All of Steven_Bukal's Comments + Replies

Any chance you'd release this under a non-copyleft license?

But also note that while the past may be fixed, your knowledge of the past is probabilistic. I assume there is evidence you could encounter that would convince you that Putin ordering airstrikes in Syria didn't actually happen.

1Lumifer
That is true -- as usual, distinguishing the map and the territory is a useful habit and the map is never perfect.
2OrphanWilde
Which suggests the past might be just as probabilistic as the future.

I take notes on my phone. I think some big tradeoffs compared to a paper notebook are less ease of writing, more convenience, less physical space taken up, and an end result that is easier to back up and work with in many ways.

Is human mind space countably finite? Just bring us all back please, I'll be in there somewhere.

I don't think there's a precise threshold, but when I use the phrase "change the world", I'm pretty confident that my interlocutor is thinking of people like Steve Jobs and companies like Apple and not thinking of people like me who don't have our own wikipedia articles and companies like the ones I work for that don't have names many would recognize and aren't credited with inventing/popularizing important product categories that millions of people now use every day.

People who "change the world" make big political, technological, or scientific changes and bring them into the lives of many people.

I am a recent graduate of the University of Toronto, where we've seen that talks on campus that are viewed as opposing or questioning feminism will have their advertisements torn down and mobs organized by the student union will show up to harass and physically block attendees and take other disruptive actions like pulling fire alarms. I expect this would generalize to suppression of other forms of un-PC speech and thinking.

That said, the administration at UofT seems to respond to these incidents more reasonably than the UCLA administration in the article ... (read more)

I used to be creeped out by house centipedes, but I decided to get along with them after reading that they are generally harmless to humans and useful to have around because they kill all sorts of other household pests.

I think just remembering that they are a good thing and thinking of them as being on my team was helpful. I also gave cool names to the ones living in my basement (e.g. Zeus, Odin, Xerxes) and talked to them e.g. "Hi, centipedes. Keep up the good work, but please do try to stay away from me during the day, and remember our deal: you can... (read more)

My worry in that case would be present conditions bleeding into the memory and evaluation of those earlier pings. For example, I'd expect that when you're hungry your relative ranking of past ping moments is going to change to more heavily weigh moments when you were eating.

Your school might have useful resources. If there is a career center, go there and see what kind of resources and help are available. There could be a student internship program, student job boards, career fairs, etc. Professors sometimes have work opportunities as well (they might announce these, or you may have to ask).

I've read that the CEO of Levi's recommends washing jeans very infrequently.

Won't they smell? I have a pretty clean white-collar lifestyle, but I'm concerned about wearing mine even once or twice between machine washing. Is it considered socially acceptable to re-wear jeans?

