All of lerjj's Comments + Replies

lerjj20

woops, yes that was rather stupid of me. Should be fixed now, my most preferred is me backstabbing Clippy, my least preferred is him backstabbing me. In the middle I prefer cooperation to defection. That doesn't change my point that since we both have that preference list (with the asymmetrical ones reversed) then it's impossible to get either asymmetrical option and hence (C,C) and (D,D) are the only options remaining. Hence you should co-operate if you are faced with a truly rational opponent.

I'm not sure whether this holds if your opponent is very rational, but not completely. Or if that notion actually makes sense.

lerjj10

Sorry for being a pain, but I didn't understand exactly what you said. If you're still an active user, could you clear up a few things for me? Firstly, could you elaborate on counterfactual definiteness? Another user said contrafactual, is this the same, and what do other interpretations say on this issue?

Secondly, I'm not sure what you meant by the whole universe being ruled by hidden variables, I'm currently interpreting that as the universe coming pre-loaded with random numbers to use and therefore being fully determined by that list along with the cur... (read more)

4[anonymous]
Firstly, I am not an expert in QM, so you should take everything I say with a whole serving of salt. 1) Yes, counterfactual = contrafactual. What other interpretations of QM say about counterfactual definiteness I don't know. But wikipedia seems to give at least a cursory understanding to what is necessary for any interpretation to QM. 2) You could understand it that way, yes. Basically, the existence of hidden variables means 'just' that our current theory of QM is incomplete. So basically there is no collapsing wave function or decoherence or anything and all the seeming randomness we observe just comes from our not knowing which values those hidden variables take. Again, if all I have said is complete and utter nonsense, please correct me!
lerjj00

In reality, not very surprised. I'd probably be annoyed/infuriated depending on whether the actual stakes are measured in billions of human lives.

Nevertheless, that merely represents the fact that I am not 100% certain about my reasoning. I do still maintain that rationality in this context definitely implies trying to maximise utility (even if you don't literally define rationality this way, any version of rationality that doesn't try to maximise when actually given a payoff matrix is not worthy of the term) and so we should expect that Clippy faces a si... (read more)

1CynicalOptimist
It's an appealing notion, but i think the logic doesn't hold up. In simplest terms: if you apply this logic and choose to cooperate, then the machine can still defect. That will net more paperclips for the machine, so it's hard to claim that the machine's actions are irrational. Although your logic is appealing, it doesn't explain why the machine can't defect while you co-operate. You said that if both agents are rational, then option (C,D) isn't possible. The corollary is that if option (C,D) is selected, then one of the agents isn't being rational. If this happens, then the machine hasn't been irrational (it receives its best possible result). The conclusion is that when you choose to cooperate, you were being irrational. You've successfully explained that (C, D) and (D, C) arw impossible for rational agents, but you seem to have implicitly assumed that (C, C) was possible for rational agents. That's actually the point that we're hoping to prove, so it's a case of circular logic.
lerjj40

I understood that Clippy is a rational agent, just one with a different utility function. The payoff matrix as described is the classic Prisoner's dilemma where one billion lives is one human utilon and one paperclip on Clippy utilon; since we're both trying to maximise utilons, and we're supposedly both good at this we should settle for (C,C) over (D,D).

Another way of viewing this would be that my preferences run thus: (D,C);(C,C);(D,D);(C,D) and Clippy run like this: (C,D);(C,C);(D,D);(D,C). This should make it clear that no matter what assumptions we ma... (read more)

4query
I agree it is better if both agents cooperate rather than both defect, and that it is rational to choose (C,C) over (D,D) if you can (as in the TDT example of an agent playing against itself). However, depending on how Clippy is built, you may not have that choice; the counter-factual may be (D,D) or (C,D) [win for Clippy]. I think "Clippy is a rational agent" is the phrase where the details lie. What type of rational agent, and what do you two know about each other? If you ever meet a powerful paperclip maximizer, say "he's a rational agent like me", and press C, how surprised would you be if it presses D?
1dxu
Wait, what? You prefer (C,D) to (D,D)? As in, you prefer the outcome in which you cooperate and Clippy defects to the one in which you both defect? That doesn't sound right.
lerjj30

7 years late, but you're missing the fact that (C,C) is universally better than (D,D). Thus whatever logic is being used must have a flaw somewhere because it works out worse for everyone - a reasoning process that successfully gets both parties to cooperate is a WIN. (However, in this setup it is the case that actually winning would be either (C,D) or (C,D), both of which are presumably impossible if we're equally rational).

