All of Measure's Comments + Replies

  • 2. You are under no obligation to sacrifice even a tiny amount of win percentage in the game or match to make the game finish faster, if you don’t want to do that.
  • 3. You are dishonorable scum if you play in order to make the game finish slower, in a way you would not behave if this was a fully untimed round.

Why draw the line here above game win percentage and match wp and yet below tournament wp?

1oumuamua
I would assume this is because wasting time (which is to the detriment of your opponent, and which he cannot control) in the first example is a not instrumental to achieving your goal. It is merely a side-effect. "Thou shall not profit from wasting time". If playing optimally involves making decisions that make the game go longer (such as waiting to draw additional countermagic or whatever), so be it. That said, I'm surprised Zvi said "match wp" here - I assume this is an oversight on his part. He should just have written "game wp".
Measure20

The entire class of General Assistants is only 8%, versus 4% for plant identifiers.

This graph looks like it's just counting the fraction of services in the category rather than having anything to do with revenue.

Measure30

Think of the derivative of the red curve. It represents something like "for each marginal person who switched their behavior, how many total people would switch after counting the social effects of seeing that person's switch". If the slope is less than one, then small effects have even-smaller social effects and fizzle out without a significant change. If the slope is greater than one, then small effects compound, radically shifting the overall expression of support.

Measure20

You could split each full tile into its four sub-tiles, each with six connection points. Then, each sub-tile can be one of 15 flavors.

Measure60

One property of most square-based knots I've seen that would be nice to preserve is if successive crossings alternate over/under.

2Ben
That's a very interesting idea. I tried going through the blue one at the end. Its not possible in that case for each string to strictly alternate between going over and under, by any of the rules I have tried. In some cases two strings pass over/under one another, then those same two strings meet again when one has travelled two tiles and the other three. So they are de-synced. They both think its their turn to go over (or under). The rules I tried to apply were (all of which I believe don't work): * Over for one tile, under for the next (along each string) * Over for one collision, under for the next (0, 1 or 2 collisions, are possible in a tile) * Each string follows the sequence 'highest, middle, lowest, highest, middle lowest...' for each tile it enters. My feeling having played with it for about 30-45 mins is that there probably is a rule nearby to those above that makes things nice, but I haven't yet found it.
Measure20

What do the "Required unnominated" and "Required frontpage" filters do? In particular, unchecking "Required frontpage" seems to filter out frontpage posts rather than including both frontpage and non-frontpage as expected.

4Raemon
Ah whoops. That was a bug for Required Frontpage. I have fixed that, and, put tooltips over both of them now.
Measure60

If you include the implied (0,0) point, then the quadratic still fits.

Measure120

At least one of the rot13 questions has a title P(X and Y) that doesn't match the X and Y described in the question.

3Screwtape
Whelp, that's a dumb error on my part. Fixed and thank you.
Measure122

I think most of these are "secretly adaptive/reasonable" in certain contexts.

  • Fundamental Attribution Error: Reduces computational load when predicting the behavior of strangers in short interactions.

  • Conjunction Fallacy: It's harder to tell a complex lie without getting caught, so complexity is evidence for honesty.

Measure50

Nuclear fusion fuel (also hydrogen) can get to 6×1014 J/kg, which is less than 3 OOMs off from the maximum.

We can even produce small amounts of anti-hydrogen, but not as a fuel.

3joec
That's true. The specific energy of antimatter is also actually double the "maximum" if you don't count the mass of the matter (1 gram of antimatter + 1 gram of air produces about 2 grams worth of energy). Funny enough, this is analogous to combustion fuel. The reason combustion fuel (on the order of 50 MJ/kg for most hydrocarbons) seems to be able to store much more energy than, say a high explosive (on the order of 5 MJ/kg) is because high explosives contain their own oxidizers, while combustion fuel uses the air as an oxidizer.
Measure20

It was probably thinking of sodium hydroxide rather than elemental sodium.

Measure30

Although possibly the red candidate would care more about CATXOKLA red issues and the blue about CATXOKLA blue issues, so it just increases variance rather than expected satisfaction?

Measure42

The advantage comes from having the parties care about your particular issues rather than those of the current swing states. This would look like both candidates being more favorable to you even if it's still 50-50 which of them wins (and even if they're still in roughly the same places on the left-right axis).

3Measure
Although possibly the red candidate would care more about CATXOKLA red issues and the blue about CATXOKLA blue issues, so it just increases variance rather than expected satisfaction?
Measure20

I remember there was a movement a while back to have states agree to award their electors to the national proportional vote winner, but I'm not sure what came of that.

Measure20

The problem statement says it's true (Omega did indeed send the message, and the problem statement says that only happens when the message is true).

