When I stay up too late I am often bewildered by my alarm clock when it wakes me up, unable to figure out what the numbers mean for a while. Nonetheless there must be a part of me that knows what's going on because I always end up setting it again so I have enough time to get ready after sleeping some more.
It doesn't seem like I ever process the word like that (gendered) at all when it's used in a phrase like that, but I suppose other people might experience it differently.
I'm not sure when education becomes an ugh subject, but I don't think it starts out that way.
if you have to memorize 3x7 and 7x3 separately, you're doing it wrong
I wasn't claiming it was the whole story, but thanks for giving more info. I maybe should have said that you can't have that situation without changing trajectories but I thought acceleration was a simpler way to summarize.
if you are traveling very fast, the clocks of others are speeding up from your point of view.
This is backwards. Everyone in an inertial frame thinks other peoples clocks are slower. Acceleration is what causes the opposite, e.g. turning the spaceship around to come back
Why is that creepy instead of just shy?
I think people tend not to believe in shyness, unless you're actually blushing. I used to be shy (still am, depending on the situation). But when I talked about it with my classmates one day, it turned out they actually thought I didn't want to associate with them and was aloof because I felt superior to them. Nothing could have been farther from the truth...
Like a cannon from a civil war reenactment?
The fact that they are practiced by existing cults does not mean they are not beneficial. The main cultish aspect is the fear of exploitation, which hopefully is not present.
edit: if it is, please say so.
Mapmakers deliberately put slight mistakes in their maps so they can tell when someone copies them. If another map has the same mistake, that's very convincing evidence.
Same essay.
It can't do exact relativity but it can do exact general AI? Not to mention that simulating a God that doesn't include relativity will produce the wrong answer.
So, what you're saying is that the larger number is less likely to be accurate the further it is from the smaller number? Why is that?
Here is a great simulation of two electrons in a wire that looks just like your drawing of a two particle configuration space, and is quite helpful for showing how it moves and what it means about the particles.
In fact, the best indicator of being a masterful cult leader is that no one suspects you! wait...
You can't have a counterpoint to someone's experience. He always found luxury cars to have good cupholders. You can't say he's wrong about that...
However, make sure that the things you put on your list are things you actually want to do. Otherwise it may take away from the effect.
Or maybe they think that your non-drinking is not a value of yours, but a value of another group that you are choosing over theirs.
I'm not sure why, but now I want Super-induction-turkey to be the LW mascot.
We argue using simple models that all successful practical uses of probabilities originate in quantum fluctuations in the microscopic physical world around us, often propagated to macroscopic scales
Their argument is that not only is quantum mechanics ontologically probabilistic, but that only ontologically probabilistic things can be successfully described by probabilities. This is obviously false (not to mention that nothing has actually been shown to be ontologically probabilistic in the first place).
...Thus we claim there is no physically verified full
Well, you can run things like physics engines on a computer, and their output is not quantum in any meaningful way (following deterministic rules fairly reliably). It's not very hard to simulate systems where a small uncertainty in initial conditions is magnified very quickly, and this increase in randomness can't really be attributed to quantum effects but can be described very well by probability. This seems to contradict their thesis that all use of probability to describe randomness is justified only by quantum mechanics.
I'm sorry, I want to be with someone more interesting, someone who just does something wild and lets the chips fall where they may!
I plan to never take any action toward fulfilling any of my hopes and dreams. What could possibly be riskier than that?
Down voted for unnecessary rot13
I think "poorly" in this case meant that it wasn't rated very believable by the judges.
If they're saying all sources of entropy are physical, that seems obvious. If they're saying that all uncertainty is quantum, they must not know that chaotic classical simulations exist? Or are they not allowing simulations made by humans o.O
I don't think I've seen a pun thread on lesswrong before... Perhaps it's one of those things that should stay on reddit.
Now that I think about it, wouldn't it be incredibly easy for an AI to blow a human's mind so much that they reconsider everything that they thought they knew? (and once this happened they'd probably be mentally and emotionally compromised, and unlikely to kill the AI) But then it would be limited by inferential distance... but an AI might be incredibly good at introductory explanations as well.
One example: The AI explains the Grand Unified Theory to you in one line, and outlines its key predictions unambiguously.
In fact, any message of huge utility woul...
Maybe he means that each interview of a citizen is causally independent, since interviewing one of them won't causally affect the answer of another.
