All of ata's Comments + Replies

ata00

Yes, me[2010-05] did not think of that :) I agree now

ata10

It's like how in a dream, you can see someone and know who they're supposed to be, even though they may look and act nothing like that person they supposedly are. Or how you can be in both the first and third person perspective at the same time.

Heh, I've recently had a few weird half-lucid dreams, where on some level I seem to know that I'm dreaming, but don't follow this to its logical conclusions and don't gain much intentionality from it... In one of them, I ran into a friend I hadn't seen in a long time and later found he'd left something of his wit... (read more)

ata230

The largest number is about 45,000,000,000, although mathematicians suspect that there may be even larger numbers. (45,000,000,001?)

4Benya
Set theorists sometimes remark that there are only very few natural numbers. I think this can be made more quantitative: Based on observations of their blackboard drawings and accompanying explanations, my current best estimate is that there are about five to ten. However, so far, my confidence in this estimate is only moderate; I still think the number could ultimately turn out to be as high as twenty.
ata50

Yay, it is you!

(I've followed your blog and your various other deeds on-and-off since 2002-2003ish and have always been a fan; good to have you here.)

ata150

Shut Up and Multiply (SUM)

Unfortunately that's not even a very good phrase to begin with, let alone as a name for an organization. People hearing it for the first time without context mostly seem to assume that refers to reproduction, presumably by comparison to the phrase "be fruitful and multiply", or at least have that come to mind and are confused about what it has to do with rationality.

4Grognor
Yes, I recall being very confused when I first saw that phrase in Three Worlds Collide. To this day I don't know why people use "multiply" instead of "calculate".
ata00

Would a "perfect implementation of Bayes", in the sense you meant here, be a Solomonoff inductor (or similar, perhaps modified to work better with anthropic problems), or something perfect at following Bayesian probability theory but with no prior specified (or a less universal one)? If the former, you are in fact most of the way to an agent, at least some types of agents, e.g. AIXI.

0Ratheka
Well, I'm not personally capable of building AI's, and I'm not as deeply versed as I'm sure many people here are, but, I see an implementation of Bayes theorem as a tool for finding truth, in the mind of a human or an AI or whatever sort of person you care to conceive of / display, whereas the mind behind it is an agent with a quality we might called directedness, or intentionality, or simply an interest to go out and poke the universe with a stick where it doesn't make sense. Bayes is in itself already math, easy to put into code, but we don't understand internally directed behavior well enough to model it, yet.
ata60

I thought the same and wondered if it might have been intentional and meant ironically (since IIRC that is not meant to be the actual eventual name of the organization anyway). Either way, not the best association.

ata180

Last year I formatted the TDT paper in LaTeX to teach myself LaTeX. (It's done, aside from a diagram that was missing from the original and possibly a citation or two that were underspecified.) Would this be useful to you, if I reformatted it for the new template?

5lukeprog
Yes! You can even just send the tex file to me via email.
ata30

It's a Google Group, sending any email to that address will indeed subscribe you to the list.

ata40

Or you've been neglecting to treat your Spontaneous Duplication.

ata00

You didn't delete the comment though, it's still visible.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
ata00

I'm trans (MTF) and bi leaning a little bit toward gay.

I'm better with non-real-time communication than with things like IM, but in any case feel free to PM me if you'd like to ask anything.

ata110

"Magical gods" in the conventional supernatural sense generally don't exist in any universes, insofar as a lot of the properties conventionally ascribed to them are logically impossible or ill-defined, but entities we'd recognize as gods of various sorts do in fact exist in a wide variety of mathematically-describable universes. Whether all mathematically-describable universes have the same ontological status as this one is an open question, to the extent that that question makes sense.

(Some would disagree with referring to any such beings as &qu... (read more)

0Unweaver
Thanks, that makes more sense to me. I didn't think qualities like omnipotence and such could actually be realized. Any way you can give me an idea of what these godlike entities look like though? You indicate they aren't actually "magical" per se - so they would have to be subject to whatever laws of physics reign in their world, no? I take it we must talking about superintelligent AIs or alien simulators or something weird like that?
ata40

I (or someone) should update that page; the earliest source of the horseshoe story that I know of is from a 1927 essay by Heisenberg:

Niels closed the conversation with one of those stories he liked to tell on such occasions: "One of our neighbors in Tisvilde once fixed a horseshoe over the door to his house. When a mutual acquaintance asked him, 'But are you really superstitious? Do you honestly believe that this horseshoe will bring you luck?' he replied, 'Of course not; but they say it helps even if you don't believe it.'"

