All of printing-spoon's Comments + Replies

I wonder why addiction is common among celebrities

Are you sure this is true?

Desrtopa100

I'm guessing you had this in mind already, but to clarify anyway, there's a pretty major availability bias since anything celebrities are involved in is much more likely to be reported on, leading to a proliferation of news stories about celebrities with addiction problems.

On the other hand though, celebrities are a lot more likely than most people to simply be given drugs for free, since drug dealers can make extra money if their customers are enticed by the prospect of being able to do drugs with celebrities. And of course that's aside from the fact that... (read more)

ask whether "Ma" means Mother (English) or Horse (Chinese).

"Ma" also means mother, depending on the tone. Actually, this example backfires since the word "mama" or some variation of it (ma, umma) means "mother" in almost every language in the world.

I haven't read the book but this sounds pretty good to me. Since Harris himself is the judge calling his argument "stupid" might not be the best idea.

0Ishaan
oops. I guess it could be interpreted that way. I meant that the argument between good(1) and good(2) is stupid. Harris is just one side of the debate - i'm saying the entire debate is misguided in the first place, much like it would be stupid to argue the meaning of Ma. Using good(1) isn't stupid, and neither is using good(2). It's just stupid to argue which one good really means.

Implying that whether his post should be censored hinges on the conclusion reached and not just the topic?

1RomeoStevens
discussion of violence by state actors is quite a bit different than discussion of individual violence.

What I would do? Probably nothing. I can't vote and I've never been very interested in politics. This question does not have the same confusing unfathomable quality as the examples in the article (souls and god existing). The world looks the about the same either way. Though I admit I misremembered what a line of retreat is, just extrapolating from the name I guess.

2[anonymous]
It's not about saving self-face or anything. It's about making sure you know what you would do if it were the case so it isn't unthinkable that it could be the case. Maybe you are just more rational than the rest of us, but I definitely notice that it helps. Did you read the article?

Lines of retreat are for offering to other people during arguments. I think I can trust myself to be neutral.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
kodos96130

No. Allowing yourself a line of retreat helps disincentivize the less-rational parts of your brain from stubbornly insisting on continuing to defend a proposition after it is no longer viable.

8[anonymous]
Be sure to leave a line of retreat from that option too.

To me this just looks like a bias-manipulating "unpacking" trick - as you divide larger categories into smaller and smaller subcategories, the probability that people assign to the total category goes up and up.

How do you know the raised estimate with this "trick" is worse than the estimate without?

I could just as easily say, "As you merge smaller categories into larger and larger categories, the probability that people assign to the total category goes down."

I'm not sure... I think the topics I find most interesting are simply used up (except for a few open questions on TDT or whatever). Also the recent focus on applied rationality / advice / CFAR stuff... this is a subject which seems to invite high numbers of low quality posts. In particular posts containing advice are generally stuffed with obvious generalizations and lack arguments or evidence beyond a simple anecdote.

Also, maybe the regular presence of EY's sequences provided a standard for quality and topic that ensured other people's posts were decent (I don't think many people read seq reruns, especially not old users who are more likely to have good ideas).

I think this site is dying because there's nothing interesting to talk about anymore. Discussion is filled with META, MEETUP, SEQ RERUN, links to boring barely-relevant articles, and idea threads where the highest comment has more votes than the thread itself (i.e. a crappy idea). Main is not much better. Go to archive.org and compare (date chosen randomly, aside from being a while ago). I don't think eternal september is the whole explanation here -- you only need 1 good user to write a good article.

1NancyLebovitz
It depends-- if the higher-voted comments are expending on the original post, then I'd say the post was successful because it evoked good-quality thought, assuming that the voters have good judgement. If the higher-voted comments are refuting the original post, then it was probably a bad post.

Discussion is filled with META, MEETUP, SEQ RERUN, links to boring barely-relevant articles

The website structure needs to be changed. "Main" and "Discussion" simply do not reflect the LW content today.

We should have a separate "Forum" (or some other name) category for all the non-article discussion threads like Open Thread, Media Thread, Group Rationality Thread, and stuff like this.

