loading...
Comment author: [deleted] 15 July 2015 12:09:05PM 1 point [-]

It's full of people who can afford to take out a life insurance in the hundreds of thousands of USD range to a cryo facility. /sarcasm

In response to comment by [deleted] on Open Thread, Jul. 13 - Jul. 19, 2015
Comment author: falenas108 15 July 2015 04:20:24PM *  3 points [-]

Actually, yes.

EDIT: At least, adjusting the cost for how much a USD gets you in South Africa.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 06 July 2015 10:13:46PM 3 points [-]

Reverse intelligence is not stupidity.

Just saw If You Buy The Stuff No One Else Likes, You Just May Be A “Harbinger Of Failure"

And wondered: If these persons consistently fail can it be that theyjust live up to their inner bruce from "Stuck In The Middle With Bruce"?

Comment author: falenas108 07 July 2015 05:25:51PM 3 points [-]

I would guess there's a group of people who are just more likely to buy newer, less tested things. These people bought into Zune, but they also got a facebook before nobody else did. AKA, early adaptors.

Comment author: falenas108 17 June 2015 02:47:05PM 8 points [-]

If lack of social skills were the only part of autism this might be onto something. But autism tends to be a cluster of symptoms, which aren't explainable by a lack of social interactions. For example, autistic people tend to have different sensory perception. I would not expect that symptom to appear from early isolation.

Comment author: cousin_it 09 June 2015 04:39:33PM 7 points [-]

Judging from the recent decline of LW, it seems that the initial success of LW wasn't due to rationality, but rather due to Eliezer's great writing. If we want LW to become a fun place again, we should probably focus on writing skills instead of rationality skills. Not everyone can be as good as Eliezer or Yvain, but there's probably a lot of low hanging fruit. For example, we pretty much know what kind of fiction would appeal to an LWish audience (HPMOR, Worm, Homestuck...) and writing more of it seems like an easier task than writing fiction with mass-market appeal.

Does anyone else feel that it might be a promising direction for the community? Is there a more structured way to learn writing skills?

Comment author: falenas108 09 June 2015 09:57:58PM 1 point [-]

That's not necessarily the case. Low hanging fruit seems like a plausible alternative, as well as the success of meet-up groups or other real-life rationality things replacing online interactions.

Comment author: falenas108 08 June 2015 11:28:14PM 6 points [-]

I'm about to start being paid for a job, and I was looking at investment advice from LW. I found this thread from a while back and it seemed good, but it's also 4 years old. Can anyone confirm if the first bullet is still accurate? (get VTSMX or VFINX on vanguard, it doesn't matter too much which one.)

Comment author: falenas108 31 May 2015 03:25:31PM *  3 points [-]

I'm about to graduate college and go into the real world, and I'm trying to get a job right now. If I'm not able to get one in the next few months, I will need some source of income. What are good reliable ways that I can convert time to money before I get a full-time job?

EDIT: I'm a physics/chemistry undergraduate with a decent GPA, and I have some skills in coding if that helps. I'm applying for jobs in software development and data analysis, and I've applied to 25 so far and have only heard back from 1. I'm going to keep applying and am fairly confident I'll get something, but in case everything fails I want to have a backup.

Comment author: bbleeker 12 May 2015 12:21:38PM 2 points [-]

What did you do? Tell us more!

Comment author: falenas108 12 May 2015 01:46:46PM *  4 points [-]

The biggest thing I did was a showcase item with the MONIAC cycle mentioned earlier. Me and one other person were representing the mercury cycle in nature. We had different plastic bottles representing different parts of nature/forms of mercury, like the atmosphere, methylated and unmethylated mercury, in crustaceans, plankton, fish, ect. The things died or get put in the seafloor, and got pumped back to the top by volcanoes and human activity. (We should have had more stay in the seafloor, but our pump was too powerful.) The flow successfully showed that the top of the food chain got the most mercury, and if the top level "dies" from too much mercury (flows to that bottle were cut off), the next in the chain started to accumulate more mercury.

Other than that, I:

*Wrote 2 Miss American Doll style intro books for KatelynUnit 742-B in the year 2500, KatelynUnit Saves the Never-Ending Day (Because we don't have night anymore) and STANDARD GREETINGS.

*Made a cod-shaped codpiece

*Made a mashup of 4 Taylor Swift songs of 1989 and gregorian chants (989)

*Made a budget for the Minor Activities Board (parody of the Major Activities Board)

*Made an ad for the main technician in the experimental physics class, Van Bistrow, for his now restaurant, The Van Bistro.

As one of two captains I also did general organizing and made sure other people had what they needed to do their items.

Comment author: ChristianKl 12 May 2015 01:37:48AM 5 points [-]

If it helps you, the 2014 census gave for moral beliefs:

Moral Views Accept/lean towards consequentialism: 901, 60.0% Accept/lean towards deontology: 50, 3.3% Accept/lean towards natural law: 48, 3.2% Accept/lean towards virtue ethics: 150, 10.0% Accept/lean towards contractualism: 79, 5.3% Other/no answer: 239, 15.9%

Meta-ethics Constructivism: 474, 31.5% Error theory: 60, 4.0% Non-cognitivism: 129, 8.6% Subjectivism: 324, 21.6% Substantive realism: 209, 13.9%

In general I don't think there are foundational ideas on LW that shouldn't be questioned. Any idea is up for investigation provided the case is well argued.

Comment author: falenas108 12 May 2015 04:13:29AM 6 points [-]

In general I don't think there are foundational ideas on LW that shouldn't be questioned. Any idea is up for investigation provided the case is well argued.

But there are certain ideas that will be downvoted and dismissed because people feel like they aren't useful to be talking about, like if God exists. I think OP was asking if it was a topic that fell under this category.

Comment author: dxu 12 May 2015 02:58:56AM *  5 points [-]

To any physicists out there:

This idea came to me while I was replaying the game Portal. Basically, suppose humanity one day developed the ability to create wormholes. Would one be able to generate an infinite amount of energy by placing one end of a wormhole directly below the other before dropping an object into the lower portal (thus periodically resetting said object's gravitational potential energy while leaving its kinetic energy unaffected)? This seems like a blatant violation of the first law of thermodynamics, so I'm guessing it would fail due to some reason or other (my guess goes to weird behavior of the gravitational field near the wormhole, which interferes with the larger field of the Earth), but since I'm nowhere close to being a physicist, I thought I'd ask about it on LessWrong.

So? Any ideas as to what goes wrong in the above example?

Comment author: falenas108 12 May 2015 04:11:26AM 0 points [-]

You can probably think about it as the lines of a gravity field also going through the wormhole, and I believe the gravitational force would be 0 around the wormhole.

The actual answer involves thinking about gravity and spacetime as a geometry, which I don't think you want to answer your question.

Comment author: DanArmak 10 May 2015 08:38:15AM 0 points [-]

Most social cues are ambiguous. A person’s character traits are instrumental in interpreting the cues as negative or positive.

This would mean social cues are really bad at reliably conveying information. That seems detrimental to both signalers and recipients. Why wouldn't people evolve better cues, or supplement with more explicit signaling, like words?

Comment author: falenas108 11 May 2015 06:05:33PM 0 points [-]

Yeah, when I was reading this article I kept thinking that social cues are generally not as ambiguous as this article is making it seem.

Off the top of my head, I can't remember a time when me and another person interpreted multiple social cues from a variety of people in completely the opposite directions. Plenty of times when we focused on different traits, but not where one person interpreted someone as warm and open and someone else as cold and unwelcoming.

Comment author: falenas108 11 May 2015 02:23:48PM 8 points [-]

This may not make much sense to people outside University of Chicago, but every year we have a huge scavenger hunt, one of the biggest in the world, where we do things like make a keyboards that can perform logical operations, made a MONIAC cycles of natural systems, and has in the past included one team making a working nuclear reactor.

Me and one other person decided to form a team for this year, and we co-captained this team. We did way better than anyone expected, beating every team that wasn't an established house team that had over 100 people and lots of monetary resources, while our team had only 15 people.

Comment author: falenas108 28 April 2015 04:18:38PM 1 point [-]

I think there are two important points I got from the typical mind fallacy. The first is the usually one, that people have different preferences and different ways of thinking. The second is that people have different experiences, and I shouldn't use my experiences with a certain subject as a model for everyone's. Perhaps this could be called the typical experience fallacy?

For example, I grew up in a reform Jew, and my experience from that was "Unpleasant to be forced to say things I don't agree with, but tolerant of differences." It wasn't until I talked with others about their experiences that I realized it ranged to anything from "Everyone must believe strictly in everything, any disagreements are signs of evil" of Orthodox to "God probably doesn't exist and we should do our best to help others" of humanistic chapters.

Comment author: falenas108 14 April 2015 03:44:07PM 4 points [-]

It's at least plausible that Snape, as a potions expert who grew up with muggles, thought there might be some connection between potions and chemistry and learned the basics of chemistry.

Comment author: Liron 12 April 2015 10:09:51PM *  0 points [-]

I have no idea what Thiel is thinking of, but I'll volunteer to get a brainstorm started:

Male to female love is 70% physical attraction. Yes, love.

Edit: I guess this related to race and gender, but I don't want to hold back one of my edgiest beliefs.

Comment author: falenas108 13 April 2015 12:08:58AM 1 point [-]

Is this idea for current Western society, or for love overall?

Comment author: curioux 03 April 2015 05:52:44PM -1 points [-]

Suppose you became deeply religious as a young adult and married someone of the same religion with a traditional promise to be loyal to them until death. Divorce was unthinkable to your spouse and you had repeatedly reassured them that you fully meant to keep your promise to never leave them, no matter what changes the future brought. You are now no longer religious and remaining married to this person makes you miserable in ways you are sure you can't fix without betraying who you currently are. Is it moral to leave your partner? Why and why not? (Don't worry, this is a hypothetical situation.)

Comment author: falenas108 05 April 2015 05:00:58PM *  1 point [-]

ETHICAL INJUNCTION:

Any moral reasoning that results in "...and I will be miserable for the rest of my life" that is not extremely difficult to prevent and has few other tradeoffs is probably not correct, no matter how well-argued.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 16 March 2015 10:56:35AM 5 points [-]

I believe that what happens on stage is what's important in a story.

More generally, I think Harry should be doing more towards putting together a team. I hope that Eliezer more fully learns the lesson from how well HPMOR fans did with the final exam.

To be fair, HPMOR was a major achievement. Doing justice to fiction about a team of very smart people might be more than can be expected.

Comment author: falenas108 17 March 2015 04:00:28AM 1 point [-]

More generally, I think Harry should be doing more towards putting together a team.

Which is a lesson he should have learned when Hermione beat him and Draco in the first battle.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 14 March 2015 07:35:10PM 6 points [-]

I didn't see this chapter so much as mockey of canon-Potter, merely bouncing off of it, noting it's different. Canon HP is not this HP, mainly reasons for which canon HP cannot be blamed.

Comment author: falenas108 14 March 2015 09:20:35PM 2 points [-]

There was one part where they were talking about what would happen if Harry were not raised by scientists, and EY basically describes canon.

Comment author: solipsist 14 March 2015 02:36:25PM *  4 points [-]

He knows. The thought came to Harry, and he couldn't have said in words just what the Potions Master now knew; except that it was clear that Severus knew it.


The Dark Lord spoke the words "Hyakuju montauk" without pausing in his stride, accompanied by a jab of his wand; and Severus staggered before he lifelessly drew himself up beside the door once more.

"What -" Harry said, as he followed. "What did you -"

"Just fulfilling my obligation to my faithful servant. It shall not kill him, as I promised you." The Dark Lord laughed again.

I don't understand either of these. Though this in the mix and I still don't understand.

I went to the Dark Lord intending to sell him the prophecy in exchange for Lily's love becoming mine, by whatever darkness was required to achieve it.


Severus shook his head. "Too many students would remember me as the evil Potions Master. No, Minerva. I will go someplace new, and take a new name, and find someone new to love."

I get the character arc "Snape's obsession was used by Dumbledore and Voldemort, but he has finally gotten over Lily and can move on" -- it's just these specifics I don't understand.

Comment author: falenas108 14 March 2015 05:49:22PM 0 points [-]

If I had to guess, Voldemort did something so Snape understands how Dumbledore manipulated him. Considering how pissed off Voldemort was that Dumbledore would do that, it seems likely that he would find a way to change that now that Dumbledore is gone.

Comment author: RowanE 13 March 2015 05:37:15PM 12 points [-]

I think the problem here is with many trivia questions you either know the answer or you don't; the dominant factor in my results so far is that I either have no answer in mind, assign 0 probability to my being right and am correctly calibrated there, and then all of my answers at other levels of certainty have turned out right so far so my calibration curve looks almost rectangular.

I might just be getting accurate information that I'm drastically underconfident, but I think this might be one of the worse types of questions to calibrate on. I mean, even if the problem is just that I'm drastically underconfident on trivia questions and shouldn't be assigning less than 50% probability to any of my answers when I have an answer, that sounds sufficiently unrepresentative of most areas where you need calibration, and how most people perform on other calibration tests, for this to be a pretty bad measure of calibration.

Perhaps it would be better as a multiple choice test, so one can have possible answers raised to attention that may or may not be right, and assign probabilities to those?

Comment author: falenas108 14 March 2015 05:47:17PM 9 points [-]

My favorite calibration tools have been one where there was a numerical answer and you had to express a 50% confidence interval, or 90% confidence interval.

Like, a question would be how many stairs are there in the Statue of Liberty? And my 50% interval would be 400-1000, and my 90% interval would be 200-5000.

Looking up the answer it was 354, and I would mark my 50% as wrong and my 90% as right.

Comment author: falenas108 10 March 2015 08:50:22PM *  29 points [-]

From chapter 38, when Harry buys the Quibbler:

"Gosh," Harry said half a minute later, "you get a seer smashed on six slugs of Scotch and she spills all sorts of secret stuff. I mean, who'd have thought that Sirius Black and Peter Pettigrew were secretly the same person?"

EDIT: Then,

"And I'm secretly sixty-five years old."

Which is also true, because of Voldemort inside him. Which leaves....

"And I'm betrothed to Hermione Granger, and Bellatrix Black, and Luna Lovegood, and oh yes, Draco Malfoy too..."

Comment author: falenas108 10 March 2015 08:29:48PM 3 points [-]

"In that extremity, I went into the Department of Mysteries and I invoked a password which had never been spoken in the history of the Line of Merlin Unbroken, did a thing forbidden and yet not utterly forbidden."

So, this is the single change that makes this story an AU?

Comment author: MarkusRamikin 10 March 2015 07:51:29PM *  6 points [-]

Hm, any particular reason, if Harry is already discussing other vulnerable info like having a transfigured Voldemort, he won't fess up to the part where Quirrel was Voldemort and that he won single-handedly?

I gotta say, I've been wanting to know what intelligent people like Moody and Amelia made of Harry's derp story, and hoping that it wouldn't turn out that "Eliezer wants us to believe that everyone in Magical Britain really is that stupid" - and I got precisely what I wished for. Great!

Comment author: falenas108 10 March 2015 08:18:39PM 6 points [-]

Hm, any particular reason, if Harry is already discussing other vulnerable info like having a transfigured Voldemort, he won't fess up to the part where Quirrel was Voldemort and that he won single-handedly?

Harry's upper hand relies on the idea that Dumbledore knew exactly what he was doing, and them that Dumbledore hired Voldemort to teach children for a year would undermine that.

Incidentally, my P(Dumbledore knew about Quirrelmort) just went way up this chapter.

Comment author: Izeinwinter 05 March 2015 03:14:43PM *  2 points [-]

Okay, Harry is really overdoing it here. It would have been much safer to pretend utter ignorance of everything, or at least to limit his reaction to falling over. The scene as set will cause sufficient theorizing without trying to force a particular narrative.