I think, in effect, this boils down to Omega telling you "This stranger is a murderous psychopath. You'd better not give them the opportunity."

1notfnofn
It says ``if and only if this message is true" which would be kind of silly to include if it had to be true
2quetzal_rainbow
In effect, Omega makes you kill people by sending message. Imagine two populations of agents, Not-Pull and Pull. 100% members of Not-Pull receive the message, don't pull and kill one person. In Pull population 99% members do not get the message, pull and get zero people killed, 1% receive message, pull and in effect kill 5 people. Being member of Pull population has 0.05 expected casualties and being member of Not-Pull population has 1 expected casualty. Therefore, you should pull.
Measure20

Windows 10. I have a large HD monitor, and the default UI is really small, so I use the "make everything bigger" display setting at 150% to compensate. There is a separate "make text bigger" setting, and the problem goes away when I set that to 102%. I'm guessing there's a slight real difference that was being exaggerated by pixel rounding.

Measure20

I think this was caused by my OS-level UI scale setting. I didn't notice anything with the previous font, but I can adjust it a bit to work around this I think.

2habryka
Interesting. What OS and what setting?
Measure20

Something weird is happening for me where 'e' and 'o' in italic text appear to extend below the line (wrong vertical size or position) so that the whole looks jumbled. It's very noticeable at 100% zoom, but at much higher zoom levels it goes away.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

2Measure
I think this was caused by my OS-level UI scale setting. I didn't notice anything with the previous font, but I can adjust it a bit to work around this I think.
Measure113

The fact that Bob has this policy in the first place is more likely when he's being self-deceptive. Sure, some people will glomorize even when they have nothing to hide, but more often it will be the result of Bob noticing that he's the sort of person who might have something to hide.

It's a general rule that if E is strong evidence for X, then ~E is at least weak evidence for ~X.

7gwern
A fun fictional example here is Bester's The Demolished Man: how do you plan & carry out an assassination when telepaths are routinely eavesdropping on your mind? The protagonist visits a company musician, requesting a musical earworm for a company song to help the workers' health or something; alas! the earworm gets stuck in his head, and so all any telepath hears is the earworm. And you can't blame a man for having an earworm stuck in his head, now can you? He has an entirely legitimate reason for that to be there, which 'explains away' the evidence of the deception hypothesis that telepathic-immunity would otherwise support.
5Valentine
I don't know if that's true. It might be. But some possible counterpoints: * People can distrust systems that demand they check. "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" can get a response of "No" even from people who don't have anything to hide. * If someone subconsciously thinks they can pull off the illusion of honestly looking while in fact finding nothing, they become more likely to choose to look because they're self-deceiving. * Someone with a policy of not looking might be better at making their own self-deception unnecessary.   Sure, that way of deciding doesn't work. Likewise, if you're inclined to decide you're going to dig into possible sources of self-deception because you think it's unlikely that you have any, then you can't do this trick. The hypothetical respect for any self-deception that might be there needs to be unconditional on its existence. Otherwise, for the reason you say, it doesn't work as well. (…with some caveats about how people are imperfect telepaths, so some fuzz in implementation here is in practice fine.) That said, I think you're right in that if Omega-C is looking only at the choice of whether to look or not, then yes, Omega-C would be right to take the choice as evidence of a deception. But the whole point is that Omega-C can read what conscious processes you're using, and can see that you're deciding for a glomerizing reason. That's why why you choose what you do matters so much here. Not just what you choose.   Conservation of expected evidence is what makes looking relevant. It's not what makes deciding to look relevant. If I decide to appease Omega-C by looking, and then I find that I'm self-deceiving, the fact that I chose to look gets filtered. The fact that this is possible is why not finding evidence can matter at all. Otherwise it'd just be a charade. Relatedly: I have a coin in my pocket. I don't feel like checking it for bias. Does that make it more likely that the coin is biased? Maybe.
Measure61

I think this is mostly about how weak air is against dielectric breakdown.

Measure82

it's not information about whether I'm secretly trying to two-box

It's still Bayesian evidence. Someone with a different policy (always deeply investigating themselves), could get Omega-C to have a higher credence of them one-boxing.  We'd have to specify how sure Omega has to be to offer the large payment (and what priors Omega has) to know if the choice of policy matters.

