I'm very impressed with the high proportion of results that turn out to be funny. I'm not sure whether this says something about your skill at programming the generater, about LW, or both.
Think it mainly says something about the nature of humour and human language actually. Or possibly my skill at coming up with the phrase templates- The actual logic is just iterated find-replace, and I've used the same engine earlier on a widely different subject with similar results.
So, I were looking at this, and then suddenly this thing happened.
EDIT:
New version! I updated the link above to it as well. Added LOADS and LOADS of new content, although I'm not entirely sure if it's actually more fun (my guess is there's more total fun due to varity, but that it's more diluted).
I ended up working on this basically the entire day to day, and implemented practically all my ideas I have so far, except for some grammar issues that'd require disproportionately much work. So unless there are loads of suggestions or my brain comes up with lots of new ideas over the next few days, this may be the last version in a while and I may call it beta and ask for spell-check. Still alpha as of writing this thou.
Since there were some close calls already, I'll restate this explicitly: I'd be easier for everyone if there weren't any forks for at least a few more days, even ones just for spell-checking. After that/I move this to beta feel more than free to do whatever you want.
I saw this comment in Top Comments before reading the top-level post, and I thought the quote was by a human (as a reply to someone who was offended by the homo hypocritus explanation of something).
I am shocked that (according to Wei Dai's page), this is now my most popular comment ever (with the runnerup at 39 points). It's not that funny an insult of Robin, guys.
I took it that way, although since it was machine-generated there's no 'intent' involved by the original speaker... Robin reminds me strongly of Hellman's quote about cynicism - being an unpleasant way of telling the truth.
2TGM
At the time of writing, it had more upvotes than the OP... surely that's not right?
2gwern
Well, you know the old joke about the repairman: the $1 for the labor, $99 for know what to labor on!
* Why haven't I signed up for a horcrux?
* I'm signed up with Alcor, so Lukeprog's love life will be frozen when I die.
* Reversed Quirrellmort is not deathism.
* I am running on corrupted tit-for-tat.
* If you're not getting the sequences, you're spending too many resources on unfriendly AI.
* A ridiculously complicated zendo rule is what the Stanford prison experiment feels like from the inside.
* Absence of the least convenient possible world is evidence of applause lights.
* What is true is already so. negging doesn't make it worse.
8thescoundrel
Eliezer Yudkowsky is what acausal sex feels like from the inside.
Inside Eliezer Yudkowsky's pineal gland is not an immortal soul, but counterfactual hugging.
8Randaly
"The thirteenth virtue of rationality is updating."
"The thirteenth virtue of rationality is meta-contrarianism."
"What is true is already so. negging doesn't make it worse."
"Eliezer Yudkowsky doesn't have a chin; under his beard is Eliezer Yudkowsky."
"Eliezer Yudkowsky updates the New York meetup group to fit his priors."
"Sunk costs is highly correlated with two-boxing." (Could be valid- this actually sounds like an interesting topic for an experiment.)
"If you're not getting my karma score, you're spending too many resources on getting downvoted on less wrong."
7Armok_GoB
To clarify, since I made the mistake and wrote out a long rant before noticing it and deleting said rant: This thing is not a different version of mine, but his own implementation that follows the original cords against rationality much more closely and in general has an entirely different philosophy than mine.
6faul_sname
I actually like your implementation better, just because of the sheer complexity of the sentences it sometimes outputs (makes it sound more like LWers).
5Armok_GoB
I'd better hope so, considering how much more complex my implementation is and how much more content I put into it.
8faul_sname
...I am officially impressed (I just had a look at your code: it's considerably more complex, as well as allowing for recursion. You may not be the best at spelling, but you are quite impressive as a coder.)
4Armok_GoB
Thanks! ^_^
0NoSignalNoNoise
2FiftyTwo
This needs to be written, or in fact any rationalist Rand crossover
Expanded, that means, "I want to want to want to not want [to smoke]." (Replace bracketed term with any other akratic habit. Remember, akrasia is, loosely, when you want to not want to do something.)
I'm still trying to unwind that. Belated happy birthday btw
6Giles
Shouldn't that be "I want to want to (want to smoke and want to not want to smoke)"?
Hmmm it seems we now have the technology to build an automated LessWrong poster. Merely program the bot to comment in heavy traffic threads where it sure to be noticed then after a fixed amount of time delete any comments that get less than 1 karma.
I hereby request that the technology be named The Automated Teacher's Password Guesser, because your comment about the higher frequency of such comments was the first thing I thought of when I saw this.
after a fixed amount of time delete any comments that get less than 1 karma.