Edit: Actually tha... (read more)

ata70

Indeed

Note also that I have a general policy of keeping anything related to religion out of the rationality book - that there be no mention of it whatsoever.

ata20

I regularly let tabs proliferate until I have a dozen windows open and hundreds of tabs between them and the browser gets so slow that I have to restart it or it just crashes. When this happens, I usually don't feel like waiting for hundreds of tabs to reload, so I move the saved browser session aside, telling myself I'm just making a "temporary" new session, and then the same thing happens and I never revisit any of my past sessions. I have browser session files dating back to… 2007? That can't be right, this has been going on for way longer than that… maybe I have the older ones on a backup somewhere.

Anyway, I think I have a problem.

ata00

I had read Overcoming Bias, very sporadically, and without really keeping track of authors or reading things in sequence, for a couple years before I found LW through it around July or August 2009 (at which point I started reading it more systematically).

Earlier in 2009 I had read "The Singularity Is Near", which was my first interaction with transhumanism/singularitarianism, and I was an excited Kurzweilian for a bit, which probably primed me to be particularly interested when I found out that the most prolific blogger on these awesome blogs of victory was the cofounder of something called the Singularity Institute.

ata20

I can only assume he wasn't actually talking about an AGI-level breakthrough. I don't think I'd expect him to underestimate the impact or value of AGI that severely.

-2cousin_it
Actually "10 Microsofts" may be an overestimate :-) Microsoft's success in its mission to make personal computers ubiquitous seems important to making AGI possible.
0lessdazed
This is the man who thought Windows Me was a good idea.
ata140

I assumed that was more based on cultural norms than LW norms. Generally people don't discuss their IQs in polite company (or potentially-high-variance-IQ company, maybe), especially high IQs, because of the risk of being seen as bragging about something that other people may not view as high-status. In discussions outside LW I've heard people be somewhat condescending toward people who even admit to having gotten their IQs tested, as it's often associated with intellectual pretension. (And, in turn, being seen as claiming high status in a way that actually marks one as low-status is associated with social unawareness.)

2Risto_Saarelma
It would also be very easy to lie about your IQ if talking about your own IQ was socially acceptable.
4Oligopsony
Your supposition was correct; I also meant it to be a little more light-hearted than it seems to have been interpreted. (Full disclosure: I don't know, but I did rush over to consult the SAT/GRE conversion chart when it was posted, which is probably worse.)
0thomblake
Agreed
ata30

One (currently slightly downvoted) comment doesn't seem like much of an indicator of a growing community social norm. Does anything else give you that impression?

1thomblake
The comment indicating embarrassment seems to suggest a norm.
ata50

This could also be fixed by splitting the question into "gender (male/female/other)" and "Are you trans? (yes/no)", but then you'd get other complaints.

I was going to raise exactly that issue and suggest that solution. What complaints would you expect, though? I don't know if I'd really expect any non-trans LWers to be insulted at the mere suggestion that the question is worth asking.

Also, for the record: I'm not "considering cryonics". I'm cryocrastinating. Cryonics is obviously the best choice, and I should be signing up for it in the next five seconds.

I'd have liked having that option too.

2smk
Me too. Also, I would have liked to see monogamous and non-monogamous instead of monogamous and polyamorous.
ata1180

After Eliezer Yudkowsky was conceived, he recursively self-improved to personhood in mere weeks and then talked his way out of the womb.

ata110

I seem to recall that we have WordOfGod that the Love Shield does not exist in the MoR universe due to its preposterousness (for basically the exact reason you describe). I'm not sure exactly where I think I'm remembering that from, but if the memory is correct, then I suppose it was probably on LW or in the Author's Notes. Anyone remember?

ata00

I would say that spite-voting isn't a large enough problem to need a technical solution unless somebody's being hugely egregious, and if someone's being hugely egregious, there are admins that can step in, right?