5query
I think what might be confusing is that your decision depends on what you know about the paperclip maximizer. When I imagine myself in this situation, I imagine wanting to say that I know "nothing". The trick is, if you want to go a step more formal than going with your gut, you have to say what your model of knowing "nothing" is here. If you know (with high enough probability), for instance, that there is no constraint either causal or logical between your decision and Clippy's, and that you will not play an iterated game, and that there are no secondary effects, then I think D is indeed the correct choice. If you know that you and Clippy are both well-modeled by instances of "rational agents of type X" who have a logical constraint between your decisions so that you will both decide the same thing (with high enough probability), then C is the correct choice. You might have strong reasons to think that almost all agents capable of paperclip maximizing at the level of Clippy fall into this group, so that you choose C. (And more options than those two.) The way I'd model knowing nothing in the scenario in my head would be something like the first option, so I'd choose D, but maybe there's other information you can get that suggests that Clippy will mirror you, so that you should choose C. It does seem like implied folk-lore that "rational agents cooperate", and it certainly seems true for humans in most circumstances, or formally in some circumstances where you have knowledge about the other agent. But I don't think it should be true in principal that "optimization processes of high power will, with high probability, mirror decisions in the one-shot prisoner's dilemma"; I imagine you'd have to put a lot more conditions on it. I'd be very interested to know otherwise.
lerjj80

Are you sure that's right chronologically? Just because in the UK we use dd/mm/yy and we say "Fourteenth of March, twenty-fifteen".

Japan apparently uses yy/mm/dd which makes even more sense, but I have no idea how they pronounce their dates. Point being, I'm not sure which order things actually evolved in.

1Manfred
Nope, no idea, since our records of the spoken language of the past are bad and I'm lazy. Maybe written and spoken dates slowly co-evolved, since it does appear that the m/d/y trend only dates back to the 17th century or so.
lerjj10

This would to some extent letting Harry keep his wand- he wants to have some fun after all, and Harry should be given a very limited chance to win. Not much, maybe strip him naked, surround him by armed killers and point a gun at his head, whilst giving him only a minute to think. But leave him his wand, and do give him the full 60 seconds, don't just kill him if he looks like he's stalling.

lerjj60

Well, seeing as he was almost prophesied to fail, it was sensible to make sure Harry would have someone to stop him in the future. And as it turns out, this was a very good idea.

lerjj30

It's actually the same tactic as the Weasley twins used to cover the "engaged to Ginever Weasley" story- plant so many make newspaper reports that everyone gets confused. And it kinda happens again after the Hermione/Draco incident. Guess Eliezer like the theme of people not being able to discern the truth from wild rumours if the truth's weird enough.

Oh, trust me, they can't discern the truth from wild rumors even if it's normal. (I am speaking of real life, here.)

lerjj10

So... what we should do now is to work out all the things Quirrell should have before this. He couldn't predict partial transfiguration, true. But he knew that Harry had a power he knew not, and had a long time to plan for contingencies.

Personally, I think he should have had the death eaters disillusioned, surround Harry but from a distance, cast holograms to confuse him and then use ventriliquo charms. At the very least disillusionment should be as much of a general tactic as a massed finite and the death eaters could have been hidden.

The massively more o... (read more)

lerjj30

Other than modesty, letting Hermione take credit is a very elegant solution to a slew of problems: he can say that House Potter owes her no enmity after her defeating of their common foe, and this gets rid of any lingering doubts about her attacking Malfoy (probably...).

lerjj30

1 G is a high acceleration, but it's not that fast initially. That gives him about half a second before his head falls below ground level (0.64s to fall 2m).

0ourimaler
True. Which is why my final proposal involved providing something to distract the Death Eaters for a crucial moment.
lerjj20

I think Dumbledore's been suggested, but I have no idea and I'm pretty sure there isn't conclusive evidence anywhere.