On a meta level: Getting this scene from a bystander means they are not in the mirror. So that's that.

I.. also just realized that "Flamel" can't possibly be dead. The rite Voldemort used on Hermione was not one of his own devising, but a piece of lore well known enough to have a usual result. "Flamel" had the stone of permanency for either 600 years, or much longer than that. And has more lore than Voldemort.

The best creature to assume the essence of from a defensive standpoint isn't a troll or a unicorn. Tough, heck, if there is no downside to just stacking things, maybe she did. The creature in the potterverse with the most absolute defense is the phoenix. Fiendfire? Firetravel away. AK? Respawn and laugh. So Dumbledore may have seen Flamel die, but that means absolutely nothing.

.. depending how the sacrifice works, this might not even hurt the phoenix you are using! Well, permanently anyway.

Comment author: falenas108 05 March 2015 04:16:02PM -1 points [-]

The creature in the potterverse with the most absolute defense is the phoenix.

That would require getting a hold of and killing a Phoenix, which would be difficult even for Quirrel.

Comment author: gjm 25 February 2015 04:53:10PM 2 points [-]

Harry is known to be a harrycrux [...] There is no way Dumbledore gives Harry the cloak without anticipating [...]

Supposing (though it might be wrong) that mirror-Dumbledore is speaking truth, it's not clear that he realises what Harry is until that point in ch17 where he starts laughing. Which is after Harry has received the cloak. (And, I think, after D. has promised not to take it away from him -- though he hasn't promised not to require him to store it somewhere secure away from Hogwarts.)

Comment author: falenas108 25 February 2015 05:40:23PM *  0 points [-]

That is when Dumbledore realizes Harry is a "good" Tom Riddle. We don't know when he realizes Harry is a horcrux.

EDIT: In fact, it's almost certain that Dumbledore realizes that Harry is a horcrux before that scene, or at least suspects it. It doesn't look like anything in that conversation in particular would make him realize that, and he clearly knows it by that point.

Comment author: ChristianKl 22 February 2015 07:02:27PM 1 point [-]

I'm not sure that matters. The Goblet might be open for contracts that cover the student body together.

It seems like a brilliant plan to prevent anyone from stealing your stone from the perspective of Baba Yaga wanting to turn a good wizard. It seems like a brilliant plan to lay a trap for Voldemort that way.

There simply enough narrativium that I would expect the story to go down that road.

Comment author: falenas108 22 February 2015 09:00:44PM 0 points [-]

It was specifically said that every student and teacher individually signed the contract, so unless that's a lie this is probably not what will happen.

Comment author: falenas108 21 February 2015 12:39:23AM -1 points [-]

In some years, when I had become bored with ruling Britain and moved on to other things, I would arrange with the other Tom Riddle that he should appear to vanquish me, and he would rule over the Britain he had saved.

This is precisely the plan that Quirrel originally planned for Harry, have him pretend to defeat LV and set him up to rule the country.

Comment author: jimrandomh 20 February 2015 11:54:11PM 17 points [-]

"There's something that would make you happier than that," Harry said, his voice breaking again. "There has to be."

Muggle research in the 2010s has revealed much about what actually makes people happy, and how often people are deceived. The best way to find out is with one of those mood-tracking cell phone apps, which eliminate the biases of memory. Quirrell doesn't have that, but as an approximation, I searched the PDF for the word "smile", which appears 310 times in chapters 1-106, and the word "enjoy", which appears 32 times. What did I find?

“Do you know,” the Defense Professor said in soft reflective tones, “there are those who have tried to soften my darker moods, and those who have indeed participated in brightening my day, but you are the first person ever to succeed in doing it deliberately?”

Interacting with Harry makes Quirrell happy. Moreso than killing idiots. Moreso than teaching Battle Magic. Killing him would be a grave mistake.

Comment author: falenas108 21 February 2015 12:25:09AM -1 points [-]

"you are the first person ever to succeed in doing it deliberately?”

Having Quirrell kill someone wouldn't count as them cheering him up deliberately.

Comment author: Velorien 17 February 2015 11:09:43AM 17 points [-]

I thought it was worth revisiting Quirrell's past uses of Parseltongue. Most are nothing noteworthy, but there are a few interesting ones in Chapter 58.

I did not sseek to sslay the protector man!

Quirrell was telling the truth about not trying to kill Bahry.

Obvioussly you will ssee persson pretending to be healer on arrival!

While this could be literally true, or only true in the context of the hypothetical scenario suggested by Harry, it is worth noting that Quirrell never says in Parseltongue that the healer waiting for Bellatrix is real.

plan iss for you to rule country, obvioussly

This one sounds important now that we know it is definitely true (or at least was at the time).

Comment author: falenas108 17 February 2015 02:51:31PM -1 points [-]

That definitely hints that part of the plan is to make use of Harrymort in some way, which makes the "why the hell did he bring Harry along" part make sense.

Comment author: Yvain 16 February 2015 05:22:54PM 24 points [-]

Prediction:

Harry gets the Snitch eliminated from Quidditch. Not just in Hogwarts, but in the big leagues as well - they don't want a Germany vs. Austria on their hands.

All of the celebrity Quidditch players of the world - Victor Krum, Ludo Bagman, Finbar Quigley - are distraught by these sudden and drastic changes to a traditional game they've loved for many years. At the ceremony marking the changes, some of them tear up.

The Daily Prophet headline is "BOY WHO LIVED TEARS UP THE STARS"

Eliezer gives all of us a long lecture about how the prior for somebody making celebrities cry is so much higher than the prior for someone literally ripping the Sun apart that the latter hypothesis should never even have entered our consideration, regardless of how much more natural an interpretation of the prophecy it is.

Comment author: falenas108 17 February 2015 12:44:19AM -1 points [-]

I'm not sure how serious this is, but if it were said aloud Harry would hear the difference between the two definitions of "tears," and wouldn't be worried about it if that were the case.

Comment author: solipsist 02 February 2015 03:03:35PM *  10 points [-]

A lot of math and physics definitions feel like they have weird dross. Examples:

  • The Gamma function has this -1 I don't understand
  • The Riemann Zeta function ζ(s) negates s for reasons beyond me
  • cosine seems more primitive than sine
  • The gravitational constant looks like off by a factor of 4π
  • π seems like half the size it should be

After years of confusion, I was finally vindicated about π. That π is not 6.2831853071... is mostly a historical accident. Am I "right" about these other definitions being "wrong"? What are other mathematical entities are defined in ugly ways for historical reasons?

Comment author: falenas108 02 February 2015 06:00:05PM 4 points [-]

I have been pissed off for years at the existance of h-bar and h as separate constants, where almost everywhere h-bar should be the basic constant. IIRC, this is just because the first time either was derived, it happened to be h, so that got called the quantum mechanical constant.

Comment author: falenas108 01 February 2015 10:05:21PM 3 points [-]

I've had a permanent retainer in my bottom 4 teeth for about 5 years now. I recently started a habit of flossing, but it takes too much effort for me to use the official flosser for those. But, I recently started using the proxabrush every morning, which takes about 5 seconds per tooth and gets about 90% of the job done.

I've been doing it for 2 months almost every day now.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 28 January 2015 09:45:18PM 0 points [-]

Well, I had a transgender friend who said that at a trans meeting two types of people turned up: those that didn't strongly identify as either gender, and those that strongly identified as the gender opposite to their physical body. This is the distinction I am trying to describe.

And "agender trans people" is quite a mouthful.

Comment author: falenas108 29 January 2015 02:47:35AM 0 points [-]

You can just say "non-binary people" or "agender people." In any case, binary and non-binary are the types you are talking about.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 28 January 2015 09:52:55AM 0 points [-]

Although some of the depression could be caused by that, it seems pretty likely that a large portion of it could also because by being treated by society as a gender they aren't, as well as more targeted transphobia.

I've heard trans people say that simply having breasts is really disturbing, enough to require unconfortable breast-binding. I've also heard a trans person say that they enjoy looking at themselves in the mirror, because they are turned on by their own body.

Incidentally, are there separate words for 'non gender identifying transgender' and 'trapped in the wrong body transgender'?

Anyway, clearly transphobia is going to make the problem worse.

When we call something a mental illness, it's because we are trying to treat it in some way, or alleviate the effects. This is not something we want to do with trans people, the effects that we're talking about are all other mental illnesses that we do want to treat the symptoms of.

Well, sex reassignment surgery clearly is a treatment. And the picture isn't clear with certain other mental illnesses either (e.g. autism).

Comment author: falenas108 28 January 2015 06:21:50PM 1 point [-]

Incidentally, are there separate words for 'non gender identifying transgender' and 'trapped in the wrong body transgender'?

I think what you are going for is non-binary/agender trans people vs. binary trans people.

But, I'm not sure which distinction you're talking about. There are people who fit the classic "trapped in the wrong body," who have a clear idea of what body parts they would/wouldn't like (which could be anything from having a penis and breasts to no genitalia at all). There are other people who are completely fine with their physical body but are uncomfortable with the idea of identifying with the gender they were assigned at birth.

If you're talking about that distinction, then people in the second category don't necessarily identify as agender or non-binary, and people in the first category don't always identify as a binary gender.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 26 January 2015 08:31:47PM 2 points [-]

I think there is a third causal path, which goes:

Thinking about being the opposite sex -> psychosomatic alteration of hormone levels during puberty-> structural differences in the brain -> transgender.

I'm not saying this is plausible, or that I have evidence for it. This is not my field. But AFAIK I cannot rule it out.

*I am not counting gender identity disorder as a mental illness, both because I don't think it should be classified that way and because this statement would be pointless if I did.

I would say that since transgender people are much more depressed, presumably due to being trapped in the wrong body (which, as we both mentioned, doesn't apply to all trans people) then GID is a mental illness because it causes depression and suffering.

This doesn't mean that transgender people need to feel bad about being trans, because that will just make matters worse. I know people who are trans and I know people who suffering from other mental illnesses and I hope I'm not coming across as insensitive but I just don't see the point in mincing my words.

Comment author: falenas108 27 January 2015 07:26:23PM 0 points [-]

Sure, that path seems possible as well.

I would say that since transgender people are much more depressed, presumably due to being trapped in the wrong body (which, as we both mentioned, doesn't apply to all trans people) then GID is a mental illness because it causes depression and suffering.

Although some of the depression could be caused by that, it seems pretty likely that a large portion of it could also because by being treated by society as a gender they aren't, as well as more targeted transphobia. GLB people also have much higher rates of depression, which is probably for that reason and not some third link.

Furthermore, I think we need to go back to diseased thinking about diseases. When we call something a mental illness, it's because we are trying to treat it in some way, or alleviate the effects. This is not something we want to do with trans people, the effects that we're talking about are all other mental illnesses that we do want to treat the symptoms of.

Comment author: [deleted] 27 January 2015 02:37:40PM 3 points [-]

Do you mind sharing the brand and product name, for others?

In response to comment by [deleted] on Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015
Comment author: falenas108 27 January 2015 07:10:26PM *  1 point [-]
Comment author: passive_fist 26 January 2015 09:47:01PM 6 points [-]

I've been using LyX for preparing my doctoral dissertation and I'm amazed that such a complete and capable tool isn't more widely known and used. I can't imagine preparing scientific documents now with anything other than LyX, and I can't imagine that I used to use software like MS Word for this purpose. Anyone have any other examples of obscure but amazingly capable software?

Comment author: falenas108 27 January 2015 07:09:03PM 1 point [-]

I am also a massive fan of Lyx.

I'm only an undergrad physics major, but I'm in 2 classes where I have to submit moderately high level reports, and I'm working on a thesis. And I've only ever had to use one special format, which also happened to be the default format.

So far, I've found documentation to be eh, but I haven't had too many problems where that was an issue yet. The biggest problem is that my knowledge of LaTeX is sorely lacking because I've been using Lyx for everything!

Comment author: falenas108 26 January 2015 06:38:56PM 21 points [-]

Natural experiments: I've been trying a new acne wash for the past 6 months, and although I felt like it was working, I wasn't sure. Then, the other day when I was applying it to my back, my partner noticed there was an area I wasn't reaching. In fact, there was an entire line on my back where I wasn't stretching enough to get the wash on. This line coincided exactly with a line of acne, while the rest of my back was clear.

Now I know the wash works for me.

Related: http://xkcd.com/700/

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 26 January 2015 03:37:47PM *  8 points [-]

I suppose that this is only an allegation at the moment, although other similar allegations about the same organisation pushing a left-wing agenda at the expense of education have been made, which makes the whole thing more plausible (plus there is Azathoth's original allegation).

Asking an adult if they know anyone who is trapped is ok. The problem is that asking a 10 year old primes them with a concept they would not previously have had. If there is some sort of train of thought one can go down, which ends with 'help I'm trapped in the wrong body' when they would otherwise not have had this problem, then you do not prompt them to start this train of thought. For mostly the same reason, you don't ask children "do your friends drink vodka?".

Essentially, its conceivably possible that the idea of transsexualism poses an information hazard to children.

Comment author: falenas108 26 January 2015 06:32:24PM 3 points [-]

This entirely depends on which path the causality takes.

Trans folks are much more depressed and tend to have much higher levels of mental illness than the general population.*

Obviously, experiences are different for different people. But most trans people experience extreme discomfort in the gender roles they are expected to perform and have some form of gender dysphoria. I would expect these things to be present regardless if they knew that the label "trans" exists. If this is the reason for the higher rates of mental illness, then encouraging awareness of what trans is will let people do things to help fix some of these issues.

However, if the causal path is that people become aware of the idea of being trans, then realize that they do not fit the gender they were assigned at birth, leading to higher rates of mental illness, that would be a different issue.

Anecdotally, almost all the trans people I know have the experience of learning what being trans is, then having an "Oh! That's I'm feeling" moment. This would be evidence for the first method.

(Side note: The term most trans people use is transgender rather than transexual, because it is the gender that is different. On a similar note, most trans people do not have the surgeries you were talking about.) *I am not counting gender identity disorder as a mental illness, both because I don't think it should be classified that way and because this statement would be pointless if I did.

Comment author: falenas108 12 January 2015 04:43:04AM 1 point [-]

On Friday, I sent 13 emails and received about 40. 10 of those 13 were responses to others. Many of these were planning meetings or events where faster responses meant more got done today. This was not particularly unusual for a weekday. A couple of these were ones where we proceeded to have a conversation. I am a college student, but I am the leader of a couple groups on campus and heavily involved in a few more.

In my case, where about 1/4th of the emails I get need a response, I would say my current method of having a small pop-up come when I get an email works pretty well.

The once a day method works for people who don't need to respond, or response time is less important. But that's not true for everyone.

Comment author: falenas108 08 January 2015 01:25:12AM 2 points [-]

Positive experience:

I've been poly for 3 years, had 10+ poly relationships, and while all but 4 have ended problems caused by polyamory has never been the cause. I'm currently in a triad for 9 months, been with one of the people in the triad for almost a year, and have been in another relationship for a bit over a year. Polyamory has literally never been anything more than a tiny issue in my current relationships, and only once was it ever anything close to a serious issue.

Comment author: atorm 06 January 2015 12:52:44PM 0 points [-]

Man, imagine if Eliezer or some other big name wrote "Bi-hacking" and LessWrong became known for all the deliberate bisexuals.

Comment author: falenas108 08 January 2015 01:18:50AM 1 point [-]

There was definitely something Eliezer said about bisexuality being strictly superior because then you would just be attracted to more people. I was 16 and straight when I read that, and I wanted to be bi since then. Then, about 3 years ago, I became* bi.