4KnaveOfAllTrades
Not sure if it's in addition to what you're thinking of or it is what you're thinking of, but Tommy Hilfiger 'never' 'washes his Levis'. I heard this and confirmed with a fashion- and clothing-conscious friend that they (the friend) had tried it. I used to wash jeans and chinos after a few consecutive days of wearing them. For the past five or six weeks I've been trying out the 'no wash' approach. I wore one pair of jeans for about thirty five days (maybe split into two periods of continuous wearing) and washed them probably once or never during that time. So far as I could tell they did not smell anywhere near enough to be offensive, and I only stopped wearing them because I got too small for them. This included doing some form of exercise like pushups, circuits, or timed runs at the track in the jeans (and then not showering for a few hours afterwards) on most days. After those jeans I've been wearing the same pair of chinos for eight days and they seem to be fine. It's worth giving a try to see if it works for you too, in your circumstances. It is very plausible that climate, bathing frequency, sensitivity to own sweat, sensitivity to laundry products, underpants use etc. provide enough variation between people that doing it is a no-brainer for some and not doing it is probably right for others. During this period, before showering each night, I take the trousers off, shake them off, then (assuming I don't have any reason to think the outside of them had accumulated much ickiness during that day) drape them inside out over a chair, which hopefully lets them air out and let moisture evaporate off. (In fact, I now do this with most of my clothes, and it seems like it might indeed make them smell fresher for longer.) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tommy+hilfiger+wash+jeans http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2459720/Tommy-Hilfiger-thinks-crazy-throw-jeans-laundry-wear.html
0lmm
The USA puts a pretty unique emphasis on not smelling, so this might be a cultural difference if their upbringing wasn't in the US.
1ChristianKl
When it comes to sweat different people have different issues. I remember that the once I gave a PowerPoint Karaoke in front of maybe 80 people at my university. Afterwards I smelt really badly because of stress induced smell. On the other hand I can dance Salsa and my clothes are wet from sweat because I move that intensely. In my experience that doesn't lead to clothes that stink the next day. Some nerdy people with high level of social anxiety sweat more smelly than average. The only way to know surely whether something smells in a socially unacceptable way is to ask other people. I for example trust my mother to give me honest answers to that question. But you can use any friends for that purpose that you trust to give honest answer and that have decent social skills. It might also be worth to get opinions from multiple people, as people's smell receptors differ. Androstenone for example smells musky and pleasant to some people and bad to others.
0ruelian
It also depends on the jeans. Some jeans are, for some reason, more likely to smell after being worn just once. I have no idea why, but several people I know have corroborated this independently.
2kalium
I can see how freezing might help with smell, but what confuses me is sweat. If I wear pants more than about 4 times in a row, they start to itch, and I don't see how freezing would help with that. I don't think I sweat unusually much.
4alexdewey
Most jeans you aren't supposed to wash too often, since it can make them fade and wear out faster, but you still want to wash them when they seem dirty like when you spill on them, get really sweaty in them, or if they smell. I wash mine every 3-5 wears which seems to be a good amount. If you're wearing raw denim, you're not supposed to wash your jeans at all but raw denim is kind of a niche thing anyways.
1arundelo
Who knows if this really works, but the Levi's Vice President of Women's Design recommends leaving your jeans in the freezer overnight once a month (to kill smelly bacteria).
5polymathwannabe
I've found the results are very different between living in a hot city and a cold city. When I lived in a hot, coastal city, I was never able to rewear anything; in my current cold city I can (theoretically, mind you) go days without a shower.
5pragmatist
I usually wear jeans about three, sometimes four, times between washes. I haven't noticed any smell, and haven't heard any complaints either.

Did the survey. Thank you once again, Yvain.

Did the survey. Thanks, Yvain.

Instrumental stupidity is the art of winning at Pinkie Pie's utility function.

Looks like a very useful list. One comment: I found the example in 2(a) a bit complicated and very difficult to parse.

Took the whole survey. My preferred political label of (Radical) Centrist survived all explicit radio buttons.

The phrasing I used there is indefensible, but the general idea I'm trying to get at is that many people acquire tons of things which in theory increase their power but in practise don't because they are never on hand when needed. Added to this are the tons of things many people acquire whose uselessness goes unnoticed because of a general failure to criticize potential acquisitions for power increasing ability at all.

My default position towards things is hate. I hate stuff. It gets dusty, it has to be managed, it takes up space. A room with lots of stuff in it is cognitively difficult for the brain to process; having lots of stuff around actually drains your mental energy.

http://www.paulgraham.com/stuff.html

I generally dislike owning things that I can't physically carry with me at all times (because "if you don't have something with you, owning it probably hasn't made you more powerful"). Consequently, the majority of what I own I carry with me. The only real... (read more)

0Richard_Kennaway
I have a question about this, but I decided to put it in the open thread.
wedrifid270

I generally dislike owning things that I can't physically carry with me at all times (because "if you don't have something with you, owning it probably hasn't made you more powerful").

This seems false on all sorts of levels.

  • I own a kettlebell. It makes me literally and figuratively stronger.
  • I have shelves full of performance enhancing substances. They make me stronger and not all of them require that I have them with me or even have a dose currently in my system.
  • The Nuclear ICMB that I own is too big to carry around but being able to have
... (read more)

Aren't comics like that the source of the cached thought we're trying to improve on here?

4philh
The mouseover text is important:

Celestia here doesn't seem to be having fun.

I think this is the big one. Sure, Celestia says that death is bad. She also describes her life as prolonged suffering and says that she envies mortals because immortals have purpose but don't actually live. The opinions and example of Celestia aren't necessarily to be taken as the theme of the work itself, but I can understand why people might be confused.

Arrives late to the party

Really great story, iceman. Some comments:

*Running the story through a beta group of non-LW bronies would definitely be a good idea to catch which ideas may need more explanation.

