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

Comment author: Khoth 20 March 2013 01:06:34PM 4 points [-]

Related: Somebody flips a coin 100 times. It's come up heads each time. What are the odds it comes up heads on the 101st throw? If you're doing a probability problem, the answer is 50%. But in reality, would you bet even with 1000x1 odds in your favor on that 101st throw being a tails?

In reality, I wouldn't bet either way. It's very likely that there's a trick where the coinflip will go against whichever way I bet.

Comment author: thescoundrel 20 March 2013 06:40:58PM 4 points [-]

So, you no box on Newcomb's Problem? :)

Comment author: wedrifid 14 March 2013 03:01:13PM 2 points [-]

If you do mean

(It likely isn't your intention but I'm a little uncomfortable having these 'you' claims as replies to me when it isn't me to whom they apply.)

Comment author: thescoundrel 14 March 2013 05:11:28PM 0 points [-]

My apologies, I was meaning a more general "you", as in "the person who uses this phrase". Not directed at you you, just the common you, and you are certainly not the you I meant for "you" to refer to.

Comment author: wedrifid 14 March 2013 03:07:11PM *  1 point [-]

or it is so vague as to lose all meaning- someone with bi-polar disorder is non-neurotypical, but is no more likely to have made these than anyone else.

Not actually true (in the specific example, although I support your general objection about terminology misuse). In a hypo-manic phase someone is more likely to get caught up with the kinda-clever notion of making Hanson memes and get carried away dumping all his ideas, exercising less judgement and restraint than he otherwise would. (Of course some time later they would later be able to look at their work and see why it isn't funny and delete it. They are also more likely than average to come up with a whole bunch of awesome memes.)

Comment author: thescoundrel 14 March 2013 05:09:40PM 0 points [-]

Fair enough- I should have chosen a clearer example.

Comment author: wedrifid 13 March 2013 07:21:49PM 14 points [-]

A non-neurotypical person.

That isn't a phrase I prefer to see used as (what amounts to) an insult.

Comment author: thescoundrel 14 March 2013 02:46:45PM 3 points [-]

My complaint is that is either a euphemism for autistic (in which case, just say autistic- if that feel "Squicky", re-evaluate your statement), or it is so vague as to lose all meaning- someone with bi-polar disorder is non-neurotypical, but is no more likely to have made these than anyone else.

If you do mean specifically autistic, you may want to broaden your understanding of autism. Autism is not standard, it can present in many, many ways, including many that would not create this type of image. The images are indicative of a poor grasp of humor, and a poor grasp of the original subject matter, but I do not see a higher probability for an autistic person to create these against the general population.

Comment author: iceman 06 March 2013 10:07:57PM 5 points [-]

(rot13) Nyvraf ner rvgure cbavsvrq be abg qrcraqvat ba jurgure fur erpbtavmrf gurz nf uhzna. Vg raqf jvgu ure svaqvat na rknzcyr bs nyvraf gung fur guvaxf ner uhzna, juvyr fgebatyl vzcylvat gung fur'f qrfgeblrq fbpvrgvrf jvgubhg rira abgvpvat ("Fur unq frra znal cynargf tvir bss pbzcyrk, aba-erthyne enqvb fvtanyf, ohg hcba vairfgvtngvba, abar bs gubfr cynargf unq uhzna yvsr, znxvat gurz fnsr gb erhfr nf enj zngrevny gb tebj Rdhrfgevn.")

Comment author: thescoundrel 07 March 2013 12:16:28AM 0 points [-]

If that's the case, then I stand by my original point, if not to its extreme conclusion.

Comment author: gwern 06 March 2013 04:11:53PM 1 point [-]

That wasn't true in the original either. Many aba-uhznaf enprf got hcybnqrq.

Comment author: thescoundrel 06 March 2013 04:41:02PM 0 points [-]

Ah- I read the preview version, I think that bit was added later. Thanks :)

Comment author: ema 05 March 2013 06:08:05PM *  5 points [-]

According to their site Jaan Tallinn is not the CEO but chairman of the board. Zvi Mowshowitz is the CEO.

Comment author: thescoundrel 06 March 2013 03:57:20PM 4 points [-]

Wow- that is former MTG Pro Zvi, one of the best innovators in the game during his time. Awesome to see him involved in something like this.

Comment author: thescoundrel 06 March 2013 03:35:47PM 2 points [-]

The biggest horror aspect for me (also from the original) was that (rot13) nal aba-uhzna vagryyvtrapr unf ab punapr. Aba-uhzna vagryyvtrag yvsr trgf znqr vagb pbzchgebavhz, gb srrq gur rire tebjvat cbal fcurer. Vg vf gur gbgny trabpvqr bs rirel aba-uhzna enpr.

Comment author: TimS 09 January 2013 06:05:12PM 2 points [-]

No. I think that is fighting the hypothetical.

More generally, the discipline of decision theory is not about figuring out the right solution to a particular problem - it's about describing the properties of decision methods that reach the right solutions to problems generally.

Newcomb's is an example of a situation where some decision methods (eg CDT) don't make what appears to be the right choice. Either CDT is failing to make the right choice, or we are not correctly understanding what the right choice is. That dilemma motivates decision-theorists, not particular solutions to particular problems.

Comment author: thescoundrel 09 January 2013 07:30:45PM 0 points [-]

I think that is fighting the hypothetical.

That's possible, but I am not sure how I am fighting it in this case. Leave Omega in place- why do we assume equal probability of omega guessing incorrectly or correctly, when the hypothetical states he has guessed correctly each previous time? If we are not assuming that, why does cdc treat each option as equal, and then proceed to open two boxes?

I realize that decision theory is about a general approach to solving problems- my question is, why are we not including the probability based on past performance in our general approach to solving problems, or if we are, why are we not doing so in this case?

Comment author: thescoundrel 06 January 2013 08:15:50AM 1 point [-]

I made a comment early this week on a thread discussing the lifespan dilemma, and how it appears to untangle it somewhat. I had intended to see if it helped clarify other similar issues, but haven't done so yet. I would be interested in feedback- it seems possible the I have completely misapplied it in this case.

View more: Next