*It's weird, but there was a definite point where I started being attracted to more than one gender.

Comment author: alienist 05 January 2015 05:49:17AM 8 points [-]

That's simply the inside view of blacktrance's point.

Comment author: falenas108 07 January 2015 02:14:16PM -1 points [-]

I agree, but at the time I posted this blacktrance had yet to make their post.

In response to 2014 Survey Results
Comment author: lmm 04 January 2015 10:20:01AM 3 points [-]

As always, thanks for doing this.

people can both be asexual and have a specific orientation

Huh? This is worded as a question about orientation rather than practice, so people who have an orientation have an orientation, no? Or is the issue something else?

Why are some results ordered and some listed alphabetically? That's a bit confusing.

What's this easy becoming calibrated through training? Bonus for a mainstream-ish source rather than LWsphere.

In response to comment by lmm on 2014 Survey Results
Comment author: falenas108 04 January 2015 04:20:54PM 2 points [-]

Huh? This is worded as a question about orientation rather than practice, so people who have an orientation have an orientation, no? Or is the issue something else?

People can be asexual but, say, homoromantic.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 04 January 2015 01:16:33PM 5 points [-]

Thanks. Maybe it's obvious for you but it does surprise me. Maybe it's more clear over ther in the U.S. I'm nonetheless surprised by the magnitude if they are only connected via such a unspecific bucket as 'left-wing'.

Comment author: falenas108 04 January 2015 04:20:12PM 9 points [-]

I'm pretty sure it's more than just that, a lot of feminist ideas are about helping typically underprivileged communities. I've seen a lot of stuff on feminist areas about helping the poor and the undocumented as an extension of that.

Comment author: HalMorris 20 November 2014 09:28:51PM 1 point [-]

Thanks, a very interesting response. But what do you mean by "SJ" types? Actually the whole sentence "This article is construing actions taken to be issues SJ types are complaining about to be ones that are not serious or concerning" is a bit hard to parse though I think I understand all but "SJ types".

Comment author: falenas108 20 November 2014 09:42:26PM -1 points [-]

Sorry, I meant social justice types, as in those identifying with the social justice movement.

And sorry about the general lack of clarity, my mind's been feeling weird today. Basically, that the author is making it seem like people are making a big deal of out little issues, and I was trying to say that regardless of how severe you think these incidents are, there are probably worse ones that the author is ignoring.

Comment author: falenas108 20 November 2014 09:38:22PM -1 points [-]

My other response is that it's not that this type of thing is suppressing free speech, it's trading off between two groups feeling comfortable participating in a particular environment. Let's look at the incidents in this article where there was a censorship of free speech:

The professor refused to allow a student to capitalize words in their dissertation paper, citing the Chicago Manual of Style. The students preferred APA, but the professor would not let them use the style they prefer.

Similarly, a TA says they aren't allowed to comment on correcting grammar.

The author of the article commenting over and over on "poor" writing style.

Protesting a t-shirt that pictured a professor who created a theory that states that students who get in on affirmative action are not as good of a match for the college, because they wouldn't have been admitted otherwise.

In many of thees situations, there are two groups where free speech is a concern: Academic groups trying to enforce a certain style of writing, and students trying to write in the way they feel expresses themselves the best.

At best, this is a conflict of different group's ability to speak freely. At worst, it's a continuation of the idea that writing in a style of a non-white cultures is somehow worse or less professional.

The only other thing was the T-shirt. To students who are affected by AA, that teacher was basically saying "you don't belong here." Obviously, that was not the intent of people who were wearing the t-shirts. And I am not sure how I feel on the overall reaction to this, but it is definitely understandable that affected students would feel uncomfortable by seeing a t-shirt with this guy's face on it.

Comment author: falenas108 20 November 2014 08:19:28PM 4 points [-]

TW rape threats, racism.

I have two responses, but I'm separating them because they are two entirely different issues. The first is that I think the article is misrepresenting the background of racism in UCLA in this article.

I'm a UChicago undergrad. In the past few years:

People put up a confederate flag in the window of the Office of Multicultural Student Affairs.

People dressed up as a 'cholo' getting beaten up by a police officer for Halloween.

A group called the UChicago Electronic Army took over the website of an entirely unrelated group and threatened to rape an individual as well as telling people that they will "rape harder to show the class of 2016 who is boss."

The same group hacked into a person's facebook account who was speaking up against the Halloween costume, using slurs and threatening rape against another person. This was in response to a plan to show up to a study area and protest for 7 minutes. (http://assets.feministing.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Screen-Shot-2014-11-19-at-10.26.55-AM.png)

And these are just the ones that were big enough that I found out about it. Until the most recent incident happened, the University had not taken action or even said anything about any of these incidents. In the most recent one, people went to the media and 41 teachers sent a petition to the university to condemn these instances and make it clear that these issues would not be tolerated.

This article is construing actions taken to be issues SJ types are complaining about to be ones that are not serious or concerning, but it feels to me like they are cherry picking these examples while leaving out the more serious ones.

(It is possible that the ones outlined in the article are the only ones in the recent history of UCLA, and there is not a broader scope of racist actions that is being left out. But I place a pretty low prior on that being the case.)

Comment author: falenas108 28 October 2014 03:03:09PM 2 points [-]

I keep finding the statistic that "one pint of donated blood can save up to 3 lives!" But I can't find the average number of lives saved from donating blood. Does anyone know/is able to find?

Comment author: CronoDAS 03 October 2014 05:33:10PM 2 points [-]

Incidentally, how hard is it to forge an STI report?

In response to comment by CronoDAS on [Link] Forty Days
Comment author: falenas108 03 October 2014 06:40:26PM 0 points [-]

Probably not that difficult, if someone really wanted to. I don't think there's a standard everyone uses.

Comment author: Azathoth123 01 October 2014 12:43:34AM -2 points [-]

So basically you're arguing for "death before dishonor". Ok, just keep in mind that the policy you're defending did indeed lead to many deaths.

Comment author: falenas108 02 October 2014 03:33:23PM -1 points [-]

I did not say that this difference made it the wrong policy, merely that it's something to keep in mind and that you shouldn't consider the cases of syphilis and AIDS to be entirely analogous.

Comment author: Vaniver 30 September 2014 06:30:22PM *  12 points [-]

35 what to one what?

Deaths in the US without quarantine to deaths in Cuba with quarantine. The two countries aren't directly comparable- Cochran is only confident estimating the number of AIDS deaths prevented as 'at least half'- but that's still 300k people. (If we had tested everyone in the US in 1987, that would be 300 deaths prevented for every person falsely quarantined.)

You're not exactly laying my fears to rest about the excessively coercive nature of your project.

The project is obviously coercive: otherwise it won't work. We're asking whether or not it's excessive, but I think in order to draw a line we need to have cases that clearly fall on each side of the line. Do you think it was excessive to, say, imprison Typoid Mary for three decades?

You are quite wrong that this has been seen as the right move for centuries. In the past, quarantines were normally carried out informally, sometimes by the church.

The US has federal laws on the books regarding quarantine since 1799. That's not because government quarantine is only 200 years old; that's because the US is only 200 years old. When churches have carried out quarantines, I would suspect it's because they are the effective government.

I brought them up as a reductio, not as a serious suggestion.

I'm serious; one of the reasons I don't engage in casual sex with men is because I would have to trust his self-report of whether or not he has HIV (and almost half of the men with HIV don't know that they have it).

One thing I find strange about this discussion is that it's all in the past tense. To those so gung-ho about quarantine - why not quarantine now? HIV is just as infectious as ever.

Several reasons:

  1. The damage done by a quarantine is proportional to the number of people with the disease, and we now have over a million people with HIV. (About one in five MSM have HIV.)
  2. The treatments are now much more effective at prolonging life and increasing quality of life, making the cost of an infection lower (to the infected, though perhaps not to society).
  3. HIV is not as infectious as ever; a person's risk of transmitting the disease is proportional to their viral load, and better treatments have reduced viral loads significantly.
In response to comment by Vaniver on [Link] Forty Days
Comment author: falenas108 01 October 2014 12:07:28AM 2 points [-]

I'm serious; one of the reasons I don't engage in casual sex with men is because I would have to trust his self-report of whether or not he has HIV (and almost half of the men with HIV don't know that they have it).

Something you can do: Ask when they were most recently tested, and if you don't trust them then ask to see the STI report. In many circles that's not too unusual a request.

Comment author: Azathoth123 30 September 2014 01:00:48AM -2 points [-]

A big difference about outing someone with syphillis vs with AIDS is back then it was thought by a lot of folks that AIDS was only transferrable by anal sex,

Thought correctly, I might add.

Which was also much more dangerous to be outed as back then.

I doubt it was more dangerous than getting AIDS was back then.

Comment author: falenas108 30 September 2014 04:31:16AM *  3 points [-]

Thought correctly, I might add.

Uh, no. Transmission rates are higher with anal sex, but not 0 for vaginal sex.

I doubt it was more dangerous than getting AIDS was back then. Yes. That's clearly not the point of that comment, which was saying that making an equivalence between that in syphilis and HIV is not accurate. Unless you're trying to say the mortality rate between HIV was lower than syphilis back then, which seems to be not accurate

In response to [Link] Forty Days
Comment author: falenas108 29 September 2014 01:07:23PM 3 points [-]

A big difference about outing someone with syphillis vs with AIDS is back then it was thought by a lot of folks that AIDS was only transferrable by anal sex, i.e. you would also be outing them as probably gay/bi.

Which was also much more dangerous to be outed as back then.

Comment author: blacktrance 16 September 2014 10:13:18PM *  7 points [-]

[Please read the OP before voting. Special voting rules apply.]

There is nothing morally wrong about eating meat, and vegetarianism/veganism aren't morally superior to meat-eating.

Comment author: falenas108 21 September 2014 07:43:17PM 0 points [-]

For most of the vegetarians I know, the issue isn't inherently eating meat. It's the way the animals are treated before they are killed.

Comment author: AnnaLeptikon 30 August 2014 06:23:36PM 1 point [-]

The general problem of fasting and extremely reduced intakes is that the metabolism slows down. Also you first lose a lot of muscles, then a bit of fat - when going on eating normal you burn less than before (because of less muscles) and therefore gain more fat. So for your body's composition I would say: Don't do it. (There is this great German book called "Die Physik des Abnehmens" = "the physics of weight loss" in which a physicist explains all this things very nicely)

However: I personally tried fasting for the mental effect, I was able to concentrate even better than normal, I liked the feeling of being "independent" from food and of being able to get through all of this things. (But I will not do it again because I try to get less body fat :) )

Comment author: falenas108 31 August 2014 08:58:32PM 0 points [-]

As a physicist, I would not trust a book about weight loss by a physicist unless they also studied nutrition at an academic level.

Actually, I wouldn't trust a book about weight loss by anyone who hasn't studied nutrition at an academic level, that field is incredibly hard and it's too easy to simplify.

Comment author: sixes_and_sevens 04 August 2014 02:38:39PM 2 points [-]

Something from the modern day, yes. The people arriving at the naive belief, and the people with the ability to demonstrate its incorrect status, should coexist.

Comment author: falenas108 04 August 2014 02:49:00PM 2 points [-]

Sorry to keep going on this, but would looking at a historical example of a group of intelligent people arriving at a naive belief, even though there was plenty of evidence available at the time that this is a naive belief work?

Comment author: sixes_and_sevens 04 August 2014 01:55:32PM *  9 points [-]

Oblique request made without any explanation: can anyone provide examples of beliefs that are incontrovertibly incorrect, but which intelligent people will nonetheless arrive at quite reasonably through armchair-theorising?

I am trying to think up non-politicised, non-controversial examples, yet every one I come up with is a reliable flame-war magnet.

ETA: I am trying to reason about disputes where on the one hand you have an intelligent, thoughtful person who has very expertly reasoned themselves into a naive but understandable position p, and on the other hand, you have an individual who possesses a body of knowledge that makes a strong case for the naivety of p.

What kind of ps exist, and do they have common characteristics? All I can come up with are politically controversial ps, but I'm starting my search from a politically-controversial starting point. The motivating example for this line of reasoning is so controversial that I'm not touching it with a shitty-stick.

Comment author: falenas108 04 August 2014 02:22:22PM 2 points [-]

Does it have to be something from the modern day? Because there are tons of historical examples.

Comment author: CronoDAS 03 August 2014 07:25:47AM *  13 points [-]

A girl (who I shall not name here) has been hitting on me on Facebook recently. On Friday August 1st, we went on a date.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Comment author: falenas108 03 August 2014 02:30:29PM 7 points [-]

When I clicked on that link, I thought it was going to lead here.

Yours is much classier.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 26 July 2014 04:12:23PM 4 points [-]

I don't know where else to post this, but I've been entertaining a hypothesis about HPMOR's version of magic. Has anyone already made the connection between magic and Outcome Pumps? During the first chapters in Hogwarts, Harry talks a lot about expectations, and about magic being able to match them, and it ocurred to me that HPMOR's magic was a mechanism to force your universe to branch into one that matches your expectation. Then I read somewhere, in old threads, that EY was at one point in the past planning to write a story about a device to "squeeze the future," and I realized that HPMOR was it. Your wand is the device that squeezes the future and ensures you end up in the world you expected. Has this been discussed already?

Comment author: falenas108 26 July 2014 04:20:26PM 3 points [-]

The first experiments Harry did, where he told Hermione what the spells did but gave her wrong pronunciations, tested for this theory. If your idea is correct, the spells should have worked anyway. But they didn't.

Comment author: falenas108 08 July 2014 04:25:05AM 2 points [-]

It is very possible that this would make it worse than anticipated, but a quick reminder to anyone afraid ice melting will create a positive feedback loop:

The main thing that takes CO2 out of the atmosphere is the ocean. Adding more water will mean more CO2 can dissolve. This is the main reason why in the past, the climate always returned from getting too hot or too cold.

Comment author: ChristianKl 05 July 2014 09:04:24AM 2 points [-]

I don't think the state of "awake" but not "conscious" is new. It's a trance state which is quite frequently used in hypnosis. I don't think there's anything surprising about the fact that you can induce such a trance state where the person isn't conscious by stimulating specific parts of the brain.

Comment author: falenas108 05 July 2014 02:42:25PM 2 points [-]

Is that actually the same thing? I was under hypnosis once, and it wasn't that I wasn't thinking at all, just less. I would expect not conscious to mean I had no awareness of what is going on.

Comment author: shminux 03 July 2014 06:00:39PM *  26 points [-]

I seem to be the lone dissenter here, but I am unhappy about the ban. Not that it is unjustified, it definitely is. However, it does not address the main issue (until jackk fiddles with karma): preventing Eugine from mass downvoting. So this is mainly retribution, rather than remediation, which seems anti-rational to me, if emotionally satisfying, as one of the victims.

Imagine for a moment that Eugine did not engage in mass downvoting. He would be a valuable regular on this site. I recall dozens of insightful comments he made (and dozens of poor ones, of course, but who am I to point fingers), and I only stopped engaging him in the comments after his mass-downvoting habits were brought to light for the first time. So, I would rather see him exposed and dekarmified, but allowed to participate.

TL;DR: banning is a wrong decision, should have been exposed and stripped of the ability of downvote instead. Optionally, all his votes ever could have been reversed, unless it's hard.

EDIT: apparently not the lone dissenter, just the first to speak up.

Comment author: falenas108 03 July 2014 11:37:48PM 1 point [-]

Agreed. Though, getting any change to this site (minor or major) has proven to be extremely difficult.

I approve of this step over nothing, though I do hope dekarmification does happen.