Then, the "Discussion" should be renamed to "Articles" (and possibly "Main" to "Main Articles") to make... (read more)

palladias100

One issue with the LW/CFAR approach is that the focus is on getting better/more efficient at pursuing your goals, but not on deciding whether you're applying your newfound superpowers to the right goals. (There's a bit of this with efficient altruism, but those giving opportunities are more about moving people up Maslow's hierarchy of needs, not on figuring out what to want when you're not at subsistence level).

Luke's recent post suggest that almost no one here has the prereqs to tackle metaphysics or normative ethics, but that always has seemed like the ... (read more)

1Epiphany
Do you have a theory as to why there aren't enough good users, or why they are not writing good articles?

I am 16 and I think I started reading this site 13. I think there is no need for another site. I also oppose any new forum/category of LW simply because interesting content here is getting thinner and thinner, half the discussion page is [META] ("Italics formatting is broken!") or [SEQ RERUN] and a new forum would dilute that even further.

Make sure you decide whether to give a report before you do it or else we'll be getting filtered information.

The Economist recently had an article about how sitting in wobbly furniture makes people crave "emotional stability." They also mention a study finding that people sitting in chairs that lean to the left reported more liberal opinions.

http://www.economist.com/node/21558553

The difference is not huge, but it is statistically significant. Even a small amount of environmental wobbliness seems to promote a desire for an emotional rock to cling to.

As far as I can tell they are completely serious.

It's not just a community norm, big chunks of the sequences seem to be built on small amounts of recent research.

0fiddlemath
Do you have examples in mind? I'd very much like them - those would be highly valuable places to double-check assumptions.

you're not vulnerable to people ringing you up and asking what your password is for a security audit, unless they can persaude you to log on to the system for them

Easier to avoid with basic instruction.

you're not vulnerable to being kidnapped and coerced remotely, you have to be coerced wherever the log-on system is

Enemy knows the system, they can copy the login system in your cell.

edit: i suspect it would float, but only for a little bit before the lighter gas diffuses out.

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

Because there could still be too much of the solid part for it to have a density less than air's?

edit: i suspect it would float for a little bit before the lighter gas diffuses out

1gwern
Wikipedia says So the evacuated version with 1mg should rise since air is 1.2mg. Googling, I see one or two YouTube videos of aerogel floating in air. SEAgel apparently is sometimes used this way:
0printing-spoon
edit: i suspect it would float, but only for a little bit before the lighter gas diffuses out.

I don't care if he gets a few meaningless internet points for making a poll.

0gjm
Furthermore, I don't care whether you care if he gets a few meaningless internet points for making a poll (I don't care whether TraderJoe gets a few meaningless internet points either. I do, however, prefer a world in which the meaningless internet points have roughly the meaning they're intended to have.)

If the ants have different decision theories and/or different preferences, how can they work together?

EDIT: I should say that I realize the game works with a bot controlling the whole colony, but I don't think that changes the problems in principle, anyway.

What?

The ants are not even close to individuals. They're dots. They're dots that you move around.

0JonathanLivengood
This just seems like a failure of imagination to me. You could think of the game as just pushing around dots. But if you write a rule for pushing the dots that works for each dot and has no global constraints, then you are treating the dots like individuals with individual decision rules. Example. On each turn, roll a fair four-sided die. If the result is '1', go North. If the result is '2', go South. Etc. The effect is to push around all the dots each turn. But it's not at all silly to describe what you would be coding here as giving each ant a very simple decision rule. Any global behavior -- behavior exhibited by the colony -- is due to each ant having this specific decision rule. If you want a colony filled with real individuals, tweak the dumb rule by weighting the die in a new (slight) way for each new ant generated. Then every ant will have a slightly different decision rule. Note that I am not trying to say anything smart about what rule(s) should be implemented for the ants, only illustrating the thought that it is not crazy -- and might even be helpful -- to think about the ants as individuals with individual decision rules.
0HoverHell
-

The wormhole-wing-trumpet logo thing is a bit aliased.

Can you give an example for Ants?