0MarkusRamikin
Hm. Minerva wouldn't do it. If Snape would, the Weasleys wouldn't know that. Dumbledore at least knows it was the Weasleys, so I count that as weak evidence towards him... Quirrel was probably not involved. His extra strong reaction to Harry mentioning that the newpaper spoke of a prophecy suggests he was not pretending ignorance during that whole conversation, since that reaction probably came from Voldemort, not from the Quirrel-role. But I don't know that it even had to be someone of that power level, or for that matter a Hogwarts teacher. It's also curious why Quirrel only deduced that it was the Weasleys after he figured out the method used. What's so Weasley-like about reverse memory-charming?
lerjj00

At least one other person has suggested stating plainly, in Parseltongue, that the optimal way to kill Harry would be to send him to Azkaban and let him kill the dementors. If that doesn't kill him, then continue with the previous plan.

I doubt this is in fact the safest way to dispose of Harry, but it might be possible as an extra idea to gain time.

lerjj00

Yes, that particular plan is highly improbable, and LV can search the globe for Harry-builders in his own time.

The elements of this that are threatening are: if you kill me that might no avert the prophecy; and if you kill me I might come back to haunt you (means unspecified in both cases). The standard answer to the former is that if prophecies can't be averted then this is all a waste anyway, so LV might as well try to kill Harry. The second is harder, but I model Voldemort as rejecting this, although I don't quite know why.

tl;dr avadakedavra

lerjj00

Accusations in Parseltongue are not true, the speaker merely believes them. (Actually, this raises the possibility of lying using a confundus charm. I'll assume that's banned by some Rule). If you were trying to mitigate the chance of someone destroying the world, you place a very high probability on them trying to trick you. The response is to use Hermione's algorithm that defeated LV earlier and place an ethical injunction on not killing Harry.

Now, that's probably a little harsh for the exam question, and LV won't necessarily adopt his enemy's tactic (ev... (read more)

lerjj10

You can't say 2+2=3, so no. You will input the word 'true' as the simplest fix.

lerjj20

My model of Voldemort is highly risk averse when it comes to existential risk. His response to this is to laugh at having been told he has no ambition, then to kill Harry.

Voldemort trusts himself not to destroy the world, just the same way as Harry trusts himself. Maybe we shouldn't be so trusting of either.

0SilentCal
Could he really laugh off such an accusation made in Parseltongue? If Voldemort thinks Harry is sincere but mistaken, Harry should follow up by noting that his hidden ambition was key to Patronus 2.0, the fundamental law of potions (probably known to V but discovering at age 11 is impressive even for a RIddle), and partial transfiguration, revealing as little as possible but as much as necessary.
lerjj00

This is new as far as I can tell. Please write up a review based around this, and based on a cursory read through of Reddit, it might be best not to do this in prose, it takes even longer to evaluate apparently and Eliezer's plan has backfired

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoneHorriblyRight (look at last entry in "Fan Works" tab)

0TylerJay
I submitted it. Here's the link to my whole solution (It's long, with backup plans and a few unique mechanics) if you're interested. I'm pretty proud of it, given the time constraints.
lerjj00

Variant of a suggestion from Reddit: the original is to transfigure the Earth into gold for a nanosecond, along with a trail that reaches out to the Pioneer probes. The goal being to hit all horcruxes at once, and at the same time transfigure the death eaters and LV to kill them horcrux-less. This is supposed to 'work' because it's for a short amount of time.

Bearing in mind that the magic cost is dependant upon target size, I'd like to suggest another option: transfigure the cubic kilometre below them into a small diamond, or better yet, transfigure it int... (read more)

lerjj30

Existence of one stupidity does not allow for all stupidities. A perhaps unreasonably pessimistic assumption is that everything LV has done so far has been the correct choice, for reasons perhaps not well understood by Harry and thus the readers.

Regardless, the issue with the challenge is that if we can think of a solution, Voldemort is allowed t think of it unless it uses knowledge we know he doesn't have. The only other viable solutions are ones with no counter. This does have a counter (a very niche one, although I quite like the idea of an invisible de... (read more)

lerjj00

Ok, there is probably transfiguration material and I can't think of a source that states that transfiguration has wand movements. This therefore seems to meet the minimum criteria (I still think that this is perhaps an obvious solution, so Voldemort will have guarded against it, perhaps all the death eater's are disillusioned and are casting holograms and ventriliquo charms?)