Overly dramatic, sounds patronizingly sarcastic
The other question is whether it's helpful to quickly look for obvious answers when there isn't one. The information content of "there is a solution" is actually not only one bit (yes vs no), because the fact that that person told it to you means that they solved it quickly using techniques that they already know about. This usually helps you because you either share much of their knowledge, or have an idea of what things they are knowledgeable about. The correct advice in some other cases might have been "you need to learn something else completely new before you'll get it" or "just stop trying because this problem is really of no value and has no easy answer".
And thus began a society of literal-minded and meticulous cartographers.
For good reason; it's the quickest way to become one of the least interesting parts of reddit.
PS: I upvoted lukeprog so that I could comment without penalty and am going to reverse it after I comment. I think that the karma penalty is not a good way to prevent trolls from dominating discussion because trolling is not the only reason that people downvote.
Only on less wrong is a new years retrospective justified using game theory ;)
Society is thankfully not a zero sum game. In many cases, an immigrant having the option to move to a new country is gaining a significant amount of utility, and the citizens of that country do not lose as much as the immigrant gains (they usually even benefit from the immigrant's presence). And in the cases where the immigrant is taking too much, there already laws in place to counteract antisocial behavior such as stealing or fraud. We already have laws to limit bad outcomes, so restrictions on immigration should tend to cause more harm than good by bloc...
"Life isn't fair" is one of the least effective arguments I have ever heard, though it is a great example of naturalistic fallacy (this thing is better because it's natural / don't try to mess with the way things are meant to be). I also said why I thought unfairness in this particular case is bad, so I'm down voting.
On immigration, not necessarily limited to the united states. I find laws that discriminate based on national origin to be unfair, in the sense that they limit good outcomes arbitrarily. On the other hand, I do not know of a way to transition to more lenient immigration laws successfully (though I haven't thought about it much and it's far from my areas of interest). I want to know if there are arguments for limiting the rights of immigrants (legal or not) that aren't rooted in excessive self-interest ("they took our jobs!") Or perhaps xenophobia.
I think he means multiply once for each piece of evidence, not each hypothesis.
Also for showing me what Lesswrong's version of r/circlejerk looks like
Remember that the "soul" you are giving up isn't really the Cartesian dualist version. It matches better to certain emotional or social states that many people prefer to experience.
And the biologist says, "guys, that's a dog"
"Bias" can include those flaws, especially how the word is used on this site
I think it meant "not made of smaller parts", for example ghosts would be disembodied consciousnesses not made of any atoms. I thought this was incredibly unlikely.
I'm really enjoying Coheed and Cambria's new album (the second part is releasing in early February), though it may not be for everyone. Their music is an interesting mix of pop-oriented prog rock (with some emo and metal) and it comes with a sci-fi story along with each album. It might be better to listen to their albums chronologically, I rank the albums [1,2,4,3,6,5] in terms of how much I enjoy listening to them most to least.
I wouldn't say "none". Maybe half of the album seemed to be up to the Muse standard, if a little over-the-top. But the dubstep parts really didn't impress.
That seems a bit extreme. Maybe you have that condition that makes it difficult do distinguish faces?
Making a religion of rationality, it turns out, can lead some very smart people to embrace some insane-sounding ideas.
Also not sure quite what this means. Sounds negative.
This argument itself could be steel-manned to something reasonable... but unfortunately there are also the connotations, approximately: "larger than average amount of rationality is very harmful".
Also:
"When [Kurzweil] came on stage, it was definitely a Jesus moment," said Tom Rausch, a first time attendee
Well, thank you for further associating rationality with religion, just because of one remark one first-time attendee said. The more associations between rationality and religion you make, the better your readers will remember them!...
Yeah, I don't remember hearing anything about any AI work SI has done with Bayes Theorem. It's definitely used in the field though.
I've heard before that if you count denominations, catholics have the most and former catholics are more numerous than any other individual religious organization.
At first glance it seems his definition of consciousness works better as a definition of some subset of intelligence, and not the common concept of consciousness. Usually "consciousness" implies self-awareness more than straight information processing.
I wouldn't say that for something at just over 50%, i'd say "will probably". An unqualified statement implies confidence.
it would be trivially easy for him to arrange a miracle which no other agent could replicate, and for that matter he could allow everybody to see it at once. This would remove all ambiguity and would be a much better way of achieving the goal of making his existence known, or further, of making his will known. If he does indeed use miracles to further his goals, it must be the case that he prioritizes hiding his goals and interventions almost as much as actually achieving them. (after all, nobody can come to an agreement about wh... (read more)