-1JonathanLivengood
I can try. Or, at least give a sketch. (Hand-waving ahead ...) The Ants problem -- if I'm understanding it correctly -- is a problem of coordinated action. We have a community of ants, and the community has some goals: collecting food, taking over opposing hills, defending friendly hills. Imagine you are an ant in the community. What does rational behavior look like for you? I think that is already enough to launch us on lots of hard problems: * What does winning look like for a single ant in the Ants game? Does winning for a single ant even make sense or is winning completely parasitic on the community or colony in this case? Does that tell us anything about humans? * If all of the ants in my community share the same decision theory and preferences, will the colony succeed or fail? Why? * If the ants have different decision theories and/or different preferences, how can they work together? (In this case, working together isn't very hard to describe ... it's not like the ants fight themselves, but we might ask what kinds of communities work well -- i.e. is there an optimal assortment of decision theories and/or preferences for individuals?) * If the ants have different preferences, how might we apply results like Arrow's Theorem or how might we work around it? ... So, there's a hand-wavy sketch of what I had in mind. But I don't know, is it still too vague to be useful? EDIT: I should say that I realize the game works with a bot controlling the whole colony, but I don't think that changes the problems in principle, anyway. But maybe I'm missing something there.

Do you think this is his real motivation? I can't imagine what he expects to learn.

-1TheOtherDave
Well, knowing what adolescents think is important is useful if you intend to market important-seeming things to adolescents.

Try to reframe the problem or parts of the problem in a way that connects to generic rationality, so that non-programmers can contribute something

This is harder than it sounds.

0JonathanLivengood
I didn't think it sounded all that easy ... :)

reasonable-sounding stuff about genetics and airplanes and Bernoulli's law

What is this referring to?

2arundelo
* Genetics: "[The standard content of] a basic genetics course [....] is so 19th century" * Airplanes and Bernoulli's law
7see
It was pretty clearly a lie of omission when I didn't correct the teacher, so eight-year-old me felt guilty for that. Why didn't I? Partly, because I couldn't muster the courage, and partly because she'd gone on in the next sentence to use my "hard work" as an example for the class and I didn't want to undermine the lesson. Now, adult me can look back and say, "Kid, there was no need to feel any guilt; what you did was fine given the situation and pressures." But that precocious third-grader knew Lying Was Wrong.
TimS140

It's about the difference between honor and reputation.

Reputation is what other people know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.

Lois Bujold, "A Civil Campaign"

The dual of this approximated i-zombie is just a sleepwalker, not a literal, atom-for-atom-identical p-zombie.

In the same sense, the Roman Empire never thought of itself as anything other than the Roman Republic.

Here's most of my problems with Moldbug condensed into one sentence: a bold assertion with no literal meaning that I can easily confirm or falsify.

6[anonymous]
The literal meaning is the plain meaning. If you where to travel back in time and ask the people living in the Roman Empire what their system of government is, the surprising answer is that most would say "Republic". Rome was formally still a republic for a very very long time. Not only that it also presented itself in both propaganda and action as a Republican government and most preserved sources even point to it being considered a republic by many living in it except those defeated in its power struggles. What the Roman state considered itself to be, and whether it considered itself a republic, and what the people thought is something that is easily confirmed or falsified, as much as any historical fact or interpretation can be, by a moderate amount of scholarship.

I heard LW people talking about him, went to see what all the fuss was about and like you I just gave up after a while. I suspect his essays are long to keep people from thinking about them too clearly.

1[anonymous]
Don't underestimate the inferential differences involved. Consider how much text the sequences amount to. Even individual entries are sometimes monstrous in length.

FYI your rank could be a lot lower in the final competition than it is now because most of the best bots only play on the TCP servers.

I agree, however I don't think "smoking is bad" is much of an applause light here. A real applause light would be if the post needlessly referenced things like map and territory.

2gwern
The review was not written for LW.

This is not De Morgan's law. There is no conjunction or disjunction involved, only quantification:

Ax:P(x) = ¬Ex:¬P(x)

I'm not sure if there's a name for this type of tautology.

5Zack_M_Davis
A number of authors speak of "de Morgan's laws for quantifiers," and I think this is a wise choice of terminology. A universal (respectively, existential) quantifier behaves just like a conjunction (respectively, disjunction) over all the objects in the universe, so, aesthetically and pedagogically, I think it's much more elegant to speak of ¬∃x(P(x)) <---> ∀x(¬P(x)) and ¬∀x(P(x)) <---> ∃x(¬P(x)) as generalized de Morgan's laws, rather than to reserve the term "de Morgan's laws" for ¬(A ∧ B) <---> (¬A ∨ ¬B) and ¬(A ∨ B) <---> (¬A ∧ ¬B) and have a separate term like "quantifier negation laws" for the tautologies involving quantifiers. Because, you know, it's the same idea in slightly different guises. Some authors may prefer different terminology, but I stand by my comment.