2Valentine
I think I disagree. I'll add some precision to point out how. Happy to hear if I'm missing something. E is Bayesian evidence of X if E is more likely to happen when X is true than when it's not. If Bob says "As a policy, I'm not going to check whether I'm running an Omega-C deception", that's equally likely whether Bob is running a deception or not. (Hence the "as a policy" part.) It just fully happens in both cases. So from Omega-C's point of view, it's not Bayesian evidence that distinguishes between the two versions of Bob. It would be evidence if the choice were made from a stance of "Oh shoot, that might be self-deception! Well, I'm now going to adopt the no-looking policy so that I don't have to check it!" Then yeah, sure, that's clearly evidence — which is precisely why that method of deciding not to look isn't what can work. The policy of always deeply investigating oneself can produce evidence for Omega-C, but the act of choosing that policy might not. Choosing the policy not to look just doesn't produce evidence. Or at least that's how it seems to me.
Measure20

If you're reading this direct, this text is the last one that is wise like what's written between.

This sounds like it tried to encode something steganographically in the message? Maybe that accounts for some of the bizarre language.

Measure20

If you’re going to get one of those, then may I suggest that the same weight is given by almost exactly 4.5 Statues of Liberty?

How many chimps though?

2Caleb Biddulph
918,367 kg An average chimp is 45 kg 918,367 kg / 45 (kg / chimp) = 20,408 chimps
Measure101

I separately think though that if the actual outcome of each coin flip was recorded, there would be a roughly equal distribution between heads and tails.

Importantly, this is counting each coinflip as the "experiment", whereas the above counts each awakening as the "experiment". It's okay that different experiments would see different outcome frequencies.

2Viliam
Yes. If you record the moments when the outside observer sees the coin landing, you will get 1/2. If you record the moments when the Sleeping Beauty, right after making her bet, is told the actual outcome, you will get 1/3. So we get 1/2 by identifying with the outside observer, but he is not the one who was asked in this experiment. Unless you change the rules so that the Sleeping Beauty is only rewarded for the correct bet at the end of the week, and will only get one reward even if she made two (presumably identical) bets. In that case, recording the moment when the Sleeping Beauty gets the reward or not, you will again get 1/2.
Measure20

Les Misérables agrees.

Measure20

There should be a dropdown menu at the left side in the input box (opposite the "submit" button).

1Sherrinford
Thanks for helping. In the end, I deleted the post and started from scratch and then it worked.
Measure20

Did you switch to the markdown editor?

1Sherrinford
Sorry, but where/how would I do that?
Measure138

Congrats everyone!

Kudos to "GeneralAnderson" for the suggestion that generals report if their own side launches to help mitigate the unreliable report channel.

Measure30

To be clear, I wasn't trying to suggest that citizens could break the rules without getting caught. I was suggesting that they could disincentivize nuking without breaking the rules. If coordinated, distributed, mass downvoting is also disallowed, then we would have to come up with some other incentive.

Measure51

It doesn't have to be mass-downvoting in the sense of one user downvoting a mass of post/comments. Rather a mass of users downvoting a few comments each. 150 citizens * 10 downvotes each more than wipes out the 1000 karma victory bonus.

3habryka
I can assure you that past LessWrong users have explored a large fraction of the space of possible ways to coordinate and facilitate mass-downvoting. I can also assure you that we have plenty of experience nevertheless identifying those patterns and moderating people in response.
Measure60

Where is the Diplomatic Channels dialogue located?

7nick lacombe
right now Ben Pace commented it here. but I assume it will be added to the post.
Measure20

no longer possible

did you mean "no longer impossible"?

Measure31

This seems similar to the ant larvae situation where they reflectively argue around the hardcoded reward signal. Hurting people might still be considered a value the sadist has, but it trades off against other values.

4David Lorell
Not quite what we were trying to say in the post. Rather than tradeoffs being decided on reflection, we were trying to talk about the causal-inference-style "explaining away" which the reflection gives enough compute for. In Johannes's example, the idea is that the sadist might model the reward as coming potentially from two independent causes: a hardcoded sadist response, and "actually" valuing the pain caused. Since the probability of one cause, given the effect, goes down when we also know that the other cause definitely obtained, the sadist might lower their probability that they actually value hurting people given that (after reflection) they're quite sure they are hardcoded to get reward for it. That's how it's analagous to the ant thing.
4Johannes C. Mayer
Yes exactly. The larva example illustrates that there are different kinds of values. I thought it was underexplored in the OP to characterize exactly what these different kinds of values are. In the sadist example we have: 1. the hardcoded pleasure of hurting people. 2. And we have, let's assume, the wish to make other people happy. These two things both seem like values. However, they seem to be qualitatively different kinds of values. I intuit that more precisely characterizing this difference is important. I have a bunch of thoughts on this that I failed to write up so far.
Measure30

Consumer behavior is otherwise mostly unchanged.

Do consumers change their platform-level behavior because of (lack of) such cancelations?  If not, why do platforms do this?

Measure50

I must also note that it's incredibly disappointing that I will likely never taste apple juice in that way again, it was probably one of the best drinks I've ever had.

