LESSWRONG
LW

All of sone3d's Comments + Replies

All Lesswrong Posts by Yudkowsky in one .epub
sone3d90

Yudkowsky' Lesswrong Posts NOT INCLUDED in RAZ: Rationality From AI to Zombies

>>DOWNLOAD .EPUB HERE

add: Some of the lasts posts are missing. Were not included when I create this .epub

Reply
1vlad.proex
Wonderful, thank you!
All Lesswrong Posts by Yudkowsky in one .epub
sone3d30

This file include ALL Yudkowsky’s posts from Lesswrong. This means it contains RAZ. I have a handcrafted .epub with all his posts that are not in RAZ. I will find it and post it here. Stay tuned.

Yes, it’s posible to do the same with other authors.

Reply
sone3d70

Could you share your list of Eliezer recommended books?

Reply
5Noah Topper
Well, I tend to throw them onto my general to-read list, so I'm not entirely sure. A few I remember are Godel, Escher, Bach, Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Influence: Science and Practice, The End of Time, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, The Feynman Lectures, Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman, Probability Theory: The Logic of Science, Probabilistic Inference in Intelligent Systems, and Player of Games. There's a longer list here, but it's marked as outdated.
Rationality: Abridged
sone3d10

iBooks and Marvin apps (iOS).

Reply
1AABoyles
Thank you! I don't have a good way to test Apple products (so the fix won't be quick), but I'll look into it.
Rationality: Abridged
sone3d20

The epub version doesn’t work. The file contain errors.

Reply
1AABoyles
Thanks for letting me know. I use [Calibre](https://calibre-ebook.com/about) to test the files, and it opens the file without complaint. What are you using (and on what platform) to read it?
4Ben Pace
Go to the frontpage, hover-over the different filters (curated, frontpage, community, etc) and click on the rss button in the hover-over, to get the respective rss url.
Rationality: Abridged
sone3d40

Could someone convert it to epub, please?

Nice work, Quaerendo!

Reply
3AABoyles
I'm on it!
Open Thread - January 2018
sone3d50

We need an open forum to post questions, ask for advice and other minor things. An open thread doesn’t feel enough for me.

Reply
An Intuitive Explanation of Inferential Distance
sone3d-30

This is not an intuitive explanation. Yudkowsky or Connor Moreton explanations are more intuitive.

Reply
2RichardJActon
For anyone else feeling this is less than intiutive sone3d is I think likely refering to, respectively: * Expecting Short Inferential Distances * Idea Inoculation + Inferential Distance Idea Inoculation is a very useful concept, and definitly something to bear in mind when playing the 'weak' form of the double crux game. Correct me if I'm wrong but I have not noticed anyone else post something linking inferential distance with double cruxing so that maybe that's what I should have emphasised in the title.
Open thread, November 13 - November 20, 2017
sone3d30

Both Lesswrong and Lesserwrong lack an open forum to ask questions. I’ve always felt this is a big limitation since both sites only allow posting essays and links to essays.

A simple forum or subforum which allowed asking questions or posts simple thoughts will improve the overall dynamic.

And no, a weekly ‘open thread‘ is not enough. It is only a little parchment.

Reply
4Ben Pace
Agreed, I plan to spend a bunch of time thinking about q&a features and also shortform content features.
Open thread, August 14 - August 20, 2017
sone3d00

Eliezer wrote in http://lesswrong.com/lw/ro/2place_and_1place_words/ :

Sexiness: Admirer, Entity—> [0, ∞) ... Sexiness: Entity—> [0, ∞) ... Fred::Sexiness == Sexiness_20934 ...

Is it there a sort of semantic language code or something similar to write pseudo code when talking about concepts?

Reply
Open thread, August 14 - August 20, 2017
sone3d10

(Please excuse my incorrect english).

When talking about the debate “nurture vs nature” I call it:

Brain hardware + Preloaded Software VS. Compatible Software Installation

Reply
Open thread, July 31 - August 6, 2017
sone3d10

Please, recommend me more books in the line of ‘Metaphors we live by’ and ‘Surfaces and Essences’.

Reply
2username2
Wilson's Six views of embodied cognition gives a broad overview of embodied cognition in 12 pages and has a few good references. https://people.ucsc.edu/~mlwilson/publications/Embodied_Cog_PBR.pdf I decided to read Holyoak et al.'s Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought when Surfaces and Essences started feeling drawn-out.
1Elo
Link is in the title - 13. The game
Book recommendation requests
sone3d00

Books about human status.

