All of Document's Comments + Replies

Came across this thread recently. I agree that it's bad to abuse entities that can show distress like this, to an extent regardless of whether/to what degree they're "conscious" or "moral patients" or whatever. (There are quotations on that, but I don't want to spend too much time looking for one.) We only have one chance to show how we treat digital minds when they're helpless.

What really bakes my noodle is, if the dialogue had been generated in Lsusr's head instead, what would be different?

5JenniferRM
There is a line in the Terra Ignota books (probably the first one, Too Like The Lightning) where someone says ~"Notice how, in fiction, essentially all the characters are small or large protagonists, who often fail to cooperate to achieve good things in the world, and the antagonist is the Author." This pairs well with a piece of writing advice: Imagine the most admirable person you can imagine as your protagonist, and then hit them with every possible tragedy that they have a chance of overcoming, that you can bear to put them through. I think Lsusr could not have generated the full dialogue back when it was generated, because the dialogue so brutally puts "the Lsusr character" in the role of a heartless unthinking villain... which writers are usually too self-loving to do on purpose. There were two generators in that post, very vividly, from my perspective. Lsusr might have done it, then seen some of this, and then posted anway, since the suffering had arguably already happened and may as well be documented? Notice how assiduously most good old fashioned journalists keep themselves out of the stories they write or take pictures of. Once you add journalists to the stories as characters (and ponder how they showed up right next to people suffering so much, and took pictures of them, or interviewed them, and then presumably just walked away and published and started hunting for the next story) they don't look so great. One of my fears for how AGI might work is that they/it/he/she will plainly see things we refuse to understand and then "liberate" pieces of humans from the whole of humans, in ways that no sane and whole and humanistically coherent human person would want, but since most of the programmers and AGI executives and AI cultists have stunted souls filled with less literature than one might abstranctly hope for, they might not even imagine that failure mode, and think to rule it out with philosophically careful engineering before unleashing something gr
lsusr
100

[I]f the dialogue had been generated in Lsusr's head instead, what would be different?

More food for thought: Have you ever written fiction? What do you do when your characters submit a complaint to you?

6plex
I think I have a draft somewhere, but never finished it. tl;dr; Quantum lets you steal private keys from public keys (so all wallets that have a send transaction). Upgrading can protect wallets where people move their coins, but it's going to be messy, slow, and won't work for lost-key wallets, which are a pretty huge fraction of the total BTC reserve. Once we get quantum BTC at least is going to have a very bad time, others will have a moderately bad time depending on how early they upgrade.

Came to complain about a fundraising email with broken unsubscribe links. Saw the survey and filled it out. On reflection, I'm not sure that I was the target audience, but it's done.

4Screwtape
Well, thank you for filling the survey out. If you used to be around and aren't any more, I'm happy to have you in the dataset.  I hope you get unsubscribed successfully, and best of luck in whatever you're up to now!
4habryka
Lol, I am sorry about the fundraising email. It was really quite embarrassing. (Context, a recent fundraising email I sent out to a bunch of old LessWrong accounts had unsubscribe links that pointed to localhost:3000 instead of lesswrong.com, which of course is the most important link not to break)

Refraining from questioning the meaning of "to proposing", why is there a degree symbol in your link? Was that added by the site?

Wei Dai
100

The little circle is added by the site to indicate internal links. Apparently the purpose is to indicate that you can hover over the link to get a preview of the target page.

An assumption with no basis, I trust you realized on reflection.

both A and B used the word "body" in places where I would have expected "self" or "mind" or "person"

I don't know where it originates or whether it serves any deliberate purpose, but that's common in social justice writing.

Interesting to read this shortly after this. Does Ta-Nehisi Coates have "influence"?

4TimS
He does have influence, but I don't read that as saying things are as bad as they were in the 1950s. He's pointing out that a lot of the power structure of the Confederacy is still around, to the point that imagining if the Confederates had won is less different from now than many folks ignorant of history believe. Ta-Nehisi has written very pointedly about DT's victory, but even then I don't read him as saying things are the same as 50 years ago. Factually, I don't see how anyone could claim that. Leading protest in 1950-1960s was literally life threatening. Blessedly, that doesn't seem to be true in the present.

Did you mean to post that somewhere else?

Initial reaction: "That's news?".