There are admins that can step in, but I'm not sure if they have in past egregious cases. Aside from Will Newsome, I think there have been other significant instances of mass downvoting (at least PJ Eby, maybe others), and (correct me if I'm mistaken) I don't recall anything being directly done about either in the end, except the removal of voti... (read more)

ata00

I try not to think (primarily) in terms of convenience, because from everything I've heard, it seems like adult cases of gender dysphoria don't go away and only get worse over time, eventually outweighing almost anything else. Conditional on the hypothesis that I do in fact have a transgender brain, I'd expect that if I decided to avoid transitioning now for instrumental reasons, I'd only end up regretting it later.

I did have some thoughts along those lines… e.g. at one point I was mildly wishing to be taller (I'm 5'6") for social impressiveness reaso... (read more)

ata00

Yeah, I wouldn't have proposed hard limits, I was thinking more of an automatic (i.e. not involving manually poking around in the database) means of allowing the administrators to check on large-scale suspicious voting and reverse it if necessary. (And, as I said, I'm by no means worried about my 16 precious votes (though I'd be starting to get concerned by 160), but this incident reminded me of the general problem and I wanted to check if I had missed any changes to how such things are handled.)

I might support just making all votes public; since on LW the... (read more)

ata20

If you don't mind me asking, what were the observations that lead you to locate and consider that hypothesis in the first place, and how did you come to reject it?

For my part, I've been trying always to hug the query as tightly as possible; when I can get myself to stop thinking abstractly and verbally about whether or not I'm "transgender" and instead wonder perceptually and at the object level about individual, separable questions such as "Have I ever been happy about becoming more masculine?" (if not, I don't have to, whether or not ... (read more)

2Throway
Evidence leading to hypothesis: Strongest evidence was a desire to have no facial hair. I'm also intrigued by the idea of having no body hair. Today I consider these to be cosmetic body modifications which I may eventually pay to have, finances permitting. As a teenager, I sometimes fantasized being a girl; I considered this weak evidence because I found it plausible that doing so as much as I did was within the range of typical variation for cismales. Also I found it annoying to have "dangly bits", but I concluded that the main consideration seemed to be convenience. I'm weakly convinced that bottom surgery is minus-EV with respect to convenience, though it's possible for technology to improve. Medium-sized boobs instead would probably be more inconvenient. Small boobs instead would probably be less inconvenient; I suspect they might be more fun than no boobs. And they don't seem /that/ inconvenient; I should mention that my male bits also don't seem /that/ inconvenient to me now. The rest of this comment will be far more articulate than my thinking at the time, but I think it's close enough. I think my feelings can be decomposed to two orthogonal categories: Munchkinism, and desire to be androgynous. Transgender is a particularly conspicuous cluster in hypothesis-space. But my explanation is also simple, and fits well. I'm bothered that I can't come up with any really strong predictions to distinguish Transgender versus "Androgyny" (defined as shorthand for "desire to be androgynous"), and also that I have no sense of the ratio Pr(Transgender) : Pr("Androgyny"). Even my rather low level of body dysphoria is not that great for distinguishing. I think this is because the Transgender cluster is spacious enough that it approaches really damn close to "Androgyny". Come to think of it, I wonder if Munchkinism influenced the conclusion. You'd expect Transgender-or-not to almost completely outweigh it in a utility calculation, but hmm... (Munchkinism, or at least my
ata00

Does LW have any system in place for detecting and dealing with abuses of the karma system? It looks like someone went through around two pages of my comments and downvoted all of them between yesterday and today; not that this particular incident is a big deal, I'm only down 16 points, but I'd be concerned if it continues, and I know this sort of thing has happened before.

