To judge quotes on their own merits, if without some context, I propose an experimental thread in which the original authors of quotes are somehow hidden.
This page is to centralize discussion for the AI Box Role Plays I will be doing as the AI. Rules are as here. In accordance with "Regardless of the result, neither party shall ever reveal anything of what goes on within the AI-Box experiment except the outcome. Exceptions to this...
Let's refine each other's understanding of biological evolution, as encapsulated as best we can manage in a short comment. It's time to be lesswrong. Starting with me.
Here is a place to talk about questions for the speakers at the Singularity Summit. People are often afraid that they have stupid questions, and fail to ask their good questions that would have benefited many - either by increasing their understanding, showcasing the character of a speaker who admits...
Hello LW, There has been some interest around here about atypical mental phenomena such as synesthesia, blindsight, absence of mental images, and so on. There have also been sappy posts and requests for help. I'd like to discuss my personal quirks in the hopes that it is interesting and someone...
This thread has an experimental format for posting rationality quotes. Here is the format: For those posting quotes: Post the quote as usual, but not the author, original language translated from, or other information. That information is to be input after the quote according to the following format: [Source](http://linkgoes.here "hovertext...
Questions for discussion, with my tentative answers. Assuming I am wrong about some things, there is something interesting to consider. This is inspired by the recent SL4-type and CEV-centric topics in the discussion section. Questions: I 1. Is it easier to calculate the extrapolated volition of an individual or a...
To judge quotes on their own merits, if without some context, I propose an experimental thread in which the original authors of quotes are somehow hidden.
I honestly can't think of a single instance where I was convinced of an informal, philosophical argument through an academic paper. Books, magazines, blog posts - sure, but papers just don't seem to be a thing.
I have been convinced of the invalidity of other arguments by academic papers.
I have also been significantly persuaded by the failure of academic papers to make their case. That is, seeing that a poor argument is held in wide regard is evidence that the advocates of that position have no better arguments.
I too do not remember being convinced of many things by formal academic papers, just a very few things.
Probably most importantly, what do you view as the purpose of SIAI's publishing papers? Or, if there are multiple purposes, which do you see as the most important?
In order to think of some things I do that only have one important purpose, it was necessary to perform the ritual of closing my eyes and thinking about nothing else for a few minutes by the clock.
I plan on assuming things have multiple important purposes and asking for several, e.g. "what do you view as the purposes of X."
There was nothing wrong with what you said, but it is strange how easily the (my?) mind stops questioning after coming up with just one purpose... (read more)
However lately I realized I need to interact with other rationalists in order to further my development.
1) What made you believe this?
2) At present, what do you think are the best reasons for believing this?
Teaching tree thinking through touch.
These experiments were done with video game trees showing evolutionary divergence, and this method of teaching outperformed traditional paper exercises. Perhaps a simple computer program would make teaching probability trees easier, or the principles behind the experiments could be applied in another way to teach how to use these trees.
since presumably you're "updating" a lot, just like regular humans
It's a psychological trick to induce more updating than is normal. Normal human updating tends to be insufficient).
I say to myself in my mind, "nice clothes, nice clothes," alluding to belief as attire, and imagine they're wearing what most caused their statement.
For example, if someone said "Jesus never existed!" I might imagine them wearing a jacket that says "Respect me! I am sophisticated," or a hat saying "accept me, I'm a leftist just like you," or a backpack that says "I am angry at my parents."
Presumably without the ribbons they'd have to be paid more. And the status perks seem tied to the same thing that causes people to call war dead "heroes."
What about infantry v. armor? Or helicopter pilots v. people piloting drones from a base in Nevada? "Military" isn't too homogeneous a category.
This page is to centralize discussion for the AI Box Role Plays I will be doing as the AI.
Rules are as here. In accordance with "Regardless of the result, neither party shall ever reveal anything of what goes on within the AI-Box experiment except the outcome. Exceptions to this rule may occur only with the consent of both parties," I ask that if I break free multiple times I am permitted to say if I think it was the same or different arguments that persuaded my Gatekeepers.