Comment author: falenas108 03 July 2014 06:36:47PM 2 points [-]

That seems to be the purpose for the subject GRE test, which are standard for students to take going into grad school. It seems far easier to make that standard for employment as well, rather than inventing an entirely different test.

Comment author: falenas108 03 July 2014 03:25:57PM 13 points [-]

Thank you for doing this.

I was still posting on LW after the downvoting started, but I was definitely coming to the site less, reading less, and especially posting less. I'm not sure if was entirely due to the downvoting, as it started about when people were saying the quality of posts started to decrease. But for me, just going on to LW and seeing the decreased karma became a bit of an ugh field.

Comment author: Omid 01 July 2014 05:55:48PM *  9 points [-]

The quantified risks of gay sex post is in the early stages of development. If you are a mod and think such a post would have negative value, pianoforte611 and I would appreciate hearing your concerns before we invest our time in it. If you are not a mod but want to make some pre-emptive suggestions, those are welcome too.

Comment author: falenas108 02 July 2014 01:08:46PM *  8 points [-]

A few nuances that I would like to see in the paper:

*Not all gay men have anal sex, many chose not to in favor of other activities.

*Also, not having the assumption that only gay/bi men have anal sex.

*A distinction between transmission rates if people chose to use condoms vs not, because part of the reason the rate is higher is condoms are much less common in the gay community.

*A disclaimer about how not all men have penises, and sex≠gender≠genitalia would be nice.

Comment author: [deleted] 01 July 2014 08:25:08AM *  4 points [-]

If I chatter like an idiot today, it's because I'm trying not to think about this shit. The worst thought at a time of tragedy is, "This did not have to happen."

None of it has to happen. But I can't see a way to make it stop happening.

Fuck.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Open thread, 30 June 2014- 6 July 2014
Comment author: falenas108 01 July 2014 12:54:40PM 6 points [-]

People dead are always a tragedy. But keep in mind availability bias. The first sentence for this article is "This city’s 471st homicide of 2012 happened in the middle of the day, in the middle of a crowd, on the steps of the church where the victim of homicide 463 was being eulogized."

There were 506 homicides in one city, Chicago. And they were not tortured, but in this case that is outweighed by sheer numbers. If you're putting effort into decreasing the number of murders in the world, do it effectively.

Comment author: falenas108 06 June 2014 11:12:40PM 12 points [-]

I'm also one of those target. Literally every comment I have ever made has been downvoted, 10 downvotes a day, for a few months. This happened until whoever was doing it reached my oldest comment. Recent comments are also downvoted.

Not only is mass downvoting feel pretty terrible, it also messes up the purpose of voting. Voting is meant to be a signal of how useful the community thinks a person's comments are, and that's no longer true of my votes or any other victim of downvoting.

Comment author: solipsist 31 May 2014 10:19:55PM 7 points [-]

The article you linked to says condom use reduces infection rate by 70%. That sounds good (sort of).

But what's the base rate? Gay and bisexual men make up 2% of the population and 72% of all new infections among 13-24 year-olds. That sounds really bad.

I would appreciate some well-researched article with numbers and conditional probabilities and the like. Perhaps several people could approach the problem from different angles and each do their own writeup?

Comment author: falenas108 01 June 2014 02:23:25PM 3 points [-]

Yeah, that doesn't surprise me all that much. For PIV sex, there is a huge incentive to use condoms: as birth control. Even with people using birth control, condoms are still pretty common.

But, in the gay community many people don't use condoms. As stated in the other article, only 1/6 gay men regularly use condoms. Hence, the higher numbers despite condoms reducing infection rate by 70% for anal sex, compared to the ~80-85% reduction in PIV sex.

Also, slight nitpick. Gay/bi/MSM make up 2% of the general population, but I'd be willing to bet that they make up a much larger percent of 13-24 year olds.

Comment author: Omid 31 May 2014 05:02:40PM *  12 points [-]

Proposal: Quantified risks of gay sex: As a bi-curious man, I have some interest in gay sex, but I'm also worried about STDs. As a nerd, I'd like to weight my subjective desire to have gay sex against the objective risks of stds. This has been surprisingly difficult.

The risks of lesbian sex doesn't need quantification because it's basically zero. The risks of straight sex have been decently-enough quantified here and here. But there's no comparable guide for gay sex.

All of the websites for gay men give vague advice like "wearing a condom is safer than not wearing a condom." Sure, but does wearing a condom make gay sex safe enough to rationally partake in, or is it like wearing a seatbelt while you're drunk driving? I'd like to write a post that told men how risky gay sex was and how much of that risk can be avoided. It would help men decide not just whether they should have gay sex, but whether they should get circumcised or insist their partners be tested.

This post could be a hazard if it exposes Less Wrong to legal risk, or if it says something boneheaded and damages the forum's credibility. So I'd probably need some help researching and editing it and I'd want to show it to whoever is in charge of these forums before I post it.

Comment author: falenas108 31 May 2014 08:18:37PM 0 points [-]

In my response to this post, I realized I was basically starting to write what the post you were talking about.

Anyway, as someone who has done research into this, the answer is the risk is higher, but not all that much. Suggested start here: http://www.aidsmap.com/Consistent-condom-use-in-anal-sex-stops-70-of-HIV-infections-study-finds/page/2586976/

Comment author: [deleted] 30 May 2014 09:34:58AM -1 points [-]

A UFAI that doesn't go around eating stars to make paper-clips is probably already someone's attempted FAI. Bringing arbitrarily large sums of mass-energy and negentropy under one's control is a Basic AI Drive, so you have to program the utility function to actually penalize it.

In response to comment by [deleted] on UFAI cannot be the Great Filter
Comment author: falenas108 30 May 2014 01:55:38PM -1 points [-]

Only if the AI has goals that both require additional energy, and don't have a small, bounded success condition.

For example, if an UFAI for humans has a goal that requires humans to be there, but is not allowed to create/lead to the creation of more, then if all humans are already dead it won't do anything.

Comment author: [deleted] 28 May 2014 02:05:12PM 3 points [-]

bad pain that they like

What do you mean by “bad” for that to make sense?

In response to comment by [deleted] on Open Thread, May 26 - June 1, 2014
Comment author: falenas108 28 May 2014 11:11:19PM 2 points [-]

For some people, certain types and amounts of pain is actually processed as a basically enjoyable thing. Other types of pain are still processed as pain, but is still something they want to happen and enjoy on a different level.

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 27 May 2014 02:35:14AM 9 points [-]

I am thinking about moving to the Bay Area, probably Berkeley. I want to do a reconaissance mission first. My plan would be:

  • Rent a place through AirBnb for a long weekend
  • Walk around, try out the public transportation system, maybe check out some apartments
  • Go to some LessWrong/MIRI/CFAR events

I assume some other LWers not currently in the Bay Area are also thinking about moving there - would any of you be interested in joining me on this mission? Renting a larger space would be cheaper on a per person basis, and it seems like it would be good to have other people to help weigh the pros and cons of different areas and lifestyles (e.g. commuting by car vs using the subway; sharing a house near the city center vs. living by oneself in the suburbs).

Comment author: falenas108 27 May 2014 07:46:38PM 0 points [-]

I'm thinking of applying to Berkley next year for grad school, and I'd be up for that!

Comment author: Algernoq 27 May 2014 05:44:07AM 0 points [-]

I'm concerned (morally horrified as well as convinced of factual error) by quotes from two texts that are part of the "canon" here. The first advocates nonconsensual sadism; the second advocates sadism. Warning: SEX AND CONSENT AND SADISM TO BE DISCUSSED:

From "Three Worlds Collide":

The Confessor [, a rationality expert on a starship's crew,] held up a hand. "I mean it, my lord Akon. It is not polite idealism. We ancients can't steer. We remember too much disaster. We're too cautious to dare the bold path forward. Do you know there was a time when nonconsensual sex was illegal?"

Akon wasn't sure whether to smile or grimace. "The Prohibition, right? During the first century pre-Net? I expect everyone was glad to have that law taken off the books. I can't imagine how boring your sex lives must have been up until then - flirting with a woman, teasing her, leading her on, knowing the whole time that you were perfectly safe because she couldn't take matters into her own hands if you went a little too far -"

Nonconsensual sex is generally illegal and is obviously harmful, given the widely known, well documented negative consequences that I will not enumerate here. The quote about this is a transparently gender-reversed claim that the risk of sexual assault improves relationships by making them more exciting. This is obviously and offensively wrong. Does the risk of robbery improve living conditions? Does the risk of death improve life? Also, a future society where consent is optional appears to be a terrible dystopia: assuming a free democratic government, lack of consent implies that advertisers and corporations could force consumers to buy things. This quote needs A LOT of additional justification and qualification (and ideally deletion) to avoid implying that "raising the sanity waterline" means "abolishing liberty and ethics."

From the April Fool's Day 2014 Confession:

I’m very worried, in retrospect, that they all managed to cure themselves via standard self-modification techniques. It’s very obvious that if I’d realized in dath ilan [, an ideal rationalist society,] that I was a sexual sadist, I would have treated this as an error and probably not told anyone before I fixed it. It would not have occurred to me that sexual masochists were a thing or that I could find a willing victim to be sadistic at, I would have thought I was being sick and selfish.

Consensual sadism is (usually) legal. For the rationalist goal of "raising the sanity waterline", being consensually sadistic appears to be a distraction at best. Inflicting pain for fun appears likely to harm empathy and sociability. I don't know much about this community/practice. "Willing victim" implies victimization in a negative sense, while BDSM is intended to be positive for all participants.

Moral relativism awareness notice: I am aware that "should" cannot be derived from "is", and that no one knows how or why anything exists except in relation to other things that exist.

Given that we're trying to be "rational", which presumably means "think in a way that gets the best outcome for the thinker given the situation and the available information", I fail to see how sadism is anything but a harmful distraction, and sexual consent an essential good.

Comment author: falenas108 27 May 2014 07:45:15PM *  11 points [-]

Consensual sadism isn't a goal of raising the sanity waterline any more than having better sex is, but many people consider both to be enjoyable things. We can't say anything that does not strictly raise the waterline is automatically bad, or even a neutral thing.

Inflicting pain for fun appears likely to harm empathy and sociability

In my experience, this is very much the opposite of what happens. As a sadist, I need to be more aware of what my bottoms are experiencing. In most cases, it isn't that people who are bottoming enjoy all pain, I had to learn to recognize the difference in reactions between pleasure, good pain, bad pain that they like, and bad pain that they don't like. This is much harder than in vanilla practices, which just needs to differentiate between any type of pain and pleasure.

As for sociability, the BDSM community is very much a social one, and I don't see how being in it would decrease this.

Comment author: [deleted] 21 May 2014 06:11:19PM -2 points [-]

How about the governments of the US and Russia correctly forecast that more hostility means more profits for their cronies, and increase military spending?

In response to comment by [deleted] on Open Thread, May 19 - 25, 2014
Comment author: falenas108 22 May 2014 03:50:51PM -1 points [-]

That would still not be zero-sum. Which direction you think it is depends on your views.

Comment author: falenas108 04 May 2014 04:01:19PM 17 points [-]

Successfully acted in my first theater production where I had actual lines I was saying to an audience. I have a mild form of dyslexia, and I have a problem where I often paraphrase things, so being able to comfortably deliver a series of lines exactly while under stress from having an audience is a big deal for me.

Comment author: falenas108 23 April 2014 05:44:02PM 3 points [-]

Although there’s a possible sample bias here (employees whose needs aren’t satisfied will keep looking for other opportunities and leave if they find them)

I think the result is entirely explained by this bias, and the fact that many people take administrative jobs like that right out of college simply because they can't find other jobs.

Specific examples of people exploring opportunities and using their career capital in creative ways. For example, the book mentions a marketing executive, Joe Duffy, who wanted to work creativity into his working life–but instead of quitting and trying to make a living as an artist, he build skills and a reputation in brand icons and logos, until he was offered a job at a company that gave him the creative freedom he wanted.

This anecdote is extremely unusual, for this to happen Joe had to become famous enough that his ideal job was simply offered to him. This is very unlikely for the average person in a job they find boring. They would do better trying to somehow alter their job to become more interesting. This is similar to your later complaint that there weren't any jobs mentioned positively in your reference class of nursing.

Comment author: falenas108 20 April 2014 11:22:18PM 1 point [-]

You're theory relies on students having an overall non-contradictory goal that defines all their actions. I don't think this is the case, which I think is a mistake. I think there's just a difference in student's near vs. far view preferences.

You talked about students being happy that single classes are cancelled as evidence. I think that's because when students think of a single lecture, it's an immediate "Yay, I don't have to go to class today!" And there isn't an explicit connection of "this means we will learn less material overall."

But, students would be sad if the entire class were cancelled, because in the long term, they would rather learn the material.

Comment author: falenas108 10 April 2014 10:10:44PM 2 points [-]

Does anyone know of a good secular Haggadah for Passover?

Comment author: falenas108 10 April 2014 10:14:49PM 1 point [-]

I have this one already.

Comment author: falenas108 10 April 2014 10:10:44PM 2 points [-]

Does anyone know of a good secular Haggadah for Passover?

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 01 April 2014 07:14:20AM 0 points [-]

Other Media Thread

Comment author: falenas108 01 April 2014 03:12:11PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: Ixiel 13 March 2014 08:19:34PM *  5 points [-]

Nah, not implausible I exist, but I rarely post, so have no track record. It's amazing how many people are above average online...

Mentally, I'm materially above average intelligence, but understand that that only goes so far. And I cultivate rationality (I'm here aren't I?)

Socially, I'm reasonably well liked by everyone I know, people tell me I have a decent sense of humor. I'm engaged to a beautiful blonde doctor, who is eerily similar to the woman I prayed to meet as a teenager, and has been able to put up with my strangeness for four years.

Bodily, I have no known history of any genetic diseases and have never been dependant on prescription drugs. Though I admit the surgeon general would like me to lose a pound or two. Not "Mommy why's he like that?" fat though.

Financially, I own my own house, and if I (and they) decide to have kids, my kids and grandkids will never have to work, assuming I don't earn/inherit/win/cetera a penny, and my stocks gain 0% (Admittedly, they could crash). I tell people I have a Forrest Gump approach. "Lt. Dan said I didn't have to worry about money any more. And I said, well, that's good. One less thing."

Attitudinally, I'm hugely optimistic. Not every day, but more often than not, I wake up and am struck by the wonder of how unlikely my good fortune is.

I know it sounds out there, and it is, but it's also true. Hand to God. Or Bacon, or whomever you'd like, if you dig propriomanual verification.

Comment author: falenas108 14 March 2014 05:25:45PM -2 points [-]

I agree with RomanE in that this doesn't seem all that unusual. I'm an undergrad in college right now so I don't have the monetary security, fiancee, or house, but everything else applies to me as well. There are a couple of things that could help to explain this, in my cause and probably in yours.

Are you fairly neurotypical in a way that doesn't interfere with your social life or physical well-being? Did you grow up with a middle, upper middle, or upper class family? Do you grow up in a developed nation? Are you of a racial class that is generally privileged in your area? (E.g., white in America.)

If these are true, or even just the first three, I would say it's not all that unusual. Not lower than 5%, anyway. I don't think that, given the above, it is unusual enough to warrant an explanation outside the ordinary.

Comment author: CellBioGuy 12 March 2014 01:51:29PM 1 point [-]

Meta thread

Comment author: falenas108 12 March 2014 04:15:05PM 4 points [-]

This is a time that the system of hiding votes less than -3 is a bad thing. In this thread, downvotes indicate that a belief that people may have thought was rare is actually pretty common on LW, which is something I'm interested in seeing.

Comment author: pianoforte611 08 March 2014 07:40:45PM 7 points [-]

I'd be interested in seeing a trial run of this kind of post. Do you have an interesting belief that you think you could communicate in a compact manner?

