All of anon895's Comments + Replies

I don't see how any of those questions relate to my post.

(For transparency:

I initially read your post as saying that, because RationalWiki isn't "really" rational, their opinion on LW is automatically wrong and stupid; that therefore, anyone who shares or has absorbed that opinion (since the RW link was just a conveniently available illustration) is also wrong and stupid; and that therefore, their potential opinion of me as part of it is either inconsequential or totally outside my control. Or maybe you meant that people you know don't take RW se... (read more)

This post (edit: fixed link) reminded me of this thread. 2.5 years later, I'm still not sure I understand your point or why it has a +5 score. How does what LW (which I guess I'm not part of) "wants"^W "wishes" relate to my concerns?

I agree that there are some important methodological issues with the paper, and it is far from the last word. What the criticisms you link don't address well, however, is that fact that (a) the paper is strengthened by the fact that it has a strong, validated theory of underlying behavior...

- "AnonySocialScientist", Reddit

Could you post a screenshot or archived version of your Facebook link?

Thanks for the link, but that's one weak headline. Next time try something like "Pro-deathers have been trying to make sure MIRI doesn't get Reddit's donation. Vote for MIRI so they are better able to help life!"

Edit: Well, I thought it was funny.

What do you think public perception would be of two teenage girls who played with the genitals of an unconscious drunk guy?

Tangentially, it might be similar to public perception of this writer. From the top-displayed comments:

This is rape. Period. You're one sick fuck.

Also:

Yes, because when a man is aroused it's totally not rape is it...Fucking hell you're stupid...

Edit: It might be a poor example of a gender-symmetrical act, since one actually can "play with" male genitals non-sexually; I do it whenever I use the bathroom, and have it... (read more)

I like how everyone who links this talks about the immortality tangent and ignores the first two panels and "suicide is not legitimate". You don't want to live? Too bad, it's your job! You're not happy? You're not trying hard enough! This mythological figure was happy, so you should be too! Depression is a choice!

I imagine because it was an implied insult and the intended friendly tone didn't come through or wasn't considered appropriate. Seems to be back to neutral, though.

Don't worry; I'm sure there are plenty of ways you can still contribute.

Edit: Well, I thought it was funny.

Recently stumbled into this. It's probably incomplete, but it's something.

I (and any other casual visitor) now have only indirect evidence regarding whether eridu's comments were really bad or were well-meaning attempts to share feminist insights into the subject, followed by understandable frustration as everything she^Whe said was quoted out of context (if not misquoted outright) and interpreted in the worst possible way.

As a low-status male, right now I'm less worried about being excluded from a meetup than I am about being publicly associated with LW at all. It already has a reputation (and not just for the things mentioned there); now it's a place where a comment like Jade's here isn't just downvoted, but downvoted to a level that labels it a troll comment not worth replying to.

Demand Media and eHow in particular have been criticized for large amounts of low-quality content...with poor quality articles intended mainly to drive up search results rather than inform....

Should I read your link or will I just be exposing myself to made-up unresearched advice?

You mean conspicuously not displaying the emotion that should fit the facts sends a signal that it's not present and that you possibly don't think it should be, a position that isn't exactly unheard of in the present world?

Huh. Worked fine for me using files from a previously existing setup of Kindle for PC under Windows XP.

People know Kindle DRM can currently be broken, right?

The comments on Reddit are worth reading:

Cognitive science is an oxymoron and who ever said the humanity is rational?

Also:

you know, not everything has to be reduced to effieciency and end results. humans and human society is still special even if some shut in bean counter thinks otherwise.

"Forbidden comparison fallacy", maybe. Googling "forbidden comparison" turns up at least one example of it. It was called "Comparing Apples and Oranges" in this comment, but that seems less descriptive.

Somehow I doubt that "regardless of circumstance or outward sign" is their wording and not yours.

(Edit) Also, the converse of "not everything that is not expressly forbidden by a law is good" is "not everything that causes the slightest incidental harm is unforgivable babyeating evil".

i've never heard of a carnivore who thought meat eating was morally better.

I suspect that you either haven't looked very hard or very long.

(I wrote this before seeing timtyler's post.)

If there is a rule that says 'optimize X for X seconds' why would an AGI make a difference between 'optimize X' and 'for X seconds'?

I does seem like you misinterpreted the argument, but one possible failure there is if the most effective way to maximize paperclips within the time period is to build paperclip-making Von Neumann machines. If it designs the machines from scratch, it won't build a time limit into them because that won't increase the production of paperclips within the period of time it cares about.

Which conversation ends in a fight? Which conversation ends in both people actually feeling more at ease?

They don't sound meaningfully different to me; you're saying the same thing, just less emotively and more casually.