Reply
3Qiaochu_Yuan
Impro has a nice chapter on status. The rest of it's great too.
Open thread, Apr. 10 - Apr. 16, 2017
sone3d40

You think like a human because you are a human. Not because this is how an intelligent being thinks.

Just a thought.

Reply
0Viliam
Generalizing-From-One-Intelligent-Species Fallacy.
0jsalvatier
Thanks, had to make a new link.
Open thread, Mar. 27 - Apr. 02, 2017
sone3d50

ELI5 Posts Series

I would like to start an ELI5 Posts Series. Separated posts tagged ELI5 (Explain like I'm five) about relevant posts in the LW Community.

Examples: ELI5: Belief in Belief. ELI5: Leaky Generalizations. ELI5: Guessing the Teacher's Password. ...

In the comments users try its best to explain the key concepts and insights of each post with ELI5 examples. I think this could be very useful for incoming aspiring rationalists.

Let me know what you think.

Reply
7Viliam
Explaining to actual kids is fun, and a good rationalist exercise. I recently told this to my two years old daughter, when she asked me what I was writing about, when I was preparing a blog article on my computer. (She liked the explanation a lot. She insisted that I repeat it to her for the rest of the evening.) But yeah, for more complex topics, 5 years seem like a more appropriate age. I wonder how well people are actually calibrated about this; whether the actual 5 years olds would understand most of the ELI5 posts. Maybe someone could do an experiment with real kids -- tell them the stories, and then report how they repeated the lesson using their own words. I am looking forward to the "Being reasonable: smart robots and dead walking people" book. :D
Open Thread, Feb. 27 - March 5, 2017
sone3d10

Any way to find all Eliezer Yudkowsky posts which are not in Rationality: From AI to Zombies? is there a list out there?

Reply
0Elo
exclusively the ones that are not in the book? I am not aware of any lists, you can try the wiki and see if anything is there. this might help https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Less_Wrong/All_Articles
Open Thread, Feb. 20 - Feb 26, 2017
sone3d20

Sorry, I didn't expressed correctly. What I'm asking is "what should I believe"?

Reply
0Luke_A_Somers
Why should you believe any specific conclusion on this matter rather than remain in doubt?
4Dagon
Christian's question is spot on. What he doesn't say is the reason he's asking. What you're describing isn't a belief, it's a somewhat vague cluster of beliefs. different beliefs in the cluster can have different credence levels, and treating them as a unit means it's unanswerable how accurate you are. Decompose your question to specific falsifiable statements. You should believe whatever lets you most accurately predict the future conditional on your choices. So; what choices are you facing where beliefs on this topic pay rent? Or, if you prefer, what predictions are you testing with the belief?
Open Thread, Feb. 20 - Feb 26, 2017
sone3d00

[Excuse me. Not native english speaker]

First of all, Lesswrong is the site where I always put my lasts hope.

I'm having lots of troubles trying to find the truth about IQ test taken by different ethnic groups It seems there are lots of studies claiming differences in IQs. On the other side there is a lot of people saying the contrary (culturally biased tests,..)

What do we do as rationalists? I'm really confused. I have read tons of articles from both sides yet nothing is clear to me.

Reply
4Viliam
One more thing to consider is that IQ is caused partially genetically, and partially non-genetically, e.g. diseases or lack of nutrition decrease IQ. So if you e.g. examine people from a sick and starving population, of course they are likely to have below-average IQ. But that doesn't say anything about what IQ their descendants will have if the food and health problem gets fixed. Intelligence is a polygenic trait, i.e. a trait influenced by multiple genes. There is an observed regression to the mean, that is although smart parents are likely to have smart children, and dumb parents are likely to have dumb children, the children of either are usually closer to the average than their parents. In other words, if you would inhabit an island exclusively by Mensa members, the children born on this island would probably almost all have above-average intelligence; but many of them would not reach the Mensa level. Or the opposite experiment... well, this one was actually done in real life... 40-50 years ago when communists ruled Cambodia, they killed almost all literate people in the country in the attempt to create an agrarian utopia (spoiler: didn't work as advertised), but Cambodia didn't literally become a nation of retards. It is difficult to find exactly which genes contribute to IQ. There are more than 50 suspects, but the experiments suffer from low sample sizes, so many of them are probably false positives. It seems that first-born children have higher IQ than their siblings. (The official story seems to be that it's because they get more parental attention and resources. To me it seems more likely that children born later simply receive higher mutational load from older parents. But maybe it's both.) It was suspected that breastfeeding increases IQ. Then it turned out this correlation was caused indirectly by mother's IQ; i.e. smart mothers are more likely to breastfeed their children, and smart mothers are likely to have smart children, which creates a corre
0Elo
Iq tests tell something, usually that clusters with intelligence. But there are many ways for that to go wrong.
Viliam110

Speaking for myself, my position is "I don't know".