*I really like how it's repeatedly show that when you interact with a super-intelligence, even if it's just free conversation, the state of mind you leave in is probably going to be the state of mind it wants you to leave in. As others have said, this could be driven home even stronger by showing CelestAI strongly tailoring her interaction to different hu... (read more)

1Baruta07
I might be able to help with running the story past non LW Bronies as the school I'm at has a higher percentage of them then the norm. (No seriously, our IT department had a Brony war last year that focused on converting the non Bronies) I while personally not a Brony I really enjoyed the story, although that might be because I am an active member of the furry-fandom (the non-sexual part) and an avid reader.

Daily I measure weight and workout performance.

Monthly I look at my receipts and spending and whether there were any large deviations from my budget.

Every six months I pick an unexceptional week and log everything I do by category (e.g. sleeping, preparing food, working, studying). I create summary tables for the typical week and use them to choose two or three improvements to implement in the next iteration.

Pragmatically, if I non-blindly pick some representation of turing machines that looks simple to me (e.g. the one Turing used), I don't really doubt that it's within a few thousand bits of the "right" version of solomonoff, whatever that means.

Why not?

So is there then a pragmatic assumption that can be made? Maybe we assume that if I pick a turing machine blindly, without specifically designing it for a particular output string, it's unlikely to be strongly biased towards that string.

3pengvado
What probability distribution over turing machines do you blindly pick it from? That's another instance of the same problem. Pragmatically, if I non-blindly pick some representation of turing machines that looks simple to me (e.g. the one Turing used), I don't really doubt that it's within a few thousand bits of the "right" version of solomonoff, whatever that means.

Solomonoff Induction is supposed to be a formalization of Occam’s Razor, and it’s confusing that the formalization has a free parameter in the form of a universal Turing machine that is used to define the notion of complexity.

I'm very confused about this myself, having just read this introductory paper on the subject.

My understanding is that an "ideal" reference UTM would be a universal turing machine with no bias towards any arbitrary string, but rigorously defining such a machine is an open problem. Based on our observation of UTMs, the more... (read more)

1pengvado
Even if you do that, you're left with an infinite number of cliques such that within any given clique the languages can write short interpreters for each other. Picking one of the cliques is just as arbitrary as picking a single language to begin with. i.e. for any given class of what-we-intuitively-think-of-as-complicated programs X, you can design a language that can concisely represent members of X and can concisely represent interpreters with this special case. It's a function of the language you're writing an interpreter of and the language you're writing it in. "Constant" in that it doesn't depend on the programs you're going to run in the new language. i.e. for any given pair of languages there's a finite amount of disagreement between those two versions of the Solomonoff prior; but for any given number there are pairs of languages that disagree by more than that. No. There's no law against having a gigabyte-long opcode for NAND, and using all the shorter opcodes for things-we-intuitively-think-of-as-complicated.

1) How can I know whether this belief is true?

Expose it to tests. For example, you might stick your head out a window and look up. The theory that the sky is green strongly predicts that you should see green and only very weakly allows for you to see anything else (your eyes may occasionally play tricks on you, perhaps you are looking close to a sunset, etc.).

2) How can I assign a probability to it to test its degree of truthfulness? 3) How can I update this belief?

If you knew absolutely nothing about skies other than that they were some colour, you... (read more)

Cue for noticing rationalization: In a live conversation, I notice that the time it takes to give the justification for a conclusion when prompted far exceeds the time it took to generate the conclusion to begin with.

4billswift
That is nearly always true, not just when a person is rationalizing. If you are correctly performing incremental updates of your beliefs, going back and articulating what caused your beliefs you be what they currently are is time consuming, and sometimes not possible, except by careful reconstruction.
4Will_Newsome
I personally rarely find that to be evidence of rationalization; instead it generally means that I know various disjunctive supporting arguments but am loth to present any individual one for fear of it being interpreted as my only or strongest argument.

I think the condition from the beginning is that you're picking a unique girlfriend who knows all microphysical facts about your universe, including the content of any letters you have or will ever write.

2Luke_A_Somers
Quantum mechanics forbids that much knowledge. If you take the present state and apply the advanced Green function to it, you don't end up with one distinct letter written. Similarly, if you take a future state where you wrote one particular set of letters and apply the retarded Green function to it, you don't get the present state. So she isn't your girlfriend yet... but she will be once you write or receive your last letter from her.
2Baughn
Doesn't that just mean you're picking one who's simulating this universe?

I think that was an unfair clipping. The context of that quote was the OP's statement about the usefulness of getting clarification of language usage.

2Eugine_Nier
My point is that having to play rationalist taboo is still much worse then not having to play it.