Of course, it's practically a solved machine learning problem to also use those comments to learn what sorts of comments get downvoted and improve the bot.
If someone makes a really well-optimized version of Armok's bot that pays attention to key words in comments and replies somewhat intelligently, I'll give them the Will_Newsome LessWrong account to use for that purpose.
Alternatively I think a Will_Newsome bot that made lots of references to Leibniz and algorithmic information theory and decision theory concepts and then appealed to secret evidence would be pretty cool.
Alternatively I think a Will_Newsome bot that made lots of references to Leibniz and algorithmic information theory and decision theory concepts and then appealed to secret evidence would be pretty cool.
Awesome, that'll go great alongside the "Ban comments by Will Newsome" bot we provide Alicorn!
You're too conservative Konkvistador, I think I'd rather use these powers for chaos & destruction. Bwa, ha, ha.
4Karmakaiser
I'm to the right of Konkvistador and I think this is a fully general argument contra Konkvistador.
4Multiheaded
I'm to the left of him and I agree, but I have to note that in our age political large-C Conservatism and being small-c conservative in practice have basically nothing to do with each other.
""utility is isomorpic to a matrochika brain" is obviusly false" is obviusly false if and only if In the new version of Newcomb's problem, you have to choose between a box containing the truth and a box containing counterfactual politics
Btw, the spelling errors were really bothering me, so I opened the JS and corrected it all. (I'd post it here, but it says "comment too long" and would probably do the same for a PM.)
Edit: I put it on pastebin for 24 hours. Thanks Vladimir_Nesov!
AUGH! I explicitly said in the OP NOT to do this. I'll be adding more and redoing this and in general it's just a lot of wasted effort that will have to be redone!
4SilasBarta
Sorry, I figured I had finished it soon enough that you could incorporate the spelling corrections before making more modifications.
This looks like a job for ... Version Control! ~cheesy superhero music~
0Armok_GoB
The site I'm using, JSbin, sort of has Version Control built in. But you didn't use that...
Anyway, trying to copy the fixes like that from one version to another is probably more job then just redoing it from scratch. Less obviously, spellchecking new stuff added on top chaotically probably is more work than just doing it over as well. Hence, waiting until it's out of alpha before handling it. Once I want help with the spelling I'll probably post instructions on how to do it in a way that won't interfere with other stuff.
2SilasBarta
And I also did it for my personal benefit (while using the generator on my computer), even if it would have no impact on future revs. So there. :-P j/k
0[anonymous]
You can link to your edit by copying the URL and removing the /edit portion, right?
Less Wrong is not a cult, so long as our meetups don't include a Matrioshka brain.
I'm an aspiring human
"politics is isomorpic to politics" is obviusly false
In the new version of Newcomb's problem, you have to choose between a box containing sex and a box containing the coherent extrapolated volition of Pinkie Pie
My first result: "I'm an aspiring rationalist."
I was confused as to why this was funny, until I hit generate again and got "the choherent extrapolated volition of LessWrong is the mind-killer if and only if torture is truly part of Pinkie Pie."
Edit: Followed by "The truth is isomorphic to sex."
I'm very impressed with the high proportion of results that turn out to be funny. I'm not sure whether this says something about your skill at programming the generater, about LW, or both.
Think it mainly says something about the nature of humour and human language actually. Or possibly my skill at coming up with the phrase templates- The actual logic is just iterated find-replace, and I've used the same engine earlier on a widely different subject with similar results.
There's a Javascript library by Andrew Plotkin for this sort of thing that handles 'a/an' and capitalization and leaves your code less repetitive, etc.
Weird, I just found this random helpful post, marked as down-voted by me and with a strong aversion attached. Fixed the vote, but can't figure out if the aversion is a bug or a feature.
I estimate a sixty three percent probability that a/an babyeater would tile the universe with decision theory if and only if the set of all possible fetishes is isomorpic to the New York meetup group if and only if in the new version of Newcomb's problem, you have to choose between a box containing any improperly-programmed upload and a box containing the configuration space of all possible minds.
In the new version of Newcomb's problem, you have to choose between a box containing the truth and a box containing physics.
Does this mean that there is no physics in the truth-box? That's an awesome box! I think I'm more excited about the box than what is inside it! Do I get to keep the box?
"what is true is already so. the statement that "a/an upload of Pinkie Pie will kill you because you are made of the utility function of the Society for Rare Diseases in Cute Puppies that it could use for something else." doesn't make it worse" is obviously false? Have a lot of caring!
hrm...