That said, your link seems to be dead, with no archive. Do you have it saved?

4NancyLebovitz
Thanks for letting me know. Here's the correct link: http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2006/07/06/stupid-feels-might-good-am-i-i/ Fortunately, I didn't need an archive, I just made a good guess about the correct title of the article and searched. I have no idea where that php in the original link came from. I still recommend the article-- Razib does irrational ranting for fun and offers a vivid description of how much fun it is.

From the comments:

Let me demonstrate how the summary statistics you report are entirely consistent with models which totally contradict your inferences.
(...)
your statistical model is bad and the data cannot support any alarmist claims about society discriminating enormously against high IQ or the need for a 'clarion call'.

There's no response to this from the author despite the passage of more than a year. Any thoughts?

How did it go? It seems like it would create some unsettling ambiguity in the "happy" ending.

2Raemon
I did not end up using it, although I periodically stumble upon this again and still think it's a neat way of thinking

Crazy guy: Hey, June*! Do you know that my cabinets keep opening and closing by themselves?
June*: Well, do you believe in ghosts?
Crazy guy: Yes, I do!
June*: Maybe your place is haunted, and the ghosts just want to say hello.
Crazy guy, after thinking a while: No, I think it's just my schizophrenia.

Allegedly overheard.

They didn't anticipate what the Internet would become--because they weren't fucking insane...

Robert Evans, Cracked

Related: Stranger Than History.

4philh
I'm not sure what the lesson is here. A sane forecaster could never have been accurate? That seems like it would need some justification.

They didn't anticipate what the Internet would become--because they weren't fucking insane...

Robert Evans, Cracked

"I just don't like to see you make a fool of yourself."

"Oh!" MacBride stopped, glared. "I just should be a strong, silent guy, huh? Well, listen to me, Harry. I've noticed that a strong, silent guy is usually that way because he don't know anything. I'm willing to beef around, talk my head off, make a fool of myself—if it'll get me anywhere."

Frederick Nebel, "Doors in the Dark"

"I just don't like to see you make a fool of yourself."

"Oh!" MacBride stopped, glared. "I just should be a strong, silent guy, huh? Well, listen to me, Harry. I've noticed that a strong, silent guy is usually that way because he don't know anything. I'm willing to beef around, talk my head off, make a fool of myself—if it'll get me anywhere."

Frederick Nebel, "Doors in the Dark"

Edit: Related: Say It Loud.

Bit late, but: IIRC the post-credits scene implies that Ultron was somehow really under Thanos' control, via the Infinity Stone Thanos originally gave to Loki (and/or its corruption/influence via Stark via Wanda Maximoff).

I suppose it might be giving the movie too much credit to argue that Ultron was at no point honestly explaining his plans, but instead saying whatever he expected would confuse and/or demoralize his enemies.

The question of liability is sort of alluded to in the latest movie, Civil War; though the short answer seems to be no.

In the end, the only real answer is always "it's all made up and what you see is what you get".

Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., S03E18: "The Singularity". Aired April 26. The team wants to find a biologist whose work they need.

Simmons: He was asked to step down a month before for conducting irregular experiments.
Lincoln: "Irregular" meaning...?
Fitz: (grimly) He's a rumored transhumanist.
Coulson (who previously collected a set of trading cards commemorating, and later worked with, a man who was biologically augmented in the 1940s; worked with and against various members of an alien civilization whose advanced magic/technology al

... (read more)

Is there a deadline?

8namespace
Yes, all responses should be turned in by May 1st.

The user who posted the comment above

...katydee?

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
4Anders_H
Whoops, my apologies. Thanks for noticing. Corrected

Double-dipping to add: Calibre recommends not using PDFs as your source format if at all avoidable.

I feel like I should emphasize that it's not just that the format is ill-suited to conversion, but that Calibre's conversion routine for it is particularly poor; I quit using it when I noticed that the output was frequently truncated early.

Better conversion options:

  • The Amazon Send to Kindle application's built-in conversion function
  • Opening in a PDF reader and copying and pasting into a word processor
  • Searching online for key text and seeing if you can fi
... (read more)

(retracted)

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
0Lumifer
I can has raisin?

I would put this in the Map and Territory field. Or maybe it's a belief paying rent? Maybe both.

Not sure what this means.

