Austin, TX
LW event link: https://www.lesswrong.com/events/YQrPgwGaqqvpDPmZx/austin-lw-ssc-winter-solstice-2023
Looking forward to seeing all of you today! For parking, you can use the street or the neighboring Mother’s Milk Bank. If it’s crowded, try the neighborhood to the west off Justin Ln, but in all cases, watch for signs about where it is legal to park!
Austin, Texas Winter Solstice.
December 20th (Tuesday), 6 pm doors open.
Location: TBD
LW event link (details to be added).
Late to post this, but another resource:
Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?
And the HN discussion about it, with me mentioning high-karma poster John Salvatier.
Good news! We'll be coordinating with the Ottawa Petrov Day to do Hardcore Mode A-minus -- we'll get a button that destroys the other party's Petrov cake.
How about having both this and a Utility article be parents/prerequisites of Expected utility formalism; then, you could have
Utility -> Marginal Utility -> Supply and Demand
(Or maybe have utility and marginal utility be the same?)
I was guessing because it doesn't explicitly say what "meta" would mean here, and based my guess partly on the expected semantic space covered by "meta" (roughly, doubling the problem back on itself), and partly on my assumption of the kinds of simple solutions I would expect to be ruled out. My vision of a "simple, meta" solution is thus "brute-force an understanding-free model of a human and take that with you" (which would thus require the model to be"low level" and not find the obvious high level regularities that can't be brute forced).
Hope that clarified how I came up with that, but in any case, an explicit definition would help, as would a prequisite on "meta solutions".
I wish this fleshed out what is meant by the "non-meta solution" criterion. I took it to mean solutions that involve creating a low-level model (neuronal/molecular) of a human that the AI could run and keep querying, but I'm not sure that's right.
To your alternative approaches I would also add Bruce Schneier's advice in Cryptographic Engineering, where he talks a little about the human element in dealing with clients. It's similar to the Socratic approach, in that you ask about a possible flaw rather than argue it exists.
Bad: "that doesn't work. Someone can just replay the messages."
Good: "what defenses does this system have against replay attacks?"
Admittedly no one's ever been charged under the ADA, but there are plenty of examples of people being disciplined for violating it.
Thinking about your experiments does not (in itself) involve expenditure of government money, so I don't see how they would prosecute you under the ADA for that. Yes, managers have to be very clear to workers not to use resources, just to keep them away from edge cases, but even with that level of overcaution, managers can't actually stop you.
Even if you came back and (for some reason) said, "Hey boss, I totally though...
C-style integers = integers with a fixed possible range of values and the corresponding rollover -- that is, if you get a result too big to be stored in that fixed size, it rolls over from the lowest possible value.
Ruby doesn't implement that limitation. It implements integers through Fixnum and Bignum. The latter is unbounded. The former is bounded but (per the linked doc) automatically converted to the latter if it would exceed its bounds.
Even if it did, it's still useful as an exercise: get a class to respond to addition, etc operations the same way ...
Maybe we should have a prisoner's dilemma meta-tournament in which we define a tournament-goodness metric and then everyone submits a tournament design that is run using the bot participants in the previous tournament, and then use the rankings of those designs.
Wait: does anyone know a good way to design the meta-tournament?
Very well said! I would only add that your point generalizes: the differences between the two cases is the extent to which it has implications for future interaction ("moving the Schelling point"): blackmail-like situations are those where we intuit an unfavorable movement of the point (per the blackmailed) while we generally don't have such intuitions in he case of trade.
Somewhat OT:
Does it really help the exposition to have all the elaborate packaging (the such-and-such vase, the jester and description of the punishment, etc)? For me it just makes it harder to read: is the vase just a perspicuous example of a valuable, or is it important that it's subject to random catastrophe (from errant jesters)? Does the presence of the makeup sex have any relevance that should affect my intuition on this?
But then, a lot of people seem to like that kind of thing, even in non-fiction and when they no longer need explanations via fairy tale metaphors, so perhaps I'm alone on this.
EDIT: Sorry, I missed that you linked a fluff-free version. Much appreciated!
Are you saying that no one expected the printing money (bidding up gold) before it happened, or is there a more subtle reason why the only relevant comparison is from the moment the policy called QE started?
Someone who bought gold after the Lehman fiasco (08), but before any of those QE milestones would have had several options since then to redeem for 2-3x gain.
It's an even bigger gap if you compare to any year before, back to ~98. S&P has had a horrible volatility/return performance going back to at least then.
P/S/A: The people telling you to expect above-trend inflation when the Federal Reserve started printing money a few years back, disagreed with the market forecasts, disagreed with standard economics, turned out to be actually wrong in reality, and were wrong for reasonably fundamental reasons so don't buy gold when they tell you to.
You would have missed out on doubling or tripling your money if you hadn't bought gold when those same people had made the predictions.
You would have missed out on doubling or tripling your money if you hadn't bought gold when those same people had made the predictions.
The S&P 500 has outperformed gold since quantitative easing began. I don't believe there has been a time past four years where a $100 gold purchase would be worth more today than a $100 S&P 500 purchase.
"Causality is based on entropy increase, so it can only make sense to draw causal arrows “backwards in time,” in those rare situations where entropy is not increasing with time. [...] where physical systems are allowed to evolve reversibly, free from contact with their external environments." E.g. the normal causal arrows break down for, say, CMB photons. -- Not sure how Scott jumps from reversible evolution to backward causality.
It's a few paragraphs up, where he says:
...Now, the creation of reliable memories and records is essentially always
Just thought I'd throw this out there:
TabooBot: Return D if opponent's source code contains a D; C otherwise.
To avoid mutual defection with other bots, it must (like with real prudish societies!) indirectly reference the output D. But then other kinds of bots can avoid explicit reference to D, requiring a more advanced TabooBot to have other checks, like defecting if the opponent's source code calls a modifier on a string literal.
Austin, Texas
December 20th. Doors open 6pm, ceremony 8pm.
LW Event link