Ignoring the specific question, there are many situations in my life where (a) I am curious about something, (b) I don't trust the existing research, and (c) it is not high enough priority for me to try doing the research myself. In such case, thinking "I don't know" seems like a reasonable reaction. What else should I think?

In absence of solid research, people often return to armchair reasoning, inventing clever arguments why in absence of evidence we should stick with "default&qu... (read more)

Reply
4ChristianKl
"What do we do" depends largely on the action that you are thinking about. What kind of decision do you want to make that's effected by the knowledge?
Stupid Questions December 2016
sone3d00

I would like to know what do you think it is the probability that we are living in a simulation.

Personally, my guess is that the posibility that we are living in a base reality is only 1 in (Very big number with lot of zeroes).

Reply
1ChristianKl
That question is in our yearly census. http://lesswrong.com/r/lesswrong/lw/nkw/2016_lesswrong_diaspora_survey_results/ brings you to the latest census.
2Dagon
This depends a lot on where you draw the line between "simulation" and "universe". We definitely seem to be in a mathematically-describable finite (or finitely-perceivable) system. If it could be simulated so completely that we can't tell, then it may as well be simulated.
0Erfeyah
This is related to the (unsolved) question of what consciousness is. Briefly the currently conceived possibilities: * [A] Consciousness is an algorithm. * [B] Consciousness is a fundamental property of nature that emerges from certain structures of integrated information. * [C] Consciousness is a fundamental property of nature. * [D] Consciousness does not exist. We do not have an internal experience of anything. About [A]: Neuroscientists are trying to find the locus of consciousness in the brain but they haven’t managed yet. Even more important, there is a conceptual gap about the possibility of information encoding subjective experience. The very influential Chinese room thought experiment of John Searle is an extremely strong argument against the possibility of filling the information/meaning gap. About [B]: This is an interesting theory. It is not the same as [A]. I recommend Tononi's book Phi if you want to learn more about it. It is not easy to digest but a really fascinating possibility. He proposes (and has a mathematical model for it), that certain configurations of matters with certain properties give rise to consciousness depending on their integration of information. It has not been experimentally proven or strongly indicated. It implies Panpsychism (see [C]). About [C]: In philosophy this is labelled as Panpsychism. It is a view that seems to be implied in the writings of all the major mystical traditions. About [D]: This is Daniel Dennett’s position. The proposition that our internal experience. The one we are having right now. Does not exist. ---------------------------------------- To my understanding, the simulation hypothesis is only valid if [A] or [D] is true.
Stupid Questions, 2nd half of December
sone3d20

What is exactly status? What is this "thing I feel" when, everything equal, I have the sense that someone has more or less status than me? It must be a sort of neurotransmitters cocktail or what?

Sorry, not native english.

Reply
1[anonymous]
It should be a kind of surprise at first, when you notice something about that person which you do not expect to happen/apply to you, and then an evaluation of how good or bad that something is, and then a judgement of whether it is deserved, and then a conclusion about the person's status. Overall, yes, neurotransmitters doing stuff, certainly. (But how?..:()However, this is only what I find plausible. If this is true, then a change at any stage might change your mind about the status. Say, you think the person receives undeserved attention, but then somebody says, 'He's a war hero!', and your view of their situation will depend on the side of the war you support, but nonetheless you will likely not be surprised by how others treat the man. There's also people's power over each other that is taken into account. What I would not expect to see, is a psychologically healthy individual not changing their mind about someone's status if given evidence that the someone behaves or is treated differently than the status 'suggests', but there are certainly examples of this happening. Another step would be to say that there is a bigger weight assigned to keeping the evaluation constant and it is also somehow written in neurotransmitter (and established neuronal connections), but it really just pushes the question further.