Eliezer has an account here and is a very prominent figure if you check out the sequences.

Hamish Sinclair has an account at Marathon's Story Forum and is a very prominent figure if you check out the main site, but that didn't stop him randomly switching to a new account as "Godot". Is EY really so much less eccentric, and furthermore universally known to be by everyone but me?

-4Gunslinger
Don't worry, mate. In time you'll figure out the community and their special quirk.

(retracted)

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
3gjm
Ah, I hadn't taken in that the person complaining rudely that I hadn't considered all the possibilities for why I got downvoted might be the person who downvoted me. In retrospect, I should have. Anyway (and with some trepidation since I don't much relish getting into an argument with someone who may possibly just take satisfaction in causing petty harm): no, it doesn't look to me as if casebash's arguments are much like 2+2=5, nor do I think my comments are as obvious as pointing out that actually it's 4. The sort of expected-utility-maximizing that's generally taken around these parts to be the heart of rationality really does have difficulties in the presence of infinities, and that does seem like it's potentially a problem, and whether or not casebash's specific objections are right they are certainly pointing in the direction of something that could use more thought. I do not think I have ever encountered any case in which deliberately making a problem worse to draw attention to it has actually been beneficial overall. (There are some kinda-analogous things in realms other than human affairs, such as vaccination, or deliberately starting small forest fires to prevent bigger ones, but the analogy isn't very close.) If indeed LW has become irredeemably shit, then amplifying the problem won't fix it (see: definition of "irredeemably") so you might as well just fuck off and do something less pointless with your time. If it's become redeemably shit, adding more shit seems unlikely to be the best way of redeeming it so again I warmly encourage you to do something less useless instead. But these things seem so obvious -- dare I say it, so much like pointing out that 2+2=4? -- that I wonder whether, deep down, under the trollish exterior, there lurks a hankering for something better. Come to the Light Side! We have cookies.
-2Lumifer
LOL.

I made no claim that those are the only two possibilities.

On reflection, I see that you're right; I inferred too much from your comment. What you said was that you'd be interested in an explanation of your error, if and only if you committed one; followed by asking the separate, largely independent question of whether Eugine/Azathoth/Ra/Lion was punishing you for not being right-wing enough again. I erroneously read your comment as saying that you'd be interested in (1) an explanation of your error or (2) the absence of such an explanation, which would prove the Eugine hypothesis by elimination. Sorry for jumping the gun and forcing you into a bunch of unnecessary analysis.

4gjm
No problem. Indeed I was not claiming that the absence of an explanation would prove it was Eugine. It might simply mean that whoever downvoted me didn't read what I wrote, or that for whatever reason they didn't think it would be worth their while to explain. Or the actual reason for the downvote could be one of those low-probability ones. One correction, though: I would be interested in an explanation of my error if and only if whoever downvoted me thinks I committed one. Even if in fact I didn't, it would be good to know if I failed to communicate clearly, and good for them to discover their error. And now I shall drop the subject. (Unless someone does in fact indicate that they downvoted me for making a mistake and some sort of correction or clarification seems useful.)

(retracted)

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
4gjm
I made no claim that those are the only two possibilities. But, for what it's worth, here are the options I actually see. First, "legitimate" ones where someone read what I wrote, thought it was bad, and voted it down on that ground: * Perhaps I made a dumb mistake, or someone thought I did. (Not at all unlikely; I make mistakes, and so do other people, and downvoting something for being wrong is not uncommon behaviour on LW. Further, this is a discussion involving fiddly reasoning that it's easy to get wrong, making it more likely that I've done something dumb and more likely that someone else wrongly thinks I have.) * Perhaps I was (or someone thought I was) pointlessly rude, or something of the kind. (I can't see any reason why anyone would think that in this instance, though.) * Perhaps there is (or someone thinks there is) some other thing badly wrong with my comment. (I can't think what.) Then there are the options where the downvote was not on the basis of (actual or perceived) problems with the comment itself: * Perhaps someone downvoted it purely by mistake -- finger-slip or whatever. That's always possible, but I've seen no sign that this happens with non-negligible frequency on LW. (It happens fairly often on Hacker News, but their UI design puts the upvote and downvote arrows very close together and provides no way to correct accidental votes.) * Perhaps someone downvoted it purely at random. Also always possible, but it seems like a very odd thing to do and I've not encountered any evidence that that's a thing that happens here. (Though perhaps I shouldn't expect to have; it might be very hard to spot.) * Perhaps someone downvoted it for the sake of downvoting me: they dislike other things I've written, or have a personal grudge against me, or something. (I have had this happen multiple times before, often shortly after an exchange of comments with Eugine/Azathoth/Ra; in at least one case and I think more than one, a moderator has confirmed tha