-4[anonymous]
Karma is a mostly pointless number that doesn't really provide you with any real information. EDIT: To clarify, I was talking about total karma. I can't really follow the details of the ensuing discussion because either one or both of the participants seem to have deleted parts of their comments -- there are quotes that have no antecedent, for instance -- and so I don't know really what to do with it. There are two main arguments I could formulate against using karma as a measure of relative contribution. The first is based on common experience here on LW. For instance, everything proximally close to a comment by Yudkowsky seems to receive far higher karma than similar comments in other places, an effect I termed "karmic wake" in one place. No, I don't have data, but it seems that way nonetheless. The second argument is that the more seriously people take karma, the more worthwhile it would be to exploit the system, c.f. Goodhart's Law. If I assign any meaning to the number of downvotes received by a particular comment, it would be something along the lines of, "Of the X people (essentially unknown) who viewed this comment and read it and the surrounding context, Y more people of some fraction of X were in a good enough mood to upvote (or a bad enough mood to downvote)." That's a far cry from "Y more people who voted believed this comment was good for LW," and it's coherent with karma systems I've interacted with in other communities. For example, consider this somewhat recent Reddit post.
0KPier
Discussed here. Short answer: no. Longer answer: Voting directly from user pages was taken away. People have also suggested limits on the amount of karma you can add/subtract from a user in a given amount of time, but if one is implemented it will likely be bigger than 16 (I'd like the ability to downvote two posts by the same user in the same day.) But you have 5000 karma. I really wouldn't worry over 16, or 160.
ata10

Streamline, from their newest album, also seems fairly transhumanist, and in a more hopeful way than most of their songs.

Also, by the unholy power of confirmation bias, I hereby declare that Testament is about humanity's recklessness and apathy in the face of existential risks, and Tomorrow Never Comes is about our final desperate and ultimately futile efforts to stave off doomsday after having waited too long to act.

ata250

Apparently, many humans have a superpower whereby they can force themselves to do things they do not already feel pull-motivated to do, as though lifting themselves by their own bootstraps. I'm very jealous of this power and also very frustrated that most people who do have it are also unfamiliar with the typical mind fallacy and are confused about free will and think they understand their power but can only "explain" it in terms that sound to me like childish platitudes by now and certainly don't have any technical content, so of course they usu... (read more)

ata40

A well-designed optimization agent probably isn't going to have some verbal argument processor separate from its general evidence processor. There's no rule that says she either has to accept or refute humans' arguments explicitly; as Professor Quirrell put it, "The import of an act lies not in what that act resembles on the surface, but in the states of mind which make that act more or less probable." If she knows the causal structure behind a human's argument, and she knows that it doesn't bottom out in the actual kind of epistemology that woul... (read more)

0Luke_A_Somers
… but if she wants to kill all humans, then she's not Alice as given in the example! Alice may even be totally on board with keeping humans alive, but have a weird way of looking at things that could possibly result in effects that would fit on the Friendly AI critical failure table. The idea is to provide environmental influences so she thinks to put in the work to avoid those errors.
ata30

But she won't be searching for reasons not to kill all humans, and she knows that any argument on our part is filtered by our desire not to be exterminated and therefore can't be trusted.

1Luke_A_Somers
Arguments are arguments. She's welcome to search for opposite arguments.
ata110

Roughly true, but downvoted for being basic (by LW standards) to the point of being an applause light. Good Rationality Quotes are ones we can learn from, not just agree with.

ata120

For starters, if she can prove she's friendly, then she can operate openly without causing nearly as much justified concern - which, in the early stages, will be helpful. Whatever her purposes are, if the restrictions of being friendly don't interfere as much as they help, that's a win.

If her current utility function is even a little bit different from Friendliness, and she expects she has the capacity to self-modify unto superintelligence, then I'd be very surprised if she actually modified her utility function to be closer to Friendliness; that would ... (read more)

0Luke_A_Somers
At least, at a first naive view. Hence a search for reasons that might overcome that argument.
ata10

Query, a unicorn pony of ata.

Awesome, thank you!!

Could I use that as my Facebook profile picture?

2Alicorn
At the bottom of the page of collected ponies, note the CC license :)
ata20

lesswrong.{com,net,org} are registered to Trike, and I seem to recall that they manage its hosting and technical administrative aspects as well.

4Kevin
Yeah, it's something like Trike technically owns much of the relevant aspects of Less Wrong but does so on behalf of Eliezer and the Singularity Institute.
ata110

"No. You have just fallen prey to the meta-Dunning Kruger effect, where you talk about how awesome you are for recognizing how bad you are."

Horatio__Caine on reddit

-1JoshuaZ
You could say that... puts on sunglasses ... his competence killed him. Cue music. yeahhh
ata100

I would like very very much to read that sequence. Might it be written at some point?

ata30

It's anthropomorphism to assume that it would occur to advanced aliens to try to understand us empathetically rather than causally/technically in the first place, though.