In the first trial, with Normal_Anomaly, the wager was 50 karma. The AI remained in the box, upvote Normal_Anomay here, downvote lessdazed here. It was agreed to... (read more)
Let's refine each other's understanding of biological evolution, as encapsulated as best we can manage in a short comment.
It's time to be lesswrong. Starting with me.
Here is a place to talk about questions for the speakers at the Singularity Summit.
People are often afraid that they have stupid questions, and fail to ask their good questions that would have benefited many - either by increasing their understanding, showcasing the character of a speaker who admits to not knowing something, or showing by the lack of an adequate response that the speaker's argument is flawed.
This is an overblown fear that is quite irrational - irrational to the extent that their emotions lead them to think that the consequences of their asking a stupid question will be severe. People will have unpleasant emotional reactions if embarrassed, but their emotions are... (read more)
Hello LW,
There has been some interest around here about atypical mental phenomena such as synesthesia, blindsight, absence of mental images, and so on. There have also been sappy posts and requests for help. I'd like to discuss my personal quirks in the hopes that it is interesting and someone can help me.
I suffer from occasional hypnopompic sleep paralysis, which isn't uncommon. The unusual thing is that I remember my dreams every night, in extensive detail, usually several of them. Unfortunately, last night I vividly dreamt through what seemed like days' worth of having a severe hangover, all before I even woke up and had a real one, and it was a terrible experience. I'd like to be able to choose to drift into unconsciousness, as I occasionally do, to have a break from being mentally aware for such lengthy times spanning weeks.
Does anyone else have similar experiences? Has anyone read any scientific research on this subject? How do people not remember their dreams?
This thread has an experimental format for posting rationality quotes. Here is the format:
For those posting quotes:
Post the quote as usual, but not the author, original language translated from, or other information. That information is to be input after the quote according to the following format:
[Source](http://linkgoes.here "hovertext goes here")
For example:
>When an idea is wanting, a word can always be found to take its place.
[Source](http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/30216.html "Goethe, translated.")
The source information will be available by hovering the mouse over "Source", without opening a new page. This format allows quotations to be evaluated with less context available, with all that entails. I hope this allays some of the uncertainty regarding why words of the Bible or authors... (read 185 more words →)
Questions for discussion, with my tentative answers. Assuming I am wrong about some things, there is something interesting to consider. This is inspired by the recent SL4-type and CEV-centric topics in the discussion section.
Questions:
I
II
To judge quotes on their own merits, if without some context, I propose an experimental thread in which the original authors of quotes are somehow hidden.
Is the karma shown that accumulated from posts and comments that were made within the past 30 days, or from all votes on all posts within the past 30 days, regardless of the age of the post or comment?
I would like LW to be an environment in which we can learn by having honest and productive conversations. Fortunately, it substantially is such a place, but we can do better.
I would like to make a post about judging others favorably in the near future. To this end I think a useful mechanism would be to encourage people to post as comments scenarios in which they made erroneous assumptions about others' intent, and hide the conclusion in which they learned of their error from view until the reader has performed the exercise of considering what the innocuous actual explanation might be.
The purpose would be to make a repository of stories in which... (read 169 more words →)
I told someone that I learn best by first hearing a general principle and only afterward being given examples and analogies. She replied that my explanations are hard to follow when my analogies are not from subjects already familiar to and well understood by her. She went further and said that sometimes she understood novel things I was trying to explain, only to be confounded by my subsequent analogies. I immediately replied that in my opinion, analogies to familiar topics are of course much better teaching tools than those to unfamiliar ones, but obscure analogies primarily function as tests to ensure understanding rather than tools to convey it. Someone fully understanding a concept ought to be able to use that understanding as a guide to understand analogous unfamiliar topics.
I am very interested in what others have to say about my last point in particular and would appreciate comments.
I've seen it too. Even Nate Silver did it in this New York Times blog post, where he estimates the number of fans for each team in the National Hockey League "by evaluating the number of people who searched for the term “N.H.L.”" Using his method, Montreal is the only Canadian market with a team for which it is estimated that fewer than half of the people are avid hockey fans (as he defined it).
In Montreal, French is the official language and the language spoken at home by most people.In French, the NHL is called the "Ligue nationale de hockey," abbreviated "L.N.H."