I saw someone recently suggest saying (in a sympathetic tone) "What are you planning to do?". (Possibly preceded by something like "Yeah, I can understand why you would be".) I wouldn't expect good results from it in real life, but I like it anyway (and it might be better than some alternatives).

Inherent flaws of moral codes based on non-deterministic ideas of free will aside, I don't think I've ever seen a version of that argument where the two sides admitted that they were using different definitions of "be homosexual".

I find that kind of interesting, since my mom's similar behavior comes off as extremely arrogant to me. Electronics and computer software of any kind are the Domain of Men, and any problems she has with them are our responsibility to solve, no matter how many thousands of hours she's been using a particular system and no matter how unfamiliar it is to us. If you try to guide her toward figuring something out herself, she'll eventually grin and throw up her hands and say "Confusing! Confusing!" and repeat the request just do it for her.

On further ... (read more)

Followup to previous comment: I feel like this link from Reddit may apply.

But he might benefit from having her think she's blackmailing him.

Not wanting to open a possibly long article: is that the same thing as dissociation? Is dissociation the symptom and depersonalization a cluster of symptoms that includes it?

...which won't happen if the computronium is the most important thing and uploading existing minds would slow it down. The AI might upload some humans to get their cooperation during the early stages of takeoff, but it wouldn't necessarily keep those uploads running once it no longer depended on humans, if the same resources could be used more efficiently for itself.

Possibly relevant: AIXI-style IQ tests.

• No, we'll split it.

From what I've read, being able to credibly offer a free meal is a critical tool in some men's dating arsenal. Changing it to "well, if you want I'll pay, but I'd be really grateful if you'd chip in too" could leave him substantially weakened. Her making decisions on his behalf and talking about them as a couple after one date also seems like a bad sign.

• Hey, none of that, Neanderthal! (With a smile and or fake arm slap to indicate lightheartedness. Equivalent to assertiveness with humor.)

"Ha, ha! It's funny because ... (read more)

I got a little angry reading that (didn't follow the original link), but I'm feeling too lazy to discard the post I wrote, so:

• Never ever talk about previous [girlfriends], particularly their prowess in the bedroom. Your ex-[girlfriends] are your business only.

Thereby signalling to her (if she were rational) that she'll be equally a nonentity to you in a year, and/or (if you actively avoid the subject) that you handled your past relationships badly and are likely to do the same for your next.

• Never assume anything about your date until you choose to kn

The nice thing about Eliezer's stories is that they're much harder to accidentally take as fictional evidence. They come off as obviously ridiculous, so there isn't much danger that you'll accidentally interpret those worlds as instructive of our own. Easy to use correctly; hard to use incorrectly.''

It's an interesting thought, but I'm not sure I buy it as generally true; as long as the critical human-interaction parts work properly, I think I automatically believe moderately absurd fiction about as much as I do anything else. We believe plenty of things in the real world that are absurd by EEA standards.

I know the above post only had one downvote, but just to check: Didn't we already have a discussion on how signalling agreement with things is a normal part of healthy human interaction and cooperation, and that we don't really want to suppress it for some mechanical standard of "high content" or "signal/noise"?

Partway through, I had the urge to look up a past comment saying something like "I've seen philosophers argue, in apparently total sincerity, whether a man in a desert seeing a mirage of a lake that coincidentally has a lake just beyond it "really" knows the lake is there".

Unfortunately I can't find it now; it probably either didn't use the exact word "mirage", used another metaphor entirely, or was actually on OB. Searching "mirage" brought up a similar metaphor in Righting a Wrong Question, but that's making a different point.

Here, of course.

Ended up making the transfer over the phone.

...yep, didn't make it. I'll have to get to the bank early tomorrow and hope the mail is slow.

In a possibly bad decision, I put a $1000 check in the mailbox with the intent of going out and transferring the money to my checking account later today. That puts them at $123,700 using Silas' count.

Read first comic, said to self "This is terrible" halfway through, didn't read further. There may be room for improvement.

Part of the problem is that any attempt at direct enforcement or pressure could deter people from commenting in the first place, knowing that if they did they'd be expected to see any disagreements through to the end. (That's been mentioned in previous threads, I think.)

Random thought: Would individuals trying to shift the norm by setting an example work any better? Like, one person going through their comment history (possibly using the link here), and making a list in their profile page of unresolved disagreements and their current status (possibly inclu... (read more)

That clarifies it for me. Possibly related: Beyond the Reach of God.

Possibly related: Taking Ideas Seriously.

I was probably wrong in assuming I understood the discussion, in that case.

An AI that was a satisficer would't be "the" AI; it'd be the first of many.

Other possibilities: (6) It was a non-breathing imitation of a pig. (7) It was inside an invisible box isolating it from the surrounding air.

A few posts down.

A clever god applying its cleverness to the job of making itself invisible is going to succeed.

I was expecting the link to be Mundane Magic.