Here is a try: If I had to summarize my view on free will it would be: Free will is what deterministic decision making feels like from the inside. Humans are capable of considering alternative courses of action, eventually deciding what to do. The process of choosing occurs deterministically and is what we call free will.

Comment author: falenas108 08 March 2014 10:20:16PM 3 points [-]

If this were my first introduction to this idea, I would not have a very good idea of what this means. Unpacking "what deterministic decision making feels like from the inside" means would be absolutely necessary for this, and would probably require an example to explain.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 21 February 2014 01:58:06PM 0 points [-]

Click on your username.

Comment author: falenas108 21 February 2014 04:37:02PM 0 points [-]

Sorry, by last comment I meant first comment. (As in, first ever posted to this site.) Whoops!

Comment author: falenas108 21 February 2014 01:50:23PM 0 points [-]

Is there a quick way to quickly go to the last comment page of a user? (Myself in this case.)

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 19 February 2014 08:51:53PM 0 points [-]

Weird. Someone showed this to me just on Monday.

I pointed out right away that the non-trolls will want to overlevel their team (if that's a thing, I dunno), to be safe against interference.

Of course, trolls will be very effective at preventing you from getting far in menus (menu cancel spam) so you may be stuck with your starting pokemon or whatever for a long time. And heaven help you if the game requires you to go deep into a menu hierarchy to activate level up bonuses.

Comment author: falenas108 19 February 2014 09:14:04PM 1 point [-]

The problem is most definitely not being strong enough to fight the trainers they need to fight, it's getting to them in the first place.

There are a lot ledges that you can only go one way on, and many of them lead from the end of a path right back to the beginning.

Comment author: gjm 14 February 2014 10:33:54PM *  3 points [-]

Many thanks for looking into this!

What have you/they been trying to do? Unsupervised detection of mass-downvoting, or exploration of particular specific cases alleged to have occurred? If the latter, do the records not show the downvotes at all, or do they show downvotes from many different individuals in each case?

(Does the database contain information about when any given downvote happened? I guess probably not, which makes diagnosis more difficult.)

For example: I've been having ~5-10 recent and older comments downvoted per day, I think all during UK night-time or early morning (i.e., roughly 4pm to 2am Pacific), most days (I think all) for about the last 4 or 5. Approximately all of the recent-ish comments I've checked appear to have been downvoted exactly once. (A few very recent ones haven't been. A couple have been downvoted more than once; I guess that they were genuinely disliked on their (de)merits.)

If someone has the time to look, it would be interesting to know: Do the records show that those comments have been downvoted, and by whom? One downvoter, or a few, or many? Any signs of sockpuppetry, if many?

One possibility (though an unappealing one, not a very likely one a priori, and one that I feel a bit paranoid even mentioning) is a sort of downvoting ring of people willing to cooperate on downvoting at a rate just slow enough to avoid suspicion. That would be bad. And also sad.

[EDITED to add: I'd offer to help with the investigating, but as an interested party I probably shouldn't.]

[EDITED again to add: at 2014-02-15 08:41 GMT, it looks as if I haven't had a pile of downvotes in the last 8-10 hours. Maybe whoever it is has got bored, or maybe they've noticed evidence of someone looking. Or, of course, maybe I'm making the whole thing up, but anyone who finds that likely and cares to check can look at my comment history and see the evidence.]

Comment author: falenas108 15 February 2014 03:15:55PM 2 points [-]

This is exactly the pattern for my downvoting too.

Comment author: falenas108 13 February 2014 07:29:03PM 4 points [-]

Yeah, I've been getting this too (see here for when I posted in the open thread about it).

So far, I've lost about 300 karma.

Comment author: hyporational 12 February 2014 01:56:25PM 1 point [-]

People might be a bit too quick to associate whatever health problems they have to whatever intervention they were running at the moment they got them.

Comment author: falenas108 12 February 2014 07:01:17PM 2 points [-]

Suddenly being able to eat far more than one could earlier right after getting off a diet that explicitly restricts calories seems like a fairly safe causal conclusion.

Comment author: Serious_Shenanigans 11 July 2013 10:29:22AM *  1 point [-]

Eliezer's model:

The Medical Establishment is always right.

Information given:

  • Person is feeling chest pain.
  • Paramedics say hospitalization is unnecessary.

Possible scenarios mentioned in the story:

  1. Person is feeling chest pain and is having a heart attack.
  2. Person is feeling chest pain but does not need to be hospitalized.
  3. Person is lying.

Between the model and the information given, only Scenario 1 can be ruled false; Scenarios 2 and 3 are both possible. If Eliezer is going to beat himself up for not knowing better, it should be because Scenario 3 did not occur to him -- not that Scenario 3 is the logical reality.

Comment author: falenas108 10 February 2014 02:24:41PM 0 points [-]

The way you phrase it hides the crucial part of the story. Rephrasing:

  1. Person is telling the truth a.) They are having a heart attack, but the paramedics judged wrongly, dismissed it, and didn't take him to the hospital. b.) They are not having a heart attack, the paramedics judged rightly, and the paramedics dismissed it and didn't take him to the hospital.
  2. Person is lying.

Eliezer is saying that he should have known scenario 1 is wrong because regardless of whether or not the paramedics think it's legit, they would have taken the person to the hospital anyway. So, 1a and 1b must be wrong, leaving 2.

Or, if I were going to add to your model, I would add "The Medical Establishment always takes in the ambulance if they call for a medical reason." Then, when the information given is "Paramedics say hospitalization is unnecessary," that would have been a direct conflict between model and information, where Eliezer had to choose between rejecting the model and rejecting the information.

Comment author: Metus 03 February 2014 07:33:27PM *  1 point [-]

I want to extend this to mattresses. About a third of my time is spent sleeping, how much can I spend before marginal returns kick in?

Comment author: falenas108 04 February 2014 01:57:17PM 1 point [-]

Before of Other Optimizing here. You're going to see a lot of "This mattress is the best thing I've ever slept on!," and it may not be the case for you. Second Christian's advice to actually go into a store and sleep on a mattress.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 February 2014 03:23:58PM *  12 points [-]

Seeing how common akrasia and all that is on LW, I would go as far as to say that many "normal" people are better at instrumental rationality than the people here. If you look at it from the point of view of instrumental rationality, many things here are probably just a waste of time. They might be useful at some point, but focusing on more practical things will very likely be far more useful.

edit. But this is for an individual, I think LW could be really useful for the society as whole. Raising the sanity waterline and popularizing things like effective altruism will be irreplaceably valuable.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Rationality & Low-IQ People
Comment author: falenas108 03 February 2014 06:53:02PM 6 points [-]

I think you're underestimating how common akrasia is among the rest of the world. It's just not seen as that bad of a thing if people spend their time off watching TV, eating unhealthily, or spending hours on the internet.

Comment author: kokotajlod 03 February 2014 02:18:27PM 3 points [-]

Agreed. Perhaps I should have said "Normal-IQ people?" That still sounds a bit bad though.

Comment author: falenas108 03 February 2014 06:49:39PM 3 points [-]

Maybe something to the effect of "Rationality and the Average Person," which doesn't have a reference to ideas of intelligence or IQ, but keeps the idea of "How can this best be applied to the rest of the world?"

However, I don't particularly like that phrasing.

Comment author: falenas108 26 January 2014 07:56:14AM 14 points [-]

I've been systematically downvoted for the past 16 days. Every day or two, I'd lose about 10 karma. So far, I've lost a total of about 160 karma.

It's not just somebody just going through my comments and downvoting the ones they disagree with. Even a comment where I said "thanks" when somebody pointed out a formatting error in my comments is now at -1.

I'm not sure what can/should be done about this, but I thought I should post it here. And if the person who did this is here and there is a reason, I would appreciate it if you would say it here.

Comment author: Omid 18 January 2014 03:08:19PM *  1 point [-]

How would I tell my girlfriend that gifts my love language love language without looking like I'm exploiting her for free stuff.

Comment author: falenas108 18 January 2014 04:07:21PM 2 points [-]

http://lesswrong.com/lw/jis/tell_culture/

Say what you just said here.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 08 January 2014 11:13:34AM *  12 points [-]

When women in the atheist movement still get sexually harassed by public figures, get rape and death threats, and when having a "no sexual harassment" policy creates a firestorm, all from other people within the atheist movement, the movement does need to be more pro-women and more pro-social justice.

False dilemma.

Social justice warriors are not the only kind of people on this planet who care about safety and well-being of other people. Also, feminists sometimes send death threats, too.

The sexual harassment by public figures certainly has to stop, the perpetrators have to be punished: legally when possible, and removed from positions of power within the community.

Giving more power to feminists and social justice warriors is not the only way to do this. It is one of the possible solutions, but not the only possible solution.

Comment author: falenas108 08 January 2014 02:45:24PM -1 points [-]

As Nancy said, what other movement that you could see becoming active in the atheist movement that supports this?

And yes, they send death threats too. But at a ridiculously lower rate than is currently done, considering many popular female bloggers say they get death/rape threats every time they say something controversial.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 07 January 2014 04:57:14AM 8 points [-]

I don't think there's a problem with countering misogyny, racism, homo/bi/transphobia, or ableism. That sounds like a good thing. You may disagree with what they label as x-phobia, but the discussion should be about what is x-phobic, not whether we should care about x-phobia.

The problem is that this derails the discussion into arguing whether Y is x-phobic rather than whether Y is bad.

Comment author: falenas108 07 January 2014 05:45:06AM -1 points [-]

That's true, let me add to my statements:

I think the mission statement is a good thing. But, I agree how the policy is carried out (e.g. crying "That's racist!" and nothing more) is ineffective.

Alternative: If somebody says something x-phobic, the response should be something along the lines of "Saying X is harmful to group Y because...."

Comment author: Randy_M 06 January 2014 03:54:19PM *  11 points [-]

I think you are covering a lot of distance by stretching "don't advocate violence" into "don't say anything that someone feels the widespread adoption of could be potentially dangerous."

Comment author: falenas108 06 January 2014 04:33:50PM -1 points [-]

Actually, this is something I've been a bit confused about the whole time. What posts is she talking about? The OP says Yvain's posts, but from the substance of the article the article it sounds like she's talking about reactionaries.

Considering the much higher than average rate of homocide towards trans people based on todays standards, a reinforcement of gender roles would almost certainly increase that rate.

Comment author: bbleeker 06 January 2014 12:42:09PM 12 points [-]

don't say/advocate for violence against others, don't be needlessly rude, don't use personal attacks.

But those already are the rules on LW......aren't they?

Comment author: falenas108 06 January 2014 03:43:30PM -2 points [-]

Yeah, in theory. This leads to two things:

1) We already do have a kind of safe space in theory, it's mostly the name "safe space" that turns people off more than the actual idea.

2) We're doing part of that wrong, because it was people advocating ideas that would be dangerous to the OP that turned her off from LW in the first place.

Comment author: gjm 06 January 2014 08:08:51AM -1 points [-]

Is the quoted "still occur today" in bogus's comment a fabricated quotation, a quotation of something you've since edited away, or a quotation of something I'm being too blind to see?

(If it's the second of those, you probably ought to indicate the fact somehow.)

Comment author: falenas108 06 January 2014 08:50:32AM *  -1 points [-]

I definitely think it still does, but I haven't said anything about that in this thread so far.

I guess you could interpret my use of the present tense in the first post I made as still happening today? But that was supposed to be talking about when Atheism+ was created.

EDIT: Having a sexual harassment policy is standard now. The other two I mentioned...still a problem.

Comment author: bogus 06 January 2014 06:48:12AM *  0 points [-]

[Retracted] You're citing a blogpost from August 2012 for the claim that these bad things "still occur today"? I'm no fan of the atheist movement, and I agree that its proponents can be occasionally lacking in basic kindness and social graces (as do many others, who refuse to self-identify as 'atheists' for this very reason). But still, you're not providing much evidence for your claim here. [/Retracted]

Edited to add: Apparently you only meant to refer to the time 'Atheism+' was actually getting off the ground - the "elevatorgate" controversy and whatnot. If so, I misinterpreted your comment, for which I apologize - but that would make your point rather trivial, since ThrustVectoring was clearly objecting to "Atheism+"'s continued [assumed to be detrimental] influence on the atheist movement.

Comment author: falenas108 06 January 2014 07:32:27AM 0 points [-]

That was an article justifying the creation of atheism+. This was a discussion of why there was a problem in the atheist movement that lead to its creation.

Comment author: bogus 06 January 2014 06:35:28AM *  11 points [-]

But LessWrong isn't about political discussion ...

Fair point. It is about deliberation, though. And make no mistake, these folks use "safe space" in the political/echo-chamber sense all the time. To me, this makes their overall argument extremely problematic - they're showing no appreciation at all for the benefits of open discussion.

Also, yes, real-world communities, meetups etc. are quite different and some important concerns do come into play. But LW folks have been quite aware of this, and we've seen plenty of useful discussion about related issues, with very little controversy.

Comment author: falenas108 06 January 2014 06:57:39AM 0 points [-]

They're showing no appreciation at all for the benefits of open discussion.

Yes, creating a safe space does prevent an entirely open discussion. So downvoting to oblivion people to talk about the merits of killing everyone in Asia, or the validity of Christianity. As a community, we have decided that there are certain discussions we don't want to have, and certain topics we don't want to discuss.

Not all safe spaces are equal. A safe space for a support group for trans folk would have a different meaning for a safe space for African Americans. I think Less Wrong could have its own version of a safe space, with the spirit behind the rules being something like "don't say/advocate for violence against others, don't be needlessly rude, don't use personal attacks."

Comment author: ThrustVectoring 06 January 2014 03:40:10AM *  26 points [-]

The Occupy Wall Street example in particular was talking about their use of what they call "the Progressive Stack" to organize meetings. The general idea was this - people want to speak up, but not everyone can talk at the same time, so we need some sort of system for choosing who gets to speak when. First in first out isn't fair enough when you factor in things like minorities or women feeling more inhibited about speaking, so let's let them jump the queue and speak before people who are white and/or male.

It's an idea that sounds just fair enough to be considered, and has the benefit of both having passionate supporters on the left and of having an obvious path to paint opponents as sexist racists that want to silence women and minorities. The left won on this point at the cost of driving off much of their popular support, and the movement has been marginalized since.

The above is my understanding of what happened with this, synthesized over a fair amount of reading and research. It may well be wrong, and the situation may well be more complicated than I described. As far as I understand it, though, it's the major mistake that the movement made - it let itself be co-opted into caring about social justice at the cost of their other goals.

As far as Atheism+ goes, it's an organized group spearheaded by people like Rebecca Watson who are outraged -- outraged -- at the behavior of atheists being insufficiently pro-woman and pro-social justice. Rebecca Watson in particular has a laser-like focus on sexism within the atheist and skeptic community, at the expense of the larger groups' nominal goals. She's responsible for the whole "elevatorgate" debacle, and responded to Richard Dawkins' claim that she was overreacting by going after Dawkins personally with this piece of loveliness. It says it's not a call for a boycott, but it's a call for a boycott ("Nope, I didn’t call for a boycott. I’m relaying the fact that I have no interest in giving this person any more of my money or attention." I read that as "I want to hurt Dawkins personally but realize that I don't have the social capital to carry off leading a boycott, so I'm going to encourage people to boycott Dawkins while saying that I'm not doing so)

I actually haven't done all that much analysis of Atheism+. I pretty much have discarded it as a group of people who have been successfully derailed by people like Rebecca Watson talking about sexism constantly within the atheist and skeptical community, and want to do the same. Just look at the first sentence of their FAQ

Atheism Plus is a term used to designate spaces, persons, and groups dedicated to promoting social justice and countering misogyny, racism, homo/bi/transphobia, ableism and other such bigotry inside and outside of the atheist community.