Let's suppose that this usage is in fact more common than the two that I cited as "correct". It seems to be either false or meaningless. What is Bob saying here?

You said in the OP that the more common usage takes the phrase to refer to any exception. So from that, Bob probably means that the brown bear you saw is an exception.

How does Rationalist Taboo help us?

Seeing as how Bob probably means that the brown bear is an exception, his argument is poor. So I would then say something like, "since you agree that there is an exception, you... (read more)

This is my thought as well. Every one of the examples given I would attribute to dialectal differences between common usage and the more technical and jargon-filled language used by scientists and science fans. SaidAchmiz even admits that for some of these, the usage he doesn't like is more common, which is a big hint. My understanding is that speakers very rarely adopt usage which will be misunderstood by the language group they typically speak with.

“hmm, is that really what you meant to say?” is often met with absurd arguments to the effect that no, th

... (read more)
0Eugine_Nier
Yes, it does.
3Said Achmiz
Do you really think this is the case? How does this apply to "the exception that proves the rule", for instance? Consider this hypothetical exchange: Bob: All bears are either black or white. Fred: Eh? But I saw a brown bear just yesterday. Bob: Well, that's the exception that proves the rule. Let's suppose that this usage is in fact more common than the two that I cited as "correct". It seems to be either false or meaningless. What is Bob saying here? How does Rationalist Taboo help us?

The point I was making is that you attempt to maximise your utility function. Your utility function decreases when you learn of a bad thing happening

I think you're still confused. Utility functions operate on outcomes and universes as they actually are, not as you believe them to be. Learning of things doesn't decrease or increase your utility function. If it did, you could maximize it by taking a pill that made you think it was maximized. Learning that you were wrong about the utility of the universe is not the same as changing the utility of the universe.

-3buybuydandavis
It depends on what is meant by "your utility function". That's true if you mean a mathematical idealization of a calculation performed in your nervous system that ignores your knowledge state, but false if you mean the actual result calculated by your nervous system.

I believe APMason's point is that your benchmarks are testing for anti-non-mainstreamism

The flaw I'd point out is that Clippy's utility function is utility = number of paperclips in the world not utility = number of paperclips Clippy thinks are in the world.

Learning about the creation or destruction of paperclips does not actually increase or decrease the number of paperclips in the world.

0Solvent
I agree. That's the confusion that I was sorting out for myself. The point I was making is that you attempt to maximise your utility function. Your utility function decreases when you learn of a bad thing happening. My point was that if you don't know, your utility function is the weighted average of the various things you could think could happen, so on average learning the state of the universe does not change your utility in that manner.

As near as I can tell I'm -want/+like/-approve on both wireheading and emperor-like superiority.

gjm150

No. Surely it's an essential aspect of Crocker's Rules that the person who gets to decide whether it's OK for X to be rude to Y in the service of optimal communication is Y, not X. Some people may be more bothered than others by very frank criticism, and they should not be made unwelcome here.

I've never understood how severe food yield issues from overpopulation are supposed to come about. If the population is increasing far faster than we can increase the food yields, wouldn't the price of food massively increase and stop people from being able to afford to have children? Is the idea that the worldwide agricultural system would be gradually overtaxed and then collapse within a short period? If not, what were all the people eating the day before catastrophic overpopulation is declared?

1Pfft
Things like that are not unprecedented. I think that is the theory for what became of the Easter Island civilization. One could also draw parallels to the collapse of sardine fishing in US in the 1950s -- in a couple of years the sardine population completely crashed, but up until that point the fishing had been going great, there was no gradual cost increase that made it less profitable.

Wow, you guys did an awesome job. Very funny to read through and the music is hilarious.

snicker Vampire Thomas Nagel knows what it's like to be a bat

I took the survey. Thanks for putting this together.

Extensive use of abbreviations and acronyms was primarily a convenience for writers, when writing was done by hand and then by typewriter, there is less justification for it now when most writing is done by computer.

I don't agree. My impression is that the popularity of abbreviations and acronyms is being driven by the rise in popularity of text messaging, which is usually done from phones with tiny, unusable keyboards; instant messaging, which is done in real time; and social networking site based communication, which often has hard limits on message length (e.g. Twitter).