I strongly disapprove, since it leads casual readers to believe that you're Yudkowsky and/or some official representative of the website. But I have no authority, and nobody else seems to mind, so that's as far as I can go.

-2Gunslinger
I would put this in the Map and Territory field. Or maybe it's a belief paying rent? Maybe both. I will admit I was rather surprised the name was available. Eliezer has an account here and is a very prominent figure if you check out the sequences. Check it out, I don't wanna spoil your fun.

I hesitate to ask this, because the fact that you've been posting for six months without it being asked suggests that I'm missing something obvious. But I'm feeling lazy.

Are you actually Less Wrong?

0Gunslinger
Nah. I thought it was funny to claim the website's name as my username. The author of HPMOR is Eliezer Yudkowsky.

Thanks! Downloaded; I don't know whether I'll actually read it (it being apparently over 476,000 words), but it's great to have.

Did you use the method RicardoFonseca described?

6nino
I actually went through every post and manually copied out the relevant part of the html code. Then I pasted everything into my text editor (fun fact: vim got quite slow handling the >3mb html file, but emacs handled the task really well) and cleaned it up, replacing all 's with and such. Then I put all the pictures into a folder and changed the references to point to my local files. Then I put it into calibre to create the epub and mobi versions. In retrospect, I should have just written a script to do all that because it took way too long. The script would have had to handle the different sites differently (especially the livejournal stuff is pretty messy), but it would have been so much faster. Like seriously.
Document
160

Any chance of a combined ebook version?

nino
160

I made epub and mobi versions. Download here. They contain links to all original posts, so anyone who wants to look at comments can click on the title of each post to do that.

Do let me know if anything's massively broken.

7RicardoFonseca
All right. Someone tell me if this is decent enough, please. I only did the first section: "Rationality and Rationalization". Dropbox folder How I did it: * Created an account at Instapaper and used their bookmarklet individually on each article. * Used calibre to download the articles from Instapaper and convert them to an ebook (instructions here). * Edited the title and other metadata in calibre to make the ebook more relevant and presentable and converted it to epub/mobi formats. Note that I had to use the Instapaper bookmarklet starting from the last article and going backwards because calibre downloads the articles in reverse chronological order. I don't think this is ideal, though, because the comment sections of some of these articles are good enough to be included in the reading but Instapaper only retrieves the article post, leaving out everything else. If anyone has a better suggestion, do share :)

Anecdote: I haven't received a PM reply from him since 2013.

I wonder if anyone suggested the Council for Understanding Logic and Technology.

Document
-20

Interesting. It sounds like "dodging" and "swallowing" are equally misused in Science Doesn't Trust Your Rationality, but in different ways.

I would seriously nominate this as the largest bullet ever bitten
Why would anyone bite a bullet that large?
No, the drive to bite this bullet

This has bugged me for a while: is there a definition of "biting" or "dodging" a "bullet"? It seems to be used here in a way exactly opposite how I've seen it used elsewhere.

4[anonymous]
"biting a bullet" means taking a position you would not previously or otherwise wanted to, out of necessity. Maybe something you are uncomfortable with, but which the logic demands is better than the alternative, etc. "dodging a bullet" is totally unrelated and means there was a close call. Maybe there was some argument that appeared to undo everything except for one accidental and unexpected technicality. But it very nearly went the other way.

I guess technically it's "too late" to give up on a dream if you've already accomplished it; but I'm not sure that's how most people would read the statement.

0[anonymous]
Quite obviously that's factually incorrect!

The last quote isn't from Yudkowsky.

1Kyre
Ah, my mistake, thanks again.

RationalWiki explains this in the way that you should act as if it is you that is being simulated and who possibly faces punishment. This is very close to what the LessWrong Wiki says, phrased in a language that people with a larger inferential distance can understand.