0DanArmak
If Voldemort was being careful he'd have taken away Harry's wand.
lerjj90

Stratagem (1) State something that is true, but that LV won't believe. Either LV thinks you've broken the Parseltongue curse, or you gain time in the confusion. Him thinking that you've broken the curse gives you a power he knows not that you can bargain/threaten with. Sub-suggestions: "Sometimes we make our own phoenix tears" (when asked why he told his friends to refrain back near the start) ; "The solar system will die in 10 billion years and you will be forever alone" ; "Hey, you know how you forged a time-turned letter? Well, ... (read more)

lerjj30

I might be wrong, but I interpreted that as Tom having made a previous commitment to not raise had nor wand against other versions of himself. That curse is gone, but the resonance is a distinct entity and is still there.

lerjj-10

Pessimistic assumption LV knows that Harry can do partial transfiguration. LV has put up anti- apparition, anti- time turning and anti-transfiguration wards.

Less probable Pessimistic assumption these wards do not count as LV's magic once laid and will not resonate with Harry, meaning they will stay active. Alternatively, a death eater has laid them on previously understood instructions.

lerjj20

Pessimistic assumption LV has been planning exactly this conversation for months and has thought of every possible plan of action that he could do. He has Harry level intelligence. All viable solutions must therefore use information LV does not have access to, which does not include the fact that Harry is Tom Riddle. Asking for power he knows not is trying to patch this minor hole.

lerjj00

Meta reasons? If Harry didn't have a wand this would be even harder.

I agree this seems incompetent though, at least earlier he (may) have needed it for the Unbreakable Vow, which makes it less incompetent that him having had his wand unnecessarily for the last couple of chapters.

lerjj00

Okay, so far as I can see, this is a relatively new avenue of attack, but I haven't got a clear idea yet.

Firstly, assuming Harry can tell LV about some power he knows not (does simple knowledge count as a power? Harry could explain calculus or imaginary numbers real quick...), who do we save? One presumably banned option is to ask for Harry Potter (or Tom M. Riddle) to be saved. Who else is there? Obvious suggestions like Mad-Eye, McGonagall and others don't actually help Harry in his present situation as far as I can tell. Dumbledore?

Secondly, is there a... (read more)

lerjj10

So... what stops the dark Lord from seeing Harry's wand move, then immediately putting up shields? If Harry doesn't need to move his wand to perform transfiguration then fat enough bullets will work. I don't know what a reasonable wizard reaction time is, but it's safe to assume that 0.05c bullets will be too fast to notice. But if Harry has to move, LV can get up shields in time I think.

The next question is, what are you transfiguring? You don't appear to be able to transfigure the vacuum, and it's been established that air cannot be transfigured.

0DanArmak
Harry only need to move his wand enough to touch his leg. Assuming his hand is already pointing down, this shouldn't be hard. He can then transfigure either the skin on his legs, or possibly the earth in front of him.
lerjj00

I don't see why she'd win. Unless alicorn princesses are innately more powerful in the spirit world...

0WalterL
We've never seen the possessor lose. Maybe this is because Voldemort is very powerful and always wins the battle of willpower, but it might simply be that the one coming from the Horcrux wins automatically.
lerjj00

WHY hasn't Voldemort ordered his followers to take Harry's wand? That is incompetence.

lerjj00

Do we have a source for prophecies coming true reliably? Back in ch 108 Quirrell seemed to think it possible to avert a prophecy.

0TobyBartels
ch 108 Sadly, I don't think that HPMOR is ever going to have a ch 208!
lerjj10

I still hold out hope that 'the power he knows not' is an actual power. Friendship, or Love is so clichéd as to be actively off-putting. But yay for Hermiocorn!

lerjj00

Damn. I missed that hypothesis. I had been assuming that Harry had somehow gotten a hold of Voldemort's gun (somewhat confused as to how it was in his pouch though). But yes, that clearly fits the data better and of course both Riddles would have thought of muggle weapons in advance, especially General Chaos.

lerjj30

Thanks for pointing out the false dilemma. I'm wondering whether he ever intended to kill Harry, specifically as to whether that gun is loaded.