2Logos01
Anthropomorphism? I think not. All known organisms that think have emotions. Advanced animals demonstrate empathy. Now, certainly it might be possible that an advanced civilization might arise that is non-sentient, and thus incapable of modeling other's psyche empathetically. I will admit to the possibility of anthropocentrism in my statements here; that is, in my inability to conceive of a mechanism whereby technological intelligence could arise without passing through a route that produces intelligences sufficiently like our own as to possess the characteristic of 'empathy'. It's one thing to postulate counter-factuals; it's another altogether to actually attempt to legitimize them with sound reasoning.
ata50

P(M) > 1

Typo?

If observing a dead cat causes the waveform to collapse such that the cat is dead, then P(D) = P(D) + P(M)(1-P(D)). This is possible only if P(D) = 1.

Sorry if I'm missing something, but are you implying that the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the waveform collapse happens so as to retroactively make the cat dead if Schrödinger would have mistaken the cat for dead? Why would the sort of model that forms in Schrödinger's brain after the fact control what did in fact happen, even given the Copenhagen interpretation? (I didn't think it was quite that silly.)

0PhilGoetz
Typo. I'm going to add my comment reply (below) to the post, in response to your question.
ata-10

Since the above comment of mine was posted, I actually became a big fan of VNV Nation (thanks Eliezer! :P) and downloaded the rest of their discography. "The Farthest Star" is definitely a good one. Though I do remember from one live recording of "Further" that Ronan did in fact say that it's about living forever, but given the lyrics, it sounds more like it's about what it would be like for one or two people living forever while the rest of humanity dies, and honestly that probably would suck.

ata150

Yeah.

I am reminded of the ancient proverb: "Communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness."

ata00

In any case, that sort of thing could be done more elegantly with the HTML5 Canvas than with Java now (whether matching the current style or using something like Venn diagrams). Applets feel clunky.

2Emile
I agree that something in javascript would be better, but it may be better to stick to "simple" stuff (with divs) rather than relying on HTML5 that all browsers don't support yet. I don't think those technical choices are extremely important though.
ata210

To the extent that there are systematic neurological differences that account for transsexuality, there are physically plausible means whereby a more male brain could develop in a female body and vice versa (the fact that both sexes produce both estrogen and testosterone to varying degrees, and it may happen (I propose no specific mechanism) that someone's brain might develop with more influence from the one that doesn't match the one that's controlling the development of their physical sex characteristics, etc.). But there's no plausible way that a human ... (read more)

ata-10

I know this is tangential, but what is it with libertarians and unnecessarily gendered language? I truly don't mean that as a rhetorical question or an attack on you personally or any kind of specific political point, it's something I've been sincerely curious about before and maybe you know the answer; why do so many (obviously not all) libertarian and Randian types seem to be so attached to the whole everyone-is-"man"/"he" schema, including the ones who are way too young to have lived in times before people started realizing why that was a bad idea? Proportionally, even social conservatives don't seem to do that nearly as much anymore.

6Emile
"Use gender-neutral language" is motivated by an egalitarian instinct, and is said by (moral) authorities - both are things libertarians don't seem very fond of. (I don't identify very strongly as a libertarian, but can relate to the kneejerk reflex against being told what to do) Also, some people might not phrase it as "people started realizing why that was a bad idea" but rather as "sanctimonious politically correct busybodies started telling everybody how to speak resulting in some horrible eyesores like he/she or ey all over the place". I don't really buy the second version , but I don't think the first one is a fair description either (though it's hard to judge from a French point of view, gender and grammar work a bit differently in French).
0[anonymous]
I'd guess it's the gender split. It's a doozy. I think you'd see less gendered in libertarian journalism, where there are more women.
3JoshuaZ
I suspect that it is due to emotional reactions against feeling like one is being told what to do. I don't know what the correlation v. causation is in what comes first (the philosophical attitude leading to such emotional reactions or the emotional attitude making one more likely to accept a libertarian philosophical viewpoint). But given such an emotional reaction, one can easily see people going out of their way to avoid using the terminology that they might feel like they are being told to use.
3DataPacRat
That's a good question - though I'm not sure I can think of a good answer. I know that, in most of my writing, I tend to use 'they' as a gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun... when I wrote 'Man is a rational animal, etc', I was aware that I could have rephrased the whole thing to be gender-neutral... but when writing, I felt that it wouldn't have provided the same feeling - short, sharp, direct, to-the-point. The capitalized term 'Man' is, for good or ill, shorter than the word 'humanity', and "Man is a rational animal" has a different sense about it than (I wanted to insert 'the mealy-mouthed' here, which isn't a term I remember actually having used) "humans are rational creatures". There's probably something Dark-Artish in there somewhere, though it wasn't a conscious invocation thereof.
ata00

