 2014
Some Bayesian thoughts on the classic mystery genre, prompted by watching on Netflix episodes of the Poirot series with David Suchet (which is really excellent by the way).
A common pattern in classic mystery stories is that there is a an obvious suspect, who had clear motive, means and opportunity for the crime (perhaps there is also some physical evidence against him/her). However, there is one piece of evidence that is unexplainable if the obvious person did it: a little clue unaccounted for, or perhaps a seemingly inconsequential lie or inconsistency in a witness' testimony. The Great Detective insists that no detail should be ignored, that the true explanation should account for all the clues. He eventually finds the true solution, which perfectly explains all the evidence, and usually involves a complicated plot by someone else committing the crime in such a way to get an airtight alibi, or to frame the first suspect, or both.
In Bayesian terms, the obvious solution has high prior probability P(H), and high P(E|H) for all components of E except for one or two apparently minor ones. The true solution, by contrast, has very high probability P(E|H) for all components of E. It is also claimed by the detective to have high prior P(H) (the guilty party tends to be someone with an excellent motive, they just had been dismissed as a suspect because of a seemingly perfect alibi). However, there is here a required suspension of disbelief, in that in real life there is a very low prior probability of someone plotting a crime (and successfully carrying it out) with a convoluted, complicated plot in order to get an alibi. In real life, the detective's solution would be dismissed because of a low P(H), and the detective's insistence on finding a solution that maximizes P(E|H) at the cost of P(H) would be flawed from the point of view of Bayesian rationality.
They almost always end with the actual murderer being accused and then immediately getting angry and confessing thereby giving them the only actual hard evidence that could ever be used in a conviction. It's convenient that way. (See, for an extreme example, one of the episodes of the recent season 3 of Sherlock.)
Can you read while counting out loud?
I wonder if it's similar to the Chinese room for most people - as in, "I don't normally subvocalize, and it would make sense that the Chinese room is not sentient" vs "I always subvocalize and Chinese room makes no sense".
Yes, but my comprehension and speed decreases. (Or it feels that way, I haven't actually tested this. This also doesn't feel like the right test to me - I can 'squeeze' counting in between reading, so it's not necessarily the case that one isn't blocking the other, it might just be that I'm alternating between them quickly.)
Edit: And I didn't mean anything deep when I used the Chinese Room as an example! It was just meant to illustrate the enormous gulf in my mind between 'comprehending through subvocalization' versus 'comprehending despite not subvocalizing.' I tried several other metaphors before settling on that. I would be surprised to hear that there was a significant correlation between subvocalization and acceptance of the Chinese Room results and did not mean to imply that, though I suppose it is an interesting question regardless.
Maybe this metaphor makes my meaning clearer: asking me to read without subvocalizing would be like asking me to look at a painting without ever experiencing the qualia of seeing it. If I shut down that qualia somehow (and I don't think could), then it's still possible that some portions of my mind are becoming aware of what was on that picture and maybe you could discover that through some clever experiments. But that part of my brain that would have learned that doesn't feel like it could be 'me' in the same way that it doesn't feel like it could be 'me' that understands some read text without subvocalization.
As an always-subvocalizer, I'm not even sure what it would mean to read something without subvocalizing it. For me, that would be like the Chinese room thought experiment - maybe something is understanding that sentence, but it's not 'me.'
(Edit: also my reading speed is ~240wpm when I actively try to read fast, depending, obviously, upon the material. I suspect my typical is more like 200wpm.)
In response to
[Open Thread] Links (2014-02-14)
If you spend any time at all playing video games, and you have not played Deadly Rooms of Death, then you are playing the wrong games. I have never seen another puzzle game come close to the fun or difficulty of the puzzles in this game. It will make you think. A lot.
Here is a blog post I wrote about it. If you already play it, or if you start playing it, let me know. I would love to have more people to talk to about it.
If you like puzzle games, try out this free one: http://qrostar.skr.jp/index.cgi?page=jelly&lang=en "Jelly No Puzzle". Easily some of the most interesting puzzles I've ever encountered in a game.
In response to
MEETUP: February 9, Philadelphia
And it's at 1PM, according to the email list.
In response to
How can I spend money to improve my life?
I brainstormed about this for a while and reflected on what past purchases I had made that I liked and hadn't liked. YMMV but here's what I concluded:
- Incremental upgrades to existing items is rarely worth it unless the existing option is terrible; a nice mouse is only slightly nicer than whatever you're currently using, most of the time you don't really use the extra speed from a faster computer, etc.
- Conversely, get things that open up new options for you; e.g. a smartphone lets you do computer things in places where you wouldn't before so is better than a new laptop in many case
- "buy experiences" seems to work; buy a musical instrument and take lessons or other things, learn to bake (and then give away your baked goods to friends)
- Weather-specific clothes can make some situations much easier: if you're cold, buy something warm. It's not actually hard to stay warm and being prepared means you don't have to worry about what going out and doing things based on the weather.
- Spending money to remove minor inconveniences can be worth it; if it bothers you every day then change it
- I buy way more video games than I finish anymore, but still value completing them so I prefer to buy short indie games now
- I consistently over-estimate fancy new electronics and should correspondingly reduce my expectations for things like, say, the Oculus Rift
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I am getting married in less than a month, and I just realized that the wedding is probably the Schelling point event of my life. Therefore, if I were to make a commitment to change something about myself, now is probably the time to do it. It seems to me that If I want to make a short term resolution to change something about myself, I should start on New Years Day, so that I can have that extra push of being able to say "I have not done X this year." However, If I want to make a long term change, the best time to do it is probably the wedding, since it is probably the Schelling point of events in my life.
So what are some useful commitments I can make in this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity?
One idea is to get a "Precommitment Journal", and commit to follow anything that I write down in there, but in that case, I have technically followed everything I have written in that non-existent journal, so that commitment does not really need a Schelling point start date.
Let me just state some obvious ones: * Exercise * Saving money * Eating well * Anki * Anything in the longevity guide * Practicing a new skill (eg: musical instrument, cooking, a sport or hobby) * Learn how to make bulleted lists in this system, why isn't this working? * Overcoming an annoying habit like biting nails * Meditating regularly