Does anyone remember anything in Parseltongue which stated explicit intent to kill? I note that this line is not in Parseltonge:

I suppose you have doubts? Mark well, I could kill you this instant, for there is no longer a Headmaster of Hogwarts to be informed of it. Doubt me all you wish, but remember that.

The previous dialogue is in Parseltongue, and the dialogue ends after this. I'll go have a more critical lo... (read more)

1MathMage
I don't think that's the same gun. And yeah, that line tripped my wires as well, but I think there are two more likely candidates for concealment than lack of intent to kill: -Lack of ability to kill -Whether there is a Headmaster of Hogwarts now (one can imagine a magically designated Interim Headmaster being immediately instated for the purpose of the wards)
2[anonymous]
That's Harry's gun, not Voldemort's
lerjj00

Is there any legitimate reason why a gun wouldn't work? I mean, I now strongly suspect it wasn't loaded, but in theory it should do.

I admit the uncertainty as to how the horcrux system works could mean that killing Tom R. Jr is a bad idea.

0linkhyrule5
General prophecy shenanigans. There are now two different prophecies orbiting Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres, one of which certainly seems to imply that he's going to survive to destroy the world. Obvious, predictable solutions are likely to fail.
0Gondolinian
Why? The gun that Voldemort was using to deter Harry was not the one shot at the end of the chapter; that gun came from his pouch.
2[anonymous]
This chapter made me suspect that Harry would be brought back by Voldie's horcrux network.
lerjj30

Maybe the final spell is the alicorn Princess spell, and the resonance was caused on a meta-level by the literary gods.

lerjj30

I suspect that Hermione goes first, because that's how you test that this is a safe idea: you do something 'nice'. I dispute the use of others as guinea pigs as actually being nice, though. Even when there are positives to them.

0Vaniver
I suggested as much last Saturday, but I was expecting him to do normal transfiguration and then make it permanent with the stone. When it was a ritual that he already knew, I assumed that he had already done it to himself--forgetting that it was temporary without the stone.
lerjj10

He says in Parseltongue that his reason is to for her to help Harry. I don't believe Harry's fears about perfect Occlumens, because Slytherin would have known about their existence and not made such a mistake (I'm putting 90% on Parseltongue being a secure communications method between Voldie and Harry).

0MathMage
Hm. I did not properly account for that. Specifying "girl-child friend's counsel and restraint" and "that she is a part of this world for you to care about" is definitive in that Voldemort intends to restore Hermione as Hermione. For my theory to work, this would have to be a long-term gambit that Harry has made immediate; but this would not explain why Voldemort has made so many tactical, i.e. short-term, errors. So I agree this is strong evidence against my prediction. New confidence: 1%. EDIT: If someone can explain how to add strikethrough to my original confidence, that would be helpful.
lerjj150

Suggestion: the entire plot with super-Hermione is Voldemort's practise at being nice. But he's not being nice to Hermione, he's being nice to Harry. He reasoned that this is a better way of stopping Harry destroying the stars than simply killing him (this way carries a slight risk but stops him having to kill his friend). He simply didn't see it because is was a 'nice' method.

This would explain the extravagance of the immortality mechanisms he's giving Hermione.

MathMage160

Not quite an either/or--perhaps he's also testing the immortality mechanisms he will use on himself. It hadn't occurred to me, but he may not be as confident as he pretends to be about how the Stone and the troll/unicorn/Horcrux spells will interact. And it closely parallels his previous failure to test his Horcrux system.

lerjj10

What's interesting is the irony- he seems to think that Hermione can stop Harry making world domination choices. Harry. This is Voldemort here, and he genuinely believes that his nemesis, who is very much against death (even more so than him) is a greater threat to the world.

And his solution: make sure he has friends. I neither see how Voldermort sees Harry as a more credible threat than himself, nor why he thinks Hermione is a better option than simply killing Harry.

0linkhyrule5
Partially, blindness due to not wanting to be bored again. Friendship is magic and alicorn princesses :p. Partially, because he's not sure that he can kill Harry.
lerjj20

This seems viable. The line immediately preceding:

For I would never want you to be deprived of Hermione Granger's counsel and restraint, not ever while the stars yet live.