Aw damn, I'm traveling this month. I hope this a huge success that everyone will want to repeat some time! :)

ata50

The idea that one cannot derive an "ought" from an "is" is so often asserted as a settled fact and so rarely actually argued by means other than historical difficulty or personal incredulity. I'd prefer it be stated without the chaotic inversion, if at all — not "one cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is'", but "I don't know how to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'". In any case, have you read the metaethics sequence? A lot of people seem to disagree, but I found that it mostly resolved/dissolved this problem to my satis... (read more)

0[anonymous]
It may not be great, but I did give an argument. Roughly, again, a) wants do entail oughts (plausible) b) wanting = being in unproblematically naturalistic state ABC (from assumption of naturalism) c) from a and b, there is some true statement of the form 'being in naturalistic state ABC entails an ought' d) but no claim of the form 'being in naturalistic state ABC entails an ought' is plausible I infer from the contradiction between c and d to the falsity of b. If you could formulate your dissatisfaction as a criticism of a premise or of the reasoning, I'd be happy to listen. In particular, if you can come up with a plausible counter-example to (d), I would like to hear it.
ata60

Huh, I wonder how I missed this post the first time around; I was already questioning my gender when it was posted. (It sounds like I'm in the same boat you were in two years ago; 21, biologically male, feel like I'm almost definitely trans (several other similar details too), but still have a lot of "And yet..."s.)

The way it stands now, the so-called gender identity disorder isn't really something that is truly diagnosed, because it's based on self-reporting; you cannot look into someone's head and say "you're definitely transsexual"

... (read more)
1Throway
When I was 19 or 20, I seriously considered whether I was transgender, but eventually concluded that I'm cismale. I considered myself attracted-to-women at the time (though on reflection I'm slightly bi-curious, even now I mostly think of myself as straight). I was very worried about deciding incorrectly in either direction and afterward, about possibly having decided incorrectly. I'm still fairly confident though. Thought I'd post this because I imagine most stories are shared by people who did decide they were transgender. Hypothetically though, the amount of utilons you'd have to pay me to permanently transition (with no hypothetical changes to actual me or reality), while quite large, is probably substantially lower than for most cispeople.
0Pavitra
Indeed, I have the uncanny sense that I'm reading something by my future self.
4MixedNuts
Actually, a bunch of brain things we thought sorted between men and women turned out to sort between attraction to men and to women, so they won't distinguish a straight transwoman from a cis gay man. Also, there are quite a bunch of people who transition, then go back, so "it's not a life anyone would wish upon themselves" won't work. I'd much rather trust the brain scanner if it's at all trustworthy (and has a genderqueer slot, thank you very much). If it says "Nope, you're a girl"... well, I'll be seriously disappointed, but I'd make the best of it and be a dyke or something.
ata100

Looks pretty good so far. I'm not a libertarian or a furry, but I have aesthetic sympathies for both.

Random thoughts as they come to me:

The artwork is good.

Despite your intentions, the political stuff will probably be pretty mind-killery, and mainly looks like applause lights for libertarians. (Ask yourself if libertarians are likely to learn anything new from it and/or if non-libertarians are likely to seriously reconsider anything as a result of reading it.)

We generally avoid calling things "irrational". Since we don't want to get attached to r... (read more)

1DataPacRat
I've paid reasonably close attention to libertarian discussions for a few years now; and it was only this year that I had certain insights into the nature of politics, ideas which I hadn't seen discussed amongst libertarians before. It was one of these insights that I used as the basis of the comic's discussion on oligarchs and democracy - as far as I can tell, it is a new idea for its target audience. (Of course, I could be wrong.) I'll try to remember that in the future.
Load More