Red(x) means "x is red." X = Y in this case means that X and Y are either both true or both false. All x : Bouncy(x) means that everything under consideration is bouncy. Exists x : Fluffy(x) means a fluffy thing exists. The sentence says "if everything dies, then nothing doesn't die" and vice versa. This is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic .

edit: And here are the fruits of google: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/52323/how-do-you-read-this-logical-statement-aloud-and-how-do-you-notate-it-in-symbol

0TheatreAddict
Your first link doesn't work, but I'll check out the second one. I don't completely understand, but I understand more than I did before you commented, so thanks! :]

Is there any research on whether curing the infection actually undoes the damage?

You implicitly have hypotheses "this random number generator is broken always returns 0" and "this random number generator works fine." You start off being pretty sure the latter is true. Your shift to the former upon seeing 0 is where the surprise comes from.

1JoshuaZ
Right, and one thing to note is that given basic programming assumptions, a return of all zeros is a much more likely failure mode of a random number generator than say always returning 72 or something similar.

I don't think in numbers, so I would expect to do really really badly for a really really long time, and I'm shy about things I realize I'm bad at. If I were going to embark on a long-term project to log lots of predictions for my own calibration and learning-what-percentages-feel-like, a text file on my own computer would do, wouldn't it?

You can make your predictions private.

2Alicorn
In which case the advantage of putting them on PredictionBook is what?

Can you see how there might be a "need" for "inter-dimensional" or "hyper-dimensional" thinking and visualization capability which may be the basis for so-called "alien" technology? Do you find this as exciting as I do?! :o)

Okay.

This reminds me of Berry's Paradox: the most arbitrary hiding place you can think of is by definition not very arbitrary.

2MartinB
It is mentioned in iWoz, the autobiography of Wozniak. I can look it up.

On the other hand, religion predicts more confidently than atheism that having religion makes people happier.

What's the length of the average program for 3^^^^3? I suggest it's 3^^^^3, with every language that gives it a shorter encoding counterbalanced by a language with an exactly longer encoding.

For a sufficiently crazy set of languages you could make this true for 3^^^^3, but in general what's simple in one language is still fairly simple elsewhere. If 3+3 takes b bits to describe in language A it takes b+c bits in language B where c is the length of the shortest interpreter for language B in language A (edit: or less :P).

Yeah, and the texture in this picture makes my skin crawl. The pills look like growths or something.

The average person probably supports foreign aid because they haven't heard of James Shikwati.

I think you need to be more precise about what states and ~ are.

(this is because all Turing-complete languages can simulate each other)

3AdeleneDawner
In the sense that we don't know what the actual average is for humans, or in the sense that the bell curve for Dunbar's number for individuals is rather flat?

I'm not sure we need to put more effort into making new users feel welcome. It's a priority for churches because their entire business model depends on generating warm, fuzzy feelings in their members. Responding "Welcome to LessWrong!" to a new user's first comment is fine, IMO.

group project goodness = U(project) / E(social friction),

Why is social friction an expectation, but not utility? Why division instead of subtraction? This equation should have been a sentence. I also don't see why you've singled out "social friction" as the biggest drawback for community-building projects.

LWer since 13, atheist since I can remember. I'm seriously embarrassed by my younger self's posts. I am glad there are not more of me around. LessWrong is certainly good for teens, but can teens be good for LessWrong? Keep in mind our current bunch of teens are of higher quality than what we'll get if we actually recruit some.

edit: btw i'm 15

KPier150

I think this is a problem with recruiting in general, not just with recruiting teenagers. The more new people you get, the more clueless new people you get.

As I see it, there are a couple ways to deal with this:

First: Shoo away newcomers with lots of downvotes and advice to read the sequences. (Pros: minimizes annoyance for established members. Minuses: very smart people might sour on the site, the rest of the world will think we're obnoxious and arrogant)

Second:Establish some sort of community for new users, to bring them up to speed (there's been talk a... (read more)

Load More