You make a compelling argument that a/an babyeater is the art of winning at infanticide.
"In the new version of Newcomb's problem, you have to choose between a box containing the world of My little babyeater: Friendship is infanticide and a box containing an Unfriendly upload of Robin Hanson."
I'll be honest, given Robin's apparent enchantment with em hell and how the 'poor also smile', I think I'm going to go with turning the world into My Little Babyeater: Friendship is Infanticide. Hey, lots of societies historically practiced infanticide and were decent enough places to live.... At least that would preserve most current human values.
Given that I wrote this Orion's Arm idea as an exploration of one possible lifestyle involving multiple instantiations of a single individual... I find that I am well pleased.
I love everything you write.
Also, I keep meaning to contact you by email but keeps forgetting.
0DataPacRat
In that case - conquer your akrasia and email me as soon as you read this. :)
(If you don't have my contact info, it's easy enough to remember - I'm DataPacRat at DataPacRat dot com.)
Is it bad that I almost instantly find a way to make sense of nearly all of these? For example:
This may sound a bit crazy right now, but hear me out: a/an anthill is an aspiring ontologically basic mental entity.
Sounds like a reference to Hofstadter's musings on reductive versus holistic descriptions of reality in Godel, Escher, Bach, when he used an anthill as an example.
In an Iterated Prisoners' Dilemma, Pinkie Pie beats you
General Artificial Intelligence is an aspiring human
In the new version of Newcomb's problem, you have to choose between a box containing Eliezer Yudowsky and a box containing the choherent extrapolated volition of Pinkie Pie
universal death is not decision theory
Less Wrong is not a cult so long as our meetups don't include you. (OUCH!)
(deleted it by accident, but something like) "The 25th virtue of rationality is avoid LessWrong at all co
" 'What is true is already so. The coherent extrapolated volition of God doesn't make it worse' is obviusly false if and only if timeless politics is isomorphic to truth if and only if the tenth virtue of rationality is 'Let me not become attached to the map I may not want' " is obviously false.
Thanks for making this! It's motivated me to copy and play around with your code, which I haven't actually done with code before and which turns out to be insanely low hanging fruit for learning. (Which you already knew, but I didn't.)
You're welcome!
However, don't do that quite yet since I'm planing to do more stuff and it'd lead to a mess of forking and having to redo things over and over. Feel free, and even encouraged, to make suggestions thou! (except spelling ones, to many of those to be workable at this stage)
Exception is if you're redoing most of the templates and adapting it to some other form of statements than deeply wise LessWrong ones. Feel free to do that kind of using the engine as much as you want. Strongly recommend using the JSbin Clone feature for that.
The seventy fiveth virtue of rationality is "It is especially important to eat a/an upload of Eliezer Yudowsky's model of Lukeprog's coherent extrapolated volition and torture which impinges upon the New York meetup group".
Grammar is not a strange loop through subordinate clauses dammit. ><
Have you updated it since? It seems to be getting a lot better! After I started recording good ones, I got:
* You know what a/an improperly-programmed upload of Pinkie Pie say: one person's torture is another person's rationality.
* Corrupted Pinkie Pie would tile the universe with hypotheses.
* The twenty fiveth virtue of rationality is "Beware of the utility function of any improperly-programmed General Arteficial Intelegences".
* Subjective physics is not rationality.
* What are your priors on if a/an General Arteficial Intelegence once said: "look, just rejecting the sanity waterline and the planning fallacy doesn't make someone a/an Friendly upload of Eliezer Yudowsky."?
* This may sound a bit crazy right now, but hear me out: that which can be destroyed by a/an human should be.
* Before Lukeprog goes to sleep, it scans it's computer for uploaded copies of a/an Unfriendly upload of Lukeprog.
* This may sound a bit crazy right now, but hear me out: corrupted Omega is vulnerable to acausal infanticide.
(These are still at about the level of the results in my previous comment, but I got them a lot more frequently.)
0Armok_GoB
Nope. Either you're choosing from a larger sample this time or it's just luck.
2SilasBarta
Another awesome one:
* you make a compelling argument that a/an Unfriendly upload of Omega would tile the universe with rationality if and only if a/an rationalist is an aspiring god
I'm very impressed with the high proportion of results that turn out to be funny. I'm not sure whether this says something about your skill at programming the generater, about LW, or both.
Think it mainly says something about the nature of humour and human language actually. Or possibly my skill at coming up with the phrase templates- The actual logic is just iterated find-replace, and I've used the same engine earlier on a widely different subject with similar results.