0A1987dM
OTOH, in “formal” contexts (say, encyclopaedias or textbooks) ISTM that abbreviations used to be more common than they are now.

they have a lot of advantages over the rest of the software world. They have a single product: one program that flies one spaceship. They understand their software intimately, and they get more familiar with it all the time. The group has one customer, a smart one. And money is not the critical constraint

Not that the methods here don't have their place, but it seems to me that this is a point by point list of exactly why the methodology used by this team is not used generally.

The average software project may involve many different products and many dif... (read more)

6NancyLebovitz
People are less well understood than physics, so it makes sense that interfaces need to be tested on people at earlier stages of development than a program which is just interacting with non-sentience does, even without getting into the problem of making a product for people who don't quite know what they want until they're shown something that isn't it.

Not prepared to advocate professional juries, but off the top of my head, I'd have a professional juror train in law, statistics, demographics, forensic science, and cognitive biases.

My point is that using violence to silence intellectual adversaries is very different from using violence against a perceived wartime enemy.

"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology." - Larry Niven

"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science!" - Agatha Heterodyne / Cinderella (explaining what Niven meant), Girl Genius

pjeby240

I always heard this one as "Any technology that's distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced." It's a bit more useful as a motivational formula for people developing things than the other formulations. ;-)

Except that based on videos and letters left behind, the hijackers considered Americans to be not just intellectual adversaries, but wartime ones. I believe the majority of the hijackers cited American military presence in the Middle East and military and economic support of Israel to that effect.

-1SilasBarta
So what were the specific arguments they used when persuading acolytes of the great satan that their position has more merit? Or was it confined to "BOOM!"?

If my tenants paid rent with a piece of paper that said "moneeez" on it, I wouldn't call it paying rent.

Or they pay you with forged bills. You think you'll be able to deposit them at the bank and spend them to buy stuff, but what actually happens is the bank freezes your account and the teller at the store calls the police on you.

RA really has moved the goalposts on WA, which is one of those Dark Arts that we're not supposed to employ, even unintentionally.

It would certainly be annoying and a bit questionable to bring up your points of disagreement one at a time like RA did, but as long as he stops to update after receiving the information from WA, I don't know if I'd call this moving the goalposts.

Paul Graham said something very similar about figuring out a program:

"I was taught in college that one ought to figure out a program completely on paper before even going near a computer. I found that I did not program this way. I found that I liked to program sitting in front of a computer, not a piece of paper. Worse still, instead of patiently writing out a complete program and assuring myself it was correct, I tended to just spew out code that was hopelessly broken, and gradually beat it into shape. Debugging, I was taught, was a kind of final pas... (read more)

4PhilGoetz
The people who taught you to architect programs before coding were also aware of this trade-off. It's a lot easier to write the small programs assigned in college that way, than the large programs you will write in the real world. This is not the top-down vs. bottom-up debate; both top-down and bottom-up design architect first. It is related to the concept of waterfall/iterative/incremental design; incremental designers can paint themselves into a corner. I've written a lot of big programs, and I've never regretted the time spent architecting them. I have sometimes wished I had spent more time designing them before starting. Fatal design errors that crop up down the road are more likely to be language-related: Your program gets so complicated that you have to rewrite it in a compiled language to run it in real-time or to avoid running out of RAM; or you discover that C++ templates don't work as advertised, or that Java can't allocate 2G of RAM, after you've already writtten 3000 lines.

Agreed, they can definitely get a bit absurd. This one is one of my favourites:

http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/13-TheBalticWarCD/TheBalticWarCD/The%20World%20Turned%20Upside%20Down/0743498747__24.htm

The short story "The Road Not Taken" by Harry Turtledove is also a good one if you can find it.

The concept is popular on 4chan's /tg/ board where they're called "humanity" stories or "humanity, fuck yeah" stories. Here's one archive of such threads:

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive.html?tags=humanity

I like the "Humans are insane" series of threads.

Humans are pretty close to immune to memetic viral attacks. In other cultures, memetic attacks are devastating weapons of war, that are carefully researched in hidden facilities where the researchers go through daily psychological analysis to keep the attack from escaping- and occasionally it does anyway, and they have to vaporize the sector. Humans use them to sell hamburgers. Human memetics is the flat-out most advanced in the universe, and they don't even have clinical immortality yet. Individ

... (read more)
9AdeleneDawner
Most of these have me going "argh, physics/game theory/evolution doesn't work that way!", but there's a few good ones in there. I liked this one and this one in particular, though the former has a fair bit of evolution fail in it.
Load More