This strongly suggests to me that he wanted to make Granger a horcrux (as in, a horcrux for Granger). This helps to pattern match with 'practising being nice' but as before, we meet the same confusion: If Voldemort is going to kill HP, why is he trying to make Hermione invincible?

At least if this all ends well, Hermione really will be the stand-out witch of her generation. And the next.

lerjj30

I find the assumption that Dumbledore is in the mirror and can use it suspect. I fully expect him to either (a) not be in the mirror, but actually behind it/other side of room. or (b) to simply walk out at the start of the next chapter.

So no, I don't expect an epic battle next chapter. However, I don't see a way out of one... I notice that I am confused.

(Prediction: Dumbledore comes out of the mirror, followed by several more Dumbledore's. Or maybe multiple ancient Dark Wizards and Light Lords... would explain the Map's confusion. This actually could lead to an epic battle.)

4Ben Pace
I expect that Dumbledore and Quirrrell cannot affect each other whilst Dumbledore is in the mirror, and so they will negotiate.
3Izeinwinter
"Baba Yaga and her 52 apprentices"? That's possible, but I'm not actually sure how this can become a battle because the obvious move is for Riddle to "bombarda" his own skull. I'm thinking we are going to get some more talking. And it is pretty likely we are about to have explained to us how he already lost... Wait. Are we at all sure the Tom's are still outside the mirror? If the plan was to trap Voldemort in the mirror, how do we know that didn't already happen, and this is years later when they finally finished tracking down the horcruxes? Because the best mirror-plane prison would be one with no passage of time in it. This also fits the prophecy, because in this case, Harry did defeat him, by being willing to go down with him. Which is a power he knows not.
lerjj20

But Dumbledore doesn't necessarily expect to live out any encounter with Voldemort, does he? And Harry's lost his chance of a phoenix

7WalterL
Right, so, by Dumbledore's thinking, if he shows up having beaten Voldemort then he's not real. He expects that Voldemort would kill him. So the mirror could be a trap for any "triumphant Dumbledore" who appeared before it. This is particularly true because Dumbledore doesn't fear death. He could easily have made himself forget the trap. If he wins and is killed by his trap, what's the harm? Its just the next great adventure. To actually get the Stone probably just needs some terminal values equivalent of the arbitrary physical description Harry gave. A crazy person Dumbledore happens to know who thinks they are the only person in the world. Someone who doesn't know anything about the mirror at all. The possibilities are endless. Flamel himself is the obvious choice, identified as a person who knows some bit of trivia (s)he learned in 600 years alive.
lerjj10

This was what I thought as well. I doubt we'll get confirmation of that prediction though, unless Quirrell/Harry actually DOES try to destroy the world. In which case presumably the Atlanteans have to save the day (unsatisfying from a literary point of view, hence unlikely).

lerjj20

Fair point. I suppose it was that if everyone posted subtle variations on a theme it's a way to vote mine. Or simply copy someone else's answer, write in an "Edit: ninja'd" and hope for accidental votes.

Having said that, looking at the HTML is a much more general solution and probably does deserve an up-vote. But the principle was to only give a vote to the first person to answer, because after that help is technically unsolicited (since they can see it's already been given).

lerjj60

It's not further evidence, but it's a good suggestion for a possible place for Hermione to be. It's safe from Quirrell and unexpected. It's also partially hidden by a different charm (assuming QQ can sense Harry's magic)

6Scott Garrabrant
It is literary evidence, because EY is talking about the glasses.
0Ben Pace
It is further evidence, because it's the only thing still in contact with his body.
lerjj00

now I feel stupid for not doing a google search to see if parts of that sentence were recognised phrases. Of course that's what it means. In fairness though, this is simply a FAI refinement of my first reading- it doesn't show what it thinks you want, but somehow scans your utility function and calculates what to show you.

Either way, the Mirror of Erised still seems to be pretty much standard.

Not quite. It won't show you what you think you want, or even what you really truly want this second - it shows you what you would want, if you were were better, smarter, and more the person you wished to be. It's coherent - you should never look into the Mirror and go "on second thought, that's a terrible universe."

For example, Ron would not see himself becoming Prefect or being Head Boy, because in a decade or less he'll have outgrown such ambitions.

Load More