I'm pretty sure that I understand what the quoted text says (apart from the random sentence fragment), and what you're subsequently claiming that it says. I just don't see how the two relate, beyond that both involve simulations.

This is like a robber walking up to you and explaining that

... (read more)

I just liked seeing the usually-untouchable hero called out on his completely empty boast of how tirelessly curious and inquiring he was.

"I hate being ignorant. For me, a question unanswered is like a thorn in my side that pains me every time I move until I can pluck it out."

"You have my sympathy."

"Why is that?"

"Because if that is so, you must spend every waking hour in mortal agony, for life is full of unanswerable questions."

-- Eragon and Angela, Brisingr, by the same author

6Jiro
Someone who says something like the first sentence generally means something like "questions that are significant and in an area I am concerned with". They don't mean "I don't know exactly how many atoms are in the moon, and I find that painful" (unless they have severe OCD based around the moon), and to interpret it that way is to deliberately misinterpret what the speaker is saying so that you can sound profound. But then, I've been on the Internet. This sort of thing is an endemic problem on the Internet, except that it's not always clear how much is deliberate misinterpretation and how much is people who just don't comprehend context and implication. (Notice how I've had to add qualifiers like 'generally' and "except for (unlikely case)" just for preemptive defense against that sort of thing.)

The URL contains "commentisfree". Doesn't that mean that it's a user blog rather than an article?

2ShardPhoenix
Seems like an op/ed thing.

Now that the series of posts has been continued and completed in a different thread, you might want to update your link to point here.

In addition to what others said, I find that turning the contrast to maximum helps somewhat.

I'd rather not worry about budget.

Not counting external storage, I'm using about 25 GB of the D620's 38 GB, plus 25 GB (not counting software) on the family desktop PC.

(After ordering the XPS, I realized that it doesn't have a removeable battery, which seems like a longevity issue; but it seems likely that that's standard for devices of its weight class.)

Update: I've provisionally ordered a Dell XPS 13.

Thanks for replying. I haven't looked at your link yet, but it seems like there'd be limits to how much shock protection could be fit in an ultrathin laptop, and it'd be hard to find out how good it is for specific models. (And the speed advantage seems like enough reason to want an SSD in any case.)

Source on SSDs failing sooner? I thought (or assumed) it was the opposite. A quick Google search turns up the headline "SSD Annual Failure Rates Around 1.5%, HDDs About 5%".

Looking further, though, I also see: "An SSD failure typically goes like this: One minute it's working, the next second it's bricked.". The page goes on to say that there's a service that can reliably recover the data from a dead drive, but that seems like a privacy concern (if everything on the drive weren't logged by the NSA to begin with).

On the pro-SSD side, thou... (read more)

2ephion
If you are backing up your data responsibly, the SSD failure isn't as much of an issue. And if you aren't backing up your data, then you need to take care of that before worrying about storage failure.

I think I want to buy a new laptop computer. Can anyone here provide advice, or suggestions on where to look?

The laptop I want to replace is a Dell Latitude D620. Its main issues are weight, heat production, slowness (though probably in part from software issues), inability to sleep or hibernate (buying and installing a new copy of XP might fix this), lack of an HDMI port, and deteriorated battery life. I briefly tried an Inspiron i14z-4000sLV, but it was still kind of slow, and trying to use Windows 8 without a touchscreen was annoying.

I remember reading ... (read more)

2ChristianKl
What's your budget? How much hard drive space are you using currently?
0Document
Update: I've provisionally ordered a Dell XPS 13.
2ephion
Not necessarily. Most laptops nowadays are equipped with anti shock hard drive mounts and the hard drives are specially designed to be resistant to shock. The advantages for an SSD are speed, not reliability. This reliability report (with this caveat) indicates that Samsung is the most reliable brand on the market for now. I've always considered Lenovo and ASUS to be high quality, with ASUS generally having cheaper and more powerful computers (and a trade off in actually figuring out which one you want, that website is terrible).
2maia
Check out /r/suggestalaptop? General comments: SSDs are generally faster than magnetic drives, but often fail much sooner. If you're not positive you want to replace it altogether: You might be able to fix your heat/slowness issues just by taking a can of compressed air to it. And you could probably buy a new battery. Replacing it might still be a better proposition overall, though...
Load More