They are essentially policing the atheist community for compliance with social justice ideas. Their own website is saying the same things I am about them with different wording and connotations.

Comment author: falenas108 06 January 2014 06:14:13AM *  3 points [-]

As far as Atheism+ goes, it's an organized group spearheaded by people like Rebecca Watson who are outraged -- outraged -- at the behavior of atheists being insufficiently pro-woman and pro-social justice.

When women in the atheist movement still get sexually harassed by public figures, get rape and death threats, and when having a "no sexual harassment" policy creates a firestorm, all from other people within the atheist movement, the movement does need to be more pro-women and more pro-social justice.

(Link to a blog that has a source for all the incidents I'm talking about, plus a few more http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/08/30/atheism-plus-and-some-thoughts-on-divisiveness/)

Watson's response to Dawkins comes after he gave a response to her ridiculing her for feeling uncomfortable about getting asked out on an elevator.

And as for the mission statement, I don't think there's a problem with countering misogyny, racism, homo/bi/transphobia, or ableism. That sounds like a good thing. You may disagree with what they label as x-phobia, but the discussion should be about what is x-phobic, not whether we should care about x-phobia.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 05 January 2014 04:01:57PM 3 points [-]

Other than accent, is there anything that children learn better than adults? Is there even anything that adults do not learn much faster?

Comment author: falenas108 05 January 2014 06:27:52PM 1 point [-]

Languages in general.

Comment author: AlexSchell 02 January 2014 09:06:04PM *  4 points [-]

I usually don't make enough eye contact with people, so I tried the eye contact exercise described by Nick Winter, which involves pairing up with someone unfamiliar and gazing into each other's eyes for 15 minutes. This was just a week ago, and I already noticed mild improvements in my ability to maintain eye contact. I haven't yet noticed anything as dramatic as described by Winter or Luke (who did a much more intense version of this exercise, starting over when eye contact was broken), though to be fair both accounts sound like the effect did not get noticed immediately.

Comment author: falenas108 03 January 2014 11:36:13AM 0 points [-]

I did this over 3 years ago, and I still notice the effect today. I look directly in people's eyes much more.

Whether this is a good or bad things is debatable. I have seen that it makes me more noticed in (small) crowd. If a teacher or presenter is saying something, my default is to make eye contact. They usually maintain this for a bit, and from then on tend to speak more at me than others.

I do sometimes have to consciously break eye contact, because very prolonged eye contact does make some people uncomfortable.

Comment author: Brillyant 31 December 2013 01:21:48AM *  6 points [-]

This is such a weird, non-LW-type response compared to what I've become accustomed to.

It seems irrelevant whether or not Atkins "works" if the reason it works has nothing (or little) to do with the reasons being given.

In my experience, the fitness community is full of noise -- people who are sure their fitness plans "work" because "look at the great results!" But their justification is so bad that the advice is essentially meaningless.

Or people will swear that X supplement changed their life because they started taking it and presto! 90 days later they had lost 30 pounds, increased muscle tone, and doubled their energy level! Oh...and by the way, they had also concurrently started eating a clean diet, working out 5 times a week, meditating and sleeping more consistently during that 90 days.

As you said, it is important to figure out why the Atkins diet works (when it does). But simply concluding that it is good to follow Taubes advice since it can't kill you and it seems to work for some people is akin to saying you should give horoscopes a try because they are kinda fun and strangely accurate (when they are). You haven't gotten any closer to an accurate map.

Comment author: falenas108 31 December 2013 05:03:31AM 4 points [-]

That's a question of instrumental vs. epistemological help.

It works -> instrumental. Here's why it works ->epistemological.

Both are useful, and both are important for LW.

Comment author: falenas108 28 December 2013 08:05:39AM 4 points [-]

The purpose of this post confused me. As someone who hasn't read Good Calories, Bad Calories, is this supposed to be a refutation of his central argument? In the intro post, you said the purpose first post will be "to look at what Taubes is proposing as an alternative [to mainstream nutrition]."

That implies that your response to this is meant to be a general refutation of this idea. But, to me your response feels more like a nitpick. Disagreeing on whether eating more fats has few effects on fat accumulation, or absolutely no effect, doesn't seem to change too much of his argument.

(I think we can ignore the 2002 article, because from this article it looks like Why We Get Fat is an explanation of his ideas on how weight gain works. We should take the more recent and more steelmanned version of his work as what we are trying to refute.)

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 23 December 2013 09:24:51AM 8 points [-]

Suggestion: Like the other regular threads we have, I propose a new monthly Meetup Report Thread, where people will describe what happened during their meetups. There are a few meetups every month, so there will always be something to write about. Top-level comments could be the names of the meetups, and below them would be comments related to the specific meetup.

This would overcome some trivial inconvenience. First, writing a comment is easier than writing an article, at least psychologically. Second, comments are allowed to be short. If you only want to describe the meetup in one paragraph, posting an article feels like too much (and we have Discussion cluttered by meetups already), but writing a comment of that length is okay. So you don't have to decide to write a long text to report about the meetup. But if one person writes one paragraph, and another person writes another paragraph or two, then we gradually get some kind of report. People who keep meetup notes publicly outside of LW could use this to post a hyperlink or maybe a short summary.

Not sure how other people feel about it, but I would be more likely to write a comment about a meetup I participated in or organized, than a whole article.

Comment author: falenas108 24 December 2013 09:46:02PM 0 points [-]

I like this idea a lot.

Comment author: HatCloak 24 December 2013 03:47:50PM *  9 points [-]

I actually agree with you: He is under no obligations whatsoever. None. But I still am allowed to plead my case to him, for him to decide as he wills, and to spread the issue and discuss it so that the best possible solution can be reached.

As to programming something like that: I am willing to personally implement something like that if asked, although I was more thinking of the manual method of those who want access PMing Yvain or his designated representative and asking for access. Again, I am willing to have the burden of such a task placed on my own shoulders, should Yvain agree. I honestly am trying to find a solution, and am willing to invest a fair amount of personal effort in this.

About the reposting: Yes, I agree. However, there was a lot of stuff on the old blog. Literally thousands of posts, and it would be impractical to repost them one by one. A possible alternative though is for Yvain to repost them en masse, simply redacting the few that he doesn't want around. That is actually a workable solution, if Yvain agrees, all we need is for this to come to his attention. (And again, if that takes grunt work and effort, I am willing to invest it.)

Comment author: falenas108 24 December 2013 09:40:44PM 1 point [-]

A possible alternative though is for Yvain to repost them en masse, simply redacting the few that he doesn't want around.

This seems like the best current solution to me.

The karma requirement needs the person who wants to read it to not only have the amount of Karma, but also know that the links are available to them. If he uses a non-automated method, Yvain also has to take the effort to respond to every request as well.

In response to comment by Kyre on Snowdenizing UFAI
Comment author: JoshuaFox 06 December 2013 08:40:06AM 0 points [-]

...which is kind of the point :-)

Comment author: falenas108 06 December 2013 04:51:17PM *  1 point [-]

No, Kyre is saying that potential ethical AGI researchers have this page in their history, which will likely lead to the government not hiring them for this project. Meaning there will be less ethical researchers on the project.

EDIT: Never mind, gjm and James_Miller already said the same thing.

Comment author: falenas108 04 December 2013 05:01:16AM 11 points [-]

Organized a medium sized event all by myself, including contacting a stranger, getting money to bring him in, and then planning all the details of the event!

I spin fire, and I had my first spinning experience where I enjoyed myself the whole time, instead of mostly being nervous about it. Not coincidentally, it's also probably my best performance.

In response to Reasons to believe
Comment author: falenas108 02 December 2013 01:31:22PM -1 points [-]

It actually doesn't take too long to get a decent grasp of evolution. Just reading the wiki page in detail will probably take less than an hour, and give you a decent grasp on it. Possibly also read some of Eliezer's stuff on how people get evolution wrong.

If you want to go a bit further, I'm sure you can find a middle school or high school level textbook that could explain more.

Comment author: passive_fist 19 November 2013 09:12:09AM 1 point [-]

I've noticed that in my own behavior I'm somewhat reluctant to go into bars because the atmosphere in bars is all about being macho and dominant, and it's hard to be that way in unfamiliar surroundings. A way to adapt to such a situation fast would be to simply get drunk and start a bar fight for no reason, but I'm pretty sure I'd get pummelled. The closest I ever got to a bar fight was staring a guy down and him pushing me (I stood my ground but didn't push back; I later left). Can anyone think of any sane alternatives that could toughen me up but wouldn't risk major injury or time at the police station?

Comment author: falenas108 19 November 2013 05:11:54PM 1 point [-]

I disagree that starting a fight is a good way to do that. It may be true that signaling masculinity is one way to gain status in a bar. But there are other ways to signal, like talking confidently.

You can also go for intelligent, cute, funny, or wealthy.

Comment author: falenas108 19 November 2013 05:09:41PM 1 point [-]

When I did this, I asked strangers for high fives. It's fairly non-threatening, but still has the effect of most people staring at you because they think you're weird.

Comment author: falenas108 18 November 2013 10:42:45PM -1 points [-]

I don't think you can physically do the quantum sequence, because so much of it is diagrams.

Comment author: passive_fist 08 November 2013 03:36:54PM 3 points [-]

In all 3 cases I described except the last, it wasn't a consensus at all, but a percieved consensus within a subset of the community.

Comment author: falenas108 08 November 2013 05:22:02PM 0 points [-]

I apologize then, that wasn't how I read it. When you said "huge clique" and "widely thought," I thought you were saying that the majority of the field falls into those groups.

In response to Academic Cliques
Comment author: passive_fist 08 November 2013 05:27:44AM 9 points [-]

Oh there are many examples of this throughout science.

In my own area (machine learning), a decade ago there used to be a huge clique of researchers who's "consensus" was that ANNs were dead, SVM+kernel methods were superior, and that few other ML techniques mattered. Actually, the problem was simply that they were training ANNs improperly. Later researchers showed how to properly train ANNs, and the work of the Toronto machine intelligence group especially established that ANNs were quite superior to SVMs for many tasks.

In econometrics, subsequence time series (STS) clustering was widely thought to be a good approach for analyzing market movements. After decades of work and hundreds of papers on this technique, Keogh et al showed in 2005 that the results of STS clustering are actually indistinguishable from noise!

Another one, in physics, was pointed out by Lee Smolin in his book, The Trouble with Physics. In string theory it was commonly, but wrongly, consensus opinion that Mandelstam had proven string theory finite. Actually, he had only eliminated some particular forms of infinities. The work on establishing string theory as finite is still ongoing.

Comment author: falenas108 08 November 2013 07:45:56AM *  3 points [-]

This is a different type of problem. OP is talking about people saying there is a consensus, when actually there's a lot of disagreement. You're talking about times where there was (some kind of) a consensus, but that consensus was wrong.

Comment author: somervta 31 October 2013 05:31:14AM 2 points [-]

your numbering is out of whack there. Markdown doesn't let you do lists starting at arbitrary numbers, so as soon as you started using the right format, it started your numbering again at 1.

Comment author: falenas108 31 October 2013 12:51:33PM -1 points [-]

Thanks!

Comment author: falenas108 31 October 2013 04:56:25AM *  1 point [-]
  1. The extra importance you're placing on just thinking about it now is enough to remember it later. No further action required.

  2. Say you won't remember the title, and use that as an excuse to write down the name in a note-taking app on your smartphone you downloaded for just that purpose.

  3. Put something on the handle, exactly where you open the door. You will hopefully associate this with the need to close it after. Far-future suggestion: If changing kitchens, put the fridge by the entrance/exit. You will see the open fridge on the way out.

  4. Write it down. Or, remember as much as you can, then when you're not certain stop and ask someone else.

  5. Have one note card that has the key points you want to address, with a couple of important supports. Practice the speech a few times, improving most of it while sticking to the main points on the notecard.

  6. Every hour, test yourself on what your ID is. Set a reminder in a calendar. You'll have it memorized in a day, and it will be solidified by all the times you have to repeat it after.

  7. Keep a notebook by your nightstand with a pencil. You honestly don't need light to write a quick reminder, and you can scratch down a reminder in a few minutes.

  8. This night isn't much timing, and you can try to cram the same way as the ID number. If you have a week or two, anki decks.

  9. Anki decks.

Comment author: Vaniver 28 October 2013 02:39:23PM *  0 points [-]

That sounds to me like he's saying this will happen regardless

The bolded section means that Eliezer doesn't endorse the argument, not that it is not an argument.

it still might be a net plus but it's something proponents will have to address.

Why would the proponents have to address it, unless it was an argument against their position? Otherwise it would be a non sequitor.

[Edit] To be clear, I agree that policy debates should not be one-sided. But the way I interpret that is that there are both positive and negative consequences for any policy, and the positive consequences are arguments for and the negative consequences are arguments against.

Comment author: falenas108 28 October 2013 07:17:05PM -1 points [-]

Okay, seems like it was mostly a semantics disagreement then.

Though I am a bit caught up on your saying Eliezer doesn't endorse the argument. Using your terminology, I think he does endorse the argument, meaning he thinks that's a legitimate point against having "banned stores." But, he also endorses other arguments for them, and to him, those weigh more.

Comment author: Vaniver 27 October 2013 09:22:19PM 3 points [-]

Just as commenters shouldn't have assumed Eliezer's factual observation was an argument in favor of regulation

Eliezer's response there always struck me as odd. Was he making a simple factual observation? When you read the comment in question, it reads to me as the summary of an argument that regulation is necessary. Eliezer doesn't endorse that argument- he doesn't think that regulation should be necessary- but he's making the claim "society will require regulation because of argument X." Unsurprisingly, people respond to X as an argument for regulation, but a cursory glance doesn't show me any comments where people attribute to Eliezer endorsement of that argument.

Comment author: falenas108 28 October 2013 03:51:00AM 3 points [-]

That isn't how it read to me. He says, "Some poor, honest, well-intentioned, stupid mother of 5 kids will shop at a banned store and buy a Snake's Sulfuric Acid Drink for her arthritis and die, leaving her orphaned children to cry on national television. Afterward the banned stores will be immediately closed down, based on that single case, regardless of their net benefit."

That sounds to me like he's saying this will happen regardless, and it still might be a net plus but it's something proponents will have to address.

Comment author: falenas108 19 October 2013 06:25:09PM 0 points [-]

While this sounds like it would be useful, it would also turn a lot of people off to the site ~i4

Comment author: wedrifid 14 October 2013 06:37:10PM 4 points [-]

The fact that one of my gatekeepers guessed my tactic(s) was the final straw.

I guess you used words. That seems to be all the tactical insight needed to develop an effective counter-strategy. I really don't get how this escaping thing works on people. Is it due to people being systematically overconfident in their own stubbornness? I mean I know I couldn't withstand torture for long. I expect even plain interrogation backed by credible threats would break me over time. Social isolation and sleep deprivation would break me too. But one hour of textual communication with a predefined and gamified objective and no negative external consequences? That seems so trivial..

Comment author: falenas108 14 October 2013 09:28:31PM 8 points [-]

Other people have expressed similar sentiments, and then played the AI Box experiment. Even of the ones who didn't lose, they still updated to "definitely could have lost in a similar scenario."

Unless you have reason to believe your skepticism comes from a different place than theirs, you should update towards gatekeeping being harder than you think.

Comment author: brazil84 12 October 2013 09:50:58PM 0 points [-]

The fact that quantum mechanics exists, and there are specifically allowed states, is exactly the type of thing I'd expect from a universe driven by a computer simulation.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that a simulation which is just a mathematical construct would probably not result in a quantized universe?