You could repeat the taste suppression/recovery process if you wanted.

3Spade
I may, at some point, and for other reasons. Lets say, if I were to start drinking some rather foul-tasting protein or something -- it would be nice to potentially taste less of that. But, in general, deliberately and severely impairing my ability to taste the things I like for about two weeks, only to be able to taste in that way for a meal or two post-recovery is probably not the sort of tradeoff that I'd find myself making regularly.
Measure20

After all, do we not generally hold to the principle that someone who has moral and legal right to money, also has the right to choose how to allocate that money? What else could the idea of property mean? If something is your property, you may do as you wish with it: use, sell, destroy.[6] Why should this stop at giving it to someone?

Doesn't this apply to other forms of income too?  If my employer chooses to compensate me at a certain level, or if my customers choose to buy my products/services at a certain price, don't I have a right to that in... (read more)

2Richard_Kennaway
Yes, once they've given it to you, or contracted to do so.
Measure20

No one would use it if not forced to?

4Zvi
Two responses. One, even if no one used it, there would still be value in demonstrating it was possible - if academia only develops things people will adapt commercially right away then we might as well dissolve academia. This is a highly interesting and potentially important problem, people should be excited. Two, there would presumably at minimum be demand to give students (for example) access to a watermarked LLM, so they could benefit from it without being able to cheat. That's even an academic motivation. And if the major labs won't do it, someone can build a Llama version or what not for this, no?
Measure20

It's pretty horrible. It doesn't even fit on one screen

Obvious suggestion would be to reduce the font size of the headers so that the dropdowns below can be moved to the same line, but maybe that's irrelevant if more substantial changes are being made.

Measure2-2

We (i.e. "reasoning beings in computable universes") can influence the UP, but we can't reason about it well enough to use that influence.  Meanwhile, we can reason about things that are more like the speed prior -- but we can't influence them.

Did one of these can/can't pairs get flipped? 

Measure30

My guess is starting with the minimal resolution pixel art mean you can control the upscaling process and don't have to deal with any artifacts introduced in previous upscaling.

Measure30

Unlimited evaluation can never get to BB(6) so that is the limit of evidence from evaluation.

The value of BB(6) is not currently known, but it could in principle be discovered. There is no general algorithm for calculating BB numbers, but any particular BB(n) could be determined by enumerating all n-state Turing machines and proving whether each one halts.

3RussellThor
According to Scott, "Pavel Kropitz discovered, a couple years ago, that BB(6) is at least 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10 (i.e., 10 raised to itself 15 times)." So we can never evaluate BB(6) as it is at least this large
Measure40

Also worth trying: Replace the water/milk with coffee. I first tried this while camping (to avoid having to boil additional water), and I found it surprisingly good.

Measure20

Or here’s a call for ‘militant democracy’ which means shutting down the opposition’s media entirely.

link missing

Measure*30

Not to mention that in canon, the rebel base in question was on Yavin IV. The droids with the stolen plans were indeed on Tatooine, but the empire already knew that.

Measure70

If I want an AI to get me a sandwich, I don't want the AI to get itself a sandwich.

You solve this problem when you recognize your foot as part of yourself without trying to feed it a sandwich.

5Charlie Steiner
I feed it its sandwiches intravenously :P

I don’t think that’s a good response to Charlie’s complaint because you’re kinda talking about a different thing.

  • What you’re talking about is: maybe the AI can have a sense-of-self that also encompasses another person (call him Jerome), analogous to how I have a sense-of-self that also encompasses my foot.
  • What OP is talking about is: maybe the AI can be unable (or barely able) to conceptualize the idea that it has one set of beliefs / desires / etc. and Jerome has a different set of beliefs / desires / etc., analogous to how humans have a hard time remembe
... (read more)
Measure20

Was it intended that the "Lighter Side" section be empty, or did the post get cut off?

1habryka
It's also empty on the original blog, so it's at least not an import error.
Measure69

I like this trick:

Jenny Chase: Some bad things about Switzerland: low tax rates and high salaries act as a brain drain on surrounding countries (hi). This is how a poor country has become a very rich one in less than a hundred years.

Rob Henderson: I like to imagine the Bizarro universe of opposites when I see tweets like this. “Some good things about Switzerland: high tax rates and low salaries motivate skilled citizens to flee (hi). This is how a rich country has become a very poor one in less than a hundred years.”

These could both be bad if viewed as zer... (read more)

Measure32

Mostly this seems like

Did the sentence get cut off, or is this an intentionally implied "seems like [nothing.]"?

Measure20

It's unclear whether the 48% is 48% of all applicants or 48% of White liars. I'm still not sure where the 5.8% number came from.

Load More