Comment author: falenas108 12 October 2013 10:49:02PM -1 points [-]

I was intending to say the opposite; that a quantized world would seem like it would take less computational power than a continuous one, therefore the fact that we live in a quantized world is evidence of being in a simulation.

Comment author: brazil84 11 October 2013 10:36:24PM 10 points [-]

My thought is that your hypothesis is pretty similar to the Dust Theory.

http://sciencefiction.com/2011/05/23/science-feature-dust-theory/

And Greg Egan's counter-argument to the Dust Theory is pretty decent:

However, I think the universe we live in provides strong empirical evidence against the “pure” Dust Theory, because it is far too orderly and obeys far simpler and more homogeneous physical laws than it would need to, merely in order to contain observers with an enduring sense of their own existence. If every arrangement of the dust that contained such observers was realised, then there would be billions of times more arrangements in which the observers were surrounded by chaotic events, than arrangements in which there were uniform physical laws.

I think the same counter-argument applies to your hypothesis.

Comment author: falenas108 12 October 2013 01:54:02PM -1 points [-]

I'm not sure I agree with that argument. The fact that quantum mechanics exists, and there are specifically allowed states, is exactly the type of thing I'd expect from a universe driven by a computer simulation. Discrete values are much easier than continuous sets.

On the other hand, superposition and entanglement seem suboptimal.

Comment author: Ishaan 15 September 2013 05:43:40AM *  2 points [-]

Yes to both. Yes and yes.

Now imagine if you couldn't do one of those things. For example, suppose you didn't strongly feel that every belief had to be based in logic or evidence, and instead had ideas about believing some things on simple faith.

Wouldn't the entire premise of this site just seem misguided and weird? Isn't there a huge gap in philosophical skill between you and a person who believes in faith?

I know scientists, doctors, and lawyers who believe in faith. They are smart people with tons of human capital.

I guess the central point is that, human capital wise, there are diminishing returns on building philosophical soundness. The level at which you'd have to be at to even start reading lesswrong is already the level at which additional improvement probably won't make a difference human-capital wise.

So while Lesswrong is certainly an extremely worthwhile thing to participate in, it's not a college substitute. (that's not to say that there aren't auto-didactic practices that adequately replace college - just that lesswrong by itself is definitely not such a thing).

Comment author: falenas108 15 September 2013 06:19:28AM -1 points [-]

Okay, yeah. We just had different ideas on what 70% means.

Comment author: Ishaan 15 September 2013 04:57:03AM *  2 points [-]

Well, maybe uncalibrated, totally made-up percentages aren't a good way to communicate this.

I didn't even know what consequentialism or utilitarianism meant

Yeah, so you'd have to formally learn philosophy to know what those things mean. But that doesn't mean you were at 0% philosophy. Human beings instinctively engage in philosophy.

Can you construct a sound logical argument? Will you reconsider if someone points out an inconsistency or logical fallacy in your argument? That alone brings you up to 40% on my totally made up scale.

Did you ever feel there was something weird about free will? Did you believe in souls? Did you know where morality comes from? Did you intuitively grasp the notion that simpler explanations are better? Did you strongly feel that beliefs must be based in evidence, and did you understand what constituted good evidence?

My sense is that most people reading LW passed one or more of these basic milestones well before they finished high school, before doing any formal training or reading in philosophy. In my arbitrary scale, merely putting thought into these things puts you at 70% and solving all of them puts you around 80%.

On my scale, 0% implies you're likely suffering some sort of mental illness.

And I'm arguing that LW isn't accessible to your average undergrad. The average undergrad is probably below 75% on this scale. I'm an undergrad, and the vast majority of people I know don't care about these things.

Comment author: falenas108 15 September 2013 05:28:50AM -1 points [-]

Can you construct a sound logical argument? Will you reconsider if someone points out an inconsistency or logical fallacy in your argument?

Yes to both.

Did you ever feel there was something weird about free will? Did you believe in souls? Did you know where morality comes from? Did you intuitively grasp the notion that simpler explanations are better?

Hadn't thought about any of those things.

Did you strongly feel that beliefs must be based in evidence, and did you understand what constituted good evidence?

Yes and yes.

Comment author: shminux 02 July 2013 08:18:51PM 0 points [-]

Hmm, I thought that only Quirrell, Dumbledore, Draco and Hermione knew about it, and only the first two saw the form.

Comment author: falenas108 15 September 2013 05:23:10AM *  -1 points [-]

He basically mentions in front of the entire Wizengamont that he can perform a patronus charm.

Lucius Malfoy's eyes narrowed. "By the report I received, you cannot cast the Patronus Charm, and Dumbledore knows this. The power of a single Dementor nearly killed you. You would not dare venture near Azkaban in your own person -"

"That was in January," said Harry. "This is April."

Comment author: loserthree 03 July 2013 03:22:05AM 0 points [-]

Maybe it really was his father's rock.

Maybe James Potter carried around that specific huge rock, transfigured into something portable, for all the right reasons.

Maybe James even told Dumbledore that if anything every happened to him, Dumbledore should give Harry his cloak, his snitch, and his rock. Dumbles knows that Harry hates Quiddich and the Snitch most of all, so he's holding that one back until he thinks he can present it without it being rejected. The cloak was easy. And he's managed to make Harry carry the rock, so that's got to me making Dead James happy.

I'd suggest that Potters have carried that rock for generations -- for all the right reasons of course -- except that Dumbledore wouldn't ignore heritage like that. He'd call it The Potter Rock or something.

Comment author: falenas108 15 September 2013 05:13:10AM -1 points [-]

Doesn't he also call the Invisibility Cloak Harry's father's cloak?

Comment author: chaosmage 05 July 2013 01:49:55PM 2 points [-]

But memories, like wounds, would be constantly overwritten. This troll, while quite competent in many ways, never displayed learning ability.

Somehow I don't think a human unable to learn would be what Harry would consider a valuable result.

Comment author: falenas108 15 September 2013 04:34:17AM -1 points [-]

This is if the spell made logical sense when carried out to the fullest. But, magic doesn't work like that, it works the way we would naively think if we said "transforming back into itself."

Comment author: Ishaan 15 September 2013 02:59:28AM *  8 points [-]

Yes, being active on Lesswrong is probably superior to most undergraduate classes in philosophy. But this isn't Lesswrong specific. Seeking knowledge on your own is almost always better than taking knowledge from a teacher.

Do you feel, for instance, that LessWrong provided you with more valuable human capital than your introductory general chemistry sequence?

No, not even a little bit. Lesswrong's strength is philosophy, and unfortunately philosophy doesn't generate much human capital unless you're in some very specific fields. Lesswrong might have sharpened my philosophy skills from 90% to 95%, but really the average scientist only needs a philosophy skill level of 70% to be effective, to say nothing of other professions. And you've got to be at least at philosophy 75% to even start reading a lot of the material here - I don't think it's accessible to, say, your average redditor.

Human capital comes primarily from knowing facts and having skills.

That said, reading primary literature on my own contributed vastly more than my coursework contributed, in terms of facts. Coursework did sometimes fill in some parts I might not have taken interest in on my own - but simply talking to other scientists would have fulfilled the same function.

Knowledge which is systematically fed to you is not customized to your interests, is not customized to your abilities, and it's not customized to your intelligence. It shouldn't be surprising that sources of knowledge you've discovered on your own are superior to those which have been given to you.

For the demographic who can learn theory on their own,, school is for degrees, making connections, and hands-on experiences - not learning theory.

Comment author: falenas108 15 September 2013 04:24:16AM 2 points [-]

And you've got to be at least at philosophy 75% to even start reading a lot of the material here

I disagree. I came in with essentially 0% philosophy skills, I didn't even know what consequentialism or utilitarianism meant. And I was able to understand the sequences, and don't have a problem with the posts now.

Comment author: Eneasz 13 September 2013 06:24:52PM 1 point [-]

I think a much more interesting take on Milgram is one presented by Radio Lab in which it's put forth that people were particularly likely to obey due to the spirit of scientific exceptionalism during that era. Science had won WWII, science was responsible for our prosperity and was making life better for everyone on earth, and they were helping that cause. It was idealism and optimism that prompted people to go beyond their own bounds in the pursuit of the greater good, rather than cynicism and obedience.

Also of note was that everyone who continued all the way to the final shock never heard the final prompt (“You have no other choice, teacher; you must go on”). Anyone who did hear that prompt would instantly fight back and refuse to continue. Being told you have no other choice was apparently counter-productive and would trigger resistance.

Comment author: falenas108 14 September 2013 12:49:36AM 3 points [-]

But they've repeated the study today, and have the same numbers. Unless you're saying that spirit of scientific exceptionalism is still present?

Comment author: falenas108 13 September 2013 04:10:56PM 7 points [-]

Weren't there tons of replications of the experiment? My impression was everyone was shocked at the initial outcome of the study, and rushed to replicate.

Googled, and yep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment#Replications_and_variations

Comment author: falenas108 13 September 2013 04:11:58PM 4 points [-]

Or rather, people didn't rush to replicate. So that part was wrong. But, there were replications that came out with about the same numbers.

Comment author: falenas108 13 September 2013 04:10:56PM 7 points [-]

Weren't there tons of replications of the experiment? My impression was everyone was shocked at the initial outcome of the study, and rushed to replicate.

Googled, and yep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment#Replications_and_variations

Comment author: falenas108 12 September 2013 05:09:36PM 5 points [-]

A (slightly cognitively motivated) defense of Pokemon:

Now, there are two main areas you could be talking about, the card game and the video game. I'm going to focus on the video game, because that's what I'm more familiar with.

This game taught me and gave me an intuitive sense of expected value calculations, the use of standard deviation, and risk aversion. Each move has a certain power and accuracy. So, as an 8 year old, I was dealing with the question of, "Do I use a move with an attack of 90, but an accuracy of 80%, or one with an attack of 70, but 95% accuracy? And if I use a move which decreases their defense by 25%, and does the extra damage I will do later make up for the fact that I will spend one turn not attacking?

Now, the question is whether this is worth it. And the answer is sadly probably not, considering the number of hours I put into this game. Any focused game on teaching these concepts would do a much better job. But, it is not entirely useless.

In response to comment by [deleted] on The Ultimate Newcomb's Problem
Comment author: gjm 11 September 2013 01:16:46PM *  2 points [-]

Right. And, indeed, when I need to check in my head whether a smallish number like 1033 is prime, most of what I do isn't factoring. E.g.: 1033+17 = 1050 = 50.21, ruling out {2,3,5,7,17} in a single go but not identifying any factors or (even approximate) quotients. 1033-13 = 1020 = 20.51, ruling out {2,3,5,13,17} instead. Etc.

I also assumed that Eliezer's intention was that you shouldn't be doing this sort of thing.

[EDITED to fix formatting screwage -- asterisks treated as markup rather than multiplication -- my apologies for any mystification this caused.]

Comment author: falenas108 11 September 2013 05:10:07PM 3 points [-]

I'm curious, what's the method you're using there?

Comment author: pscheyer 09 September 2013 11:56:49PM 6 points [-]

Double Edged: Strict Heirarchy. More 'qualified' individuals give orders to others and such orders must be followed. This frees subordinates to expend mental function on how to carry out orders, and frees superiors to watch the big picture. Unfortunately promotion is not based on ability to convert a bigger picture into effective orders, and difficulties in coming up with good promotion criteria lead to it becoming largely a gerontocracy and promotion of highly unqualified technical experts out of areas of their domain-specific expertise.

Comment author: falenas108 10 September 2013 12:18:59AM *  15 points [-]

In fact, it's worse than this. Job A is subordinate to job B. You get promoted to job B if you are better at job A than your peers, even though the skill sets may be entirely unrelated. This lowers the average performance on job A, and puts someone new in charge who may not be good at job B.

This isn't an entirely fair analysis, because often being good just means being willing to put in an actual effort to the job, which is transferrable. And this is basically how promotions work everywhere. But it's still a worrisome model.

Edit: I talked to my friend who's father is in the military, and she says this: "In the military, my dad says you want to be the guy they can replace. You want to streamline things as best you can, fill your role, and do what you can to make the whole system run better, but without YOU specifically. Because they don't want to promote someone who they need where he is"

Comment author: 9eB1 08 September 2013 11:41:04PM 0 points [-]

As a sidenote, saying U of X for every X isn't a very specific determiner, and it appears you were attempting to be specific. For example, University of Calgary is the top-rated result for "U of C" on google, but you could easily be referring to University of Chicago or University of Connecticut, among other U of C institutions.

Comment author: falenas108 08 September 2013 11:58:00PM 0 points [-]

I assumed it was obvious here, because the OP said he was talking about the University of Chicago.

Comment author: falenas108 08 September 2013 08:55:08PM 0 points [-]

Another way out: Make molecular biology as a second semester senior, when colleges have already accepted him.

Comment author: falenas108 08 September 2013 08:52:05PM 1 point [-]

Huh, this is a very different perspective than I've had at the U of C (Going into my third year undergraduate)

I've found that people chose a lot based on instructors. Even in my majors, chem and physics, where there's almost no electives, people often defer taking courses for a year when there's a better instructor.

As for evaluations, I can't tell you what most other students do. But when talking about the evaluations what my friends to decide whether or not to take a class, most of us don't pay much attention to the specific numbers they got, and focus on whether in the comments section people say the instructor knows what they're talking about, is interesting, and has fair tests.

Comment author: Adele_L 05 September 2013 05:32:13AM 7 points [-]

Do you think you could have won with EY's ruleset? I'm interested in hearing both your and SoundLogic's opinions.


(minor quibble: usage of male pronouns as default pronouns is really irritating to me and many women, I recommend singular they, but switching back and forth is fine too)

Comment author: falenas108 05 September 2013 09:18:48PM 4 points [-]

really irritating to me and many women

And men.

=D

Comment author: Larks 05 September 2013 05:28:23PM 1 point [-]

If I was planning on applying for my first credit card anyway, is the MIRI one a competitive choice?

I donate a substantial amount of money to MIRI anyway, so it probably wouldn't change my overall donation level, but might allow me to do so more efficiently.

Comment author: falenas108 05 September 2013 09:17:32PM 0 points [-]

FYI, they might deny you if it's your first card. I tried to do that a few years ago, but I needed an actual credit score for them to give me one.

Comment author: falenas108 27 August 2013 03:28:07AM *  0 points [-]

This seems appropriate, considering the recent post on reality being weirdly normal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ritaljhhk7s

Comment author: linkhyrule5 15 August 2013 08:58:26AM 1 point [-]

So that's interesting.

Bar yvar tbg erzbirq sebz gur svp:

Nyzbfg tbg zr gurer, Yhpvhf.

Comment author: falenas108 15 August 2013 04:44:21PM -1 points [-]

I figured that referred to him changing the wording of the contract, from exonerated.

Comment author: vollmer 03 August 2013 06:21:37PM *  2 points [-]

You should read the results of the first study you posted more carefully:

Good point, thanks. My statement is not exactly wrong, but I should have written "healthier than average diets".

The other links don't contradict this study and only look at deaths from specific causes, and not general mortality.

That's quite wrong, examples:

Key 1999:

Total mortality and longevity also differed according to vegetarian status in California Seventh-day Adventists. After adjusting for age and sex, Seventh-day Adventist vegetarians had a relative risk for total mortality of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.87) compared with those who ate any meat products. Using a multivariate, multiple-decrement-lifetable approach (19), we showed that vegetarian Seventh-day Adventist women live 2.52 y longer than their nonvegetarian (meat ≥ 1 time/wk) counterparts (P < 0.001), and a similar comparison in men showed a 3.21-y difference in longevity (P < 0.001).

McEvoy 2011 (review):

Overall, vegetarians tend to be slimmer, appear to be in better health, with reduced risk of chronic diseases and greater longevity when compared with omnivores

In that analysis, no significant differences were observed for stroke mortality or overall mortality between vegetarians and non-vegetarians(12).

(...) but no significant differences were observed for overall mortality rates between vegetarians and omnivores in these cohorts. One possible explanation may be that overall mortality was low in the cohort populations compared with the general Western population.

I deliberately only quoted very conservative and reliable sources, and although the effects are not really large, they are statistically significant and positive.

Comment author: falenas108 05 August 2013 01:15:01PM 1 point [-]

Sorry, I meant in regard to the "compared to health-conscious non vegetarians" part.

The fact that vegetarians tend to be more concerned about eating well is a huge factor that almost every "vegetarian diets are healthier!" study I've seen ignores. The first one you posted is the only one that tries to control for that, and they ended up with seeing no significant difference.

Comment author: vollmer 02 August 2013 03:56:39AM *  2 points [-]

Not sure that's a good way of asking. The pain of being veg seems to be inversely correlated with knowing reasons for going veg, and there's a lot of loss aversion. I got anecdotal evidence from quite a few people telling me that going and staying veg is actually much easier than they anticipated. (It's important to take the time to learn about health effects, look at meat alternatives and find veggie restaurants). Reversal test: Imagine you're vegetarian and earn $3000 more than you currently do. Would you pay $3000 a year ($8 a day) to eat meat again?

It's not only more ethical but also healthier to be veg.

It makes me happy to see you and others taking action due to Peter's post.

EDIT: Concerning the "although", I recommend to also read Brian's comment.

Comment author: falenas108 02 August 2013 10:18:19PM 1 point [-]

You should read the results of the first study you posted more carefully:

Cohort studies of vegetarians have shown a moderate reduction in mortality from IHD but little difference in other major causes of death or all-cause mortality in comparison with health-conscious non-vegetarians from the same population.

The other links don't contradict this study, and only look at deaths from specific causes, and not general mortality.

Comment author: Frood 25 July 2013 08:39:06PM 15 points [-]

Hi! HPMOR brought me here. I now spend about as much time telling people to read it as I do discussing the weather with them. I’ve read about half of the sequences. I lurked for a long time because I often find that getting involved in discussions blurs my ability to think objectively. Right now I’m working on a Litany Against Non-Participation, as well as taking gradual steps towards participating more, in an attempt to remedy this. I’m very interested in learning how to ask better questions.

I’m entering my fourth year of an interdisciplinary-or-is-it-multidisciplinary program at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. Basically, I've chosen to focus my formal education on skill development (reasoning, writing, researching, etc.) instead of specialized content acquisition (that’s for my spare time).

For at least the last five years, I've been a philosophy-based thinker. Most of my courses were non-philosophy, but I took them to aid with my philosophical education. Sort of like how a guitar player might learn piano to improve their music theory and develop new musical ideas. I have a (very idealistic) vision for philosophy, one in which philosophy is the ‘highest’ discipline that makes space for only the most educated and able. In most cases, I think that philosophers should embrace scientific knowledge and methodology, and stop pointless quibbles about matters that they are not qualified to address. For instance, I'm quite frustrated by the lack of understanding of modern social psychology and sociology in political philosophy and ethics.

I've recently concluded that completing an undergraduate education in philosophy is not worth my time, and I totally agree with lukeprog’s diagnosis. Moving forward, I am going to attempt to transition into a science-based thinker. I’ll learn the same material, but to a different end. Maybe I’ll save philosophy later.

I'm very grateful to LW. I’m a better thinker than I was a year ago, and I've finally been able to shed some of the old beliefs that have been holding me back from reaching my potential as a rationalist. Feels good. Thanks y'all!

Comment author: falenas108 26 July 2013 02:09:27PM 5 points [-]

I lurked for a long time because I often find that getting involved in discussions blurs my ability to think objectively.

That's definitely true. But there is an advantage to posting. Often, I'll have an idea and start to write it out. But then, I realize that it's not quite up to my internal "less wrong standards." So, I'll start refining the idea, and end up with a much better one than I started with.

Or I'll find out that the idea isn't as good as I thought it was, and end up not posting.

Comment author: twanvl 22 July 2013 03:46:21PM 7 points [-]

I sometimes have this problem when sleep deprived. Are you getting enough sleep?

Comment author: falenas108 22 July 2013 05:17:46PM -1 points [-]

I usually get between 6-8 hours a night. There are times where I get less, but I haven't noticed it getting worse those days.

Then again, I may be less likely to notice a pattern if I'm tired.

Comment author: falenas108 22 July 2013 12:56:55PM 4 points [-]

Somewhat frequently while talking, either public speaking or just talking to a friend, my mind will suddenly go blank. I won't be able to remember what I'm talking about, and I have to retrace my thoughts to get back to where I was.

Is this something that dual n-back will help with?

(Isomorphic question: Is this a problem of working memory, or something else?)

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 14 July 2013 06:52:51AM *  15 points [-]

I'm somewhat worried that this problem might be even more widespread. For example, "show, don't tell" is the standard advice in writing guides, so I was intrigued to see my friend write:

There is another thing about "showing" that bugs me, and it's that very often, when I read guides and such about how to "show" rather than "tell", the only thing I see in those guides is that "showing" conveys different information than "telling". They create different scenes. And of course I have more problems with the scenes that "show".

When the scene is "shown", I have a hard time staying with the text and understanding what's going on. If I'm not told what a particular thing means, it starts just seeming nonsensical to me. The author (and many readers) might understand the tone of voice of a character whose line is written in a certain way, but I'm likely to miss it. And so I'll end up clueless as to the character's state of mind. Now, if I was TOLD exactly what the character's state of mind is, no problem. I might be bad at imagining certain emotions, but it's definitely easier to read exactly what it's supposed to be than to try to find and guess what parts show it.

Maybe it's just me, though. That doesn't make me less frustrated with writing that routinely frustrates me with what I often perceive as non sequiturs. Therefore, I hope that more writings BOTH "showed" AND "told"! At least I'm trying to aim for both showing and telling in my writings from now on.

I read somewhere that the taste of an experienced film critic is typically very different from the taste of somebody who only watches movies every now and then, and it seems like there should be a similar effect with writing - the kind of people who end up becoming authors or creating writing guides are likely to be atypical, and to have a atypical tastes. Since most writing guides seem to be based on the author's personal taste as opposed to anything resembling an objective survey, I'm uncertain of how well their advice actually generalizes. (This being Less Wrong, I cannot avoid the obvious hypothesis that the "show, don't tell" rule is partially an attempt to signal sophistication.)

Comment author: falenas108 14 July 2013 09:42:29PM 4 points [-]

I read somewhere that the taste of an experienced film critic is typically very different from the taste of somebody who only watches movies every now and then

I just had a conversation about this last night. I was saying that I don't pay much attention to what movie critics say, and use the ratings of non-professionals because it's just better correlated with what I like.

Comment author: [deleted] 14 July 2013 07:38:00AM *  1 point [-]

Eliezer has been telling me I should write more like he does

What are his reasons for suggesting this?

I often can't even tell what his posts are saying.

I agree. Personally, I prefer your writing style. Eliezer's writings strike me as being excessively long-winded and imprecise. As other commentators have pointed out, his Sequences generally have a very low information-to-words ratio -- most people, I suspect, would be significantly better off reading the primary sources instead of spending time reading the Sequences.

Comment author: falenas108 14 July 2013 09:38:12PM 0 points [-]

The thing is, for a lot of people Eliezer is just much more interesting to read, in spite of the long-windedness.

Comment author: falenas108 11 July 2013 07:47:04PM 6 points [-]

I'm for either Tim's suggestion, or for increasing the frequency of the open threads to once a week.

Comment author: gothgirl420666 02 July 2013 09:44:26PM 0 points [-]

I don't really know if this counts as the planning fallacy. As I understand it, the planning fallacy is when you underestimate the time it takes to do a specific task. This was more like overestimating my energy and willpower, and therefore the amount of time I would be able to work in any given day.

Comment author: falenas108 03 July 2013 12:26:49AM *  -1 points [-]

My understanding is that the planning fallacy is just not taking the outside view, for whatever it is. Depending on your past experiences, you may or may not have fallen prey to it.

Note: Firstorderpredicate's response isn't as condescending as it sounds, it's a Methods of Rationality quote.

Comment author: drethelin 02 July 2013 05:07:04PM 2 points [-]
Comment author: falenas108 02 July 2013 05:20:51PM 4 points [-]

Questions about the validity of the Cinderella effect aside, the OP knows the couple and can probably make a more informed judgement about this.

Of course, you can't tell this perfectly. But if the OP is anything more than casual acquaintances with the couple, I would say specific evidence probably overpowers the general case.

Comment author: moral_dilemma 02 July 2013 08:15:51AM 2 points [-]

What can possibly be unethical about it?

It creates a child who will not be raised by their biological father.

since you might be legally on the hook for child support.

Unlikely in this context, since they are much wealthier than I. I doubt they would want to share custody with me in exchange for my pittance of a salary.

Comment author: falenas108 02 July 2013 12:39:38PM 8 points [-]

It creates a child who will not be raised by their biological father.

What's the specific problem this would cause?

Comment author: Technoguyrob 27 June 2013 08:37:29PM 7 points [-]

p/s/a: Going up to a girl pretty much anywhere in public and saying something like "I thought you looked cute and wanted to meet you" actually works if your body language is in order. If this seems too scary, going on Chatroulette or Omegle and being vaguely interesting also works, and I know people who have gotten married from meeting this way.

p/s/a: Vitamin D supplements can take you from depressed zombie to functioning human being in one week.

Comment author: falenas108 29 June 2013 02:33:42PM 1 point [-]

Going up to a girl pretty much anywhere in public and saying something like "I thought you looked cute and wanted to meet you" actually works if your body language is in order.

Going up to a /anyone/ and telling them you find them attractive works decently well with the right body language, regardless of the genders involved on either end.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 29 June 2013 12:17:19AM 0 points [-]

Please name them?

Comment author: falenas108 29 June 2013 02:31:38PM 1 point [-]

Soda water. No calories, but still has the carbonation. I was never really addicted to soda, and didn't have trouble switching to water personally, but whenever I drink soda water my mind associates the carbonation with soda, and releases happy chemicals anyway.

This won't work for everyone, because a lot of people find the lack of sugar really unsettling with carbonation, and don't like soda water. But, I'd expect it to work pretty well for those who it does work for.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 28 June 2013 03:19:18PM 2 points [-]

This sounds dangerously close to ignoring evidence when it conflicts with your priors.

Comment author: falenas108 29 June 2013 02:26:26PM 4 points [-]

No, it just means that P(feeling religious experience|God does not exist) is not far lower than P(feeling religious experience|God does exist). Meaning, that although you should take feeling that as weak evidence of the existence of God*, it should not drastically change your opinion.

*Not everyone feels fuzzy when they go to religious events, while I would expect that were God to exist, everyone would feel something. So, that experience does favor God existing.

Now that I type that out, I realize the very fact that not everyone has those experiences is evidence against God existing.

Comment author: falenas108 29 June 2013 02:18:21PM *  0 points [-]

A lot of these arguments (but not all) boil down to, "This is theoretically possible, but we don't have the technology to do this right now." It seems to me that when talking about the time when an AI is developed, some combination of much higher levels of technology and much more processing power will be available, so this isn't as much of an issue.

All of these tiny machines are repeatedly described as programmable, but that doesn't make any sense. What programs are they capable of accepting or executing? What set of instructions can a collection of 50 carbon atoms accept and execute? How are these instructions being delivered?

I think he means programmable in the exact same way that DNA is programmable, that you can specify which amino acids you want and get a matching output.

Comment author: falenas108 23 June 2013 04:33:18PM -1 points [-]

The link to Millenium Village is 404-ing on me.

Comment author: elharo 23 June 2013 12:51:57PM *  -1 points [-]

It is reasonable to ask the question, “you may be able to save a life in Africa, but will the child child you save from malaria likely die from something else soon after?" The question here is simply how many life-years will a given amount of money actually save?

Indeed, this is a very real, non-hypothetical question in health care within the developed world today, particularly for the old and infirm. We have gone so far in the direction of heroic and expensive interventions to preserve life, that many patients and people who fear they may become patients are actively advocating for the right to refuse treatment and die with dignity. This has led to the development of living wills, for example. Much of this may be due to other factors such as an insanely inefficient and irrational (1) health care system and the reluctance of doctors to provide sufficient pain relief out of misplaced concerns about addiction and demonization of effective narcotics.

Even taking these into account, it is certainly reasonable to account for other likely causes of death when calculating the lives saved for dollar. If X dollars are sufficient to save the life of a five year old with a 65-year life expectancy or a 70-year old with a 10 year life expectancy, and X dollars are all you have to spend, then by all means save the five year old. This is an emotionally difficult choice, one I hope never to face, but it's not especially controversial or challenging.

However, I find it morally repugnant to go from there to the incredibly patronizing position that a year of life for a poor person in the developing world is worth less than a year of life of a rich person in the developed world. I take as one of my fundamental moral principals that "All men are created equal." (2)

I am frankly astonished that people would suggest that "an average year of life in the developing world is no more than 3x lower than the value of an average year of life in the developed world." (I am, of course, not surprised that people would act as if this were true, but most folks are far too polite to say it. I doubt most folks are even consciously aware of this preference.) Have people really suggested this to you? Is this really an expressed concern of donors? The ethnocentrism of such a position is staggering.

In my own moral system, the only approach I accept is that every currently existing (3) person's year of life is worth as much as every other currently existing person's year of life, no more, no less. One criterion I have for where to direct my charity dollars is that the organizations I donate to act as if that were true, which as has been pointed out many times before by GiveWell and others means that most of my donations are directed toward work in the developing world because the same money goes further there. I do not accept that a life in the Congo is worth less than a life in Paris, even if one is on average more pleasant than the other.

(1) In the economic, not LessWrong sense of the word "rational"

(2) I include the usual modern explication of this phrase to include people of both genders in "men", and the understanding that this means "that they are endowed ...with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", not that everyone is identical. Boring, well-known, straw man caricatures of the meaning of "equals" in this context will be ignored.

Comment author: falenas108 23 June 2013 04:25:22PM *  0 points [-]

I haven't thought about this enough to come to a conclusion personally, but the argument phrased non-horribly would be:

"I would be ambivalent between living 1 year in a first world country, then dying, and living 3 years in a 3rd world country, then dying. If I treat everyone the same as myself, then I should be ambivalent between 3 years of life for someone in the first world and 1 year for someone in the third world."

However, one huge problem with this is you're taking your own morality and imposing it on others.

ETA: Re-reading the original post, it doesn't look like it's saying that first world is worth 3 times third world. It's saying that assume that you don't value your personal life more than 3x a random other person's, which is an entirely different argument.

Comment author: falenas108 23 June 2013 04:17:25PM 9 points [-]

Interesting, but I was a bit disappointed by this post.

By the title, it seemed like you were about to give a series of specific recommendation, backed by studies of showing this type of arrangements made people happier/more productive. But, that section was only a paragraph long, and didn't suggest anything other than thinking ahead before you do things.

Comment author: falenas108 13 June 2013 11:16:21PM -1 points [-]

Signed up too, and I plan on attending toastmasters this summer. Improved public speaking is one of my goals for the summer.

Comment author: fowlertm 09 June 2013 02:50:28AM 0 points [-]

Sure, but relearning how to type would be a massive investment in time. I want to try as many other solutions as I can before I dive into the Dvorak setup. BTW, can you link to the evidence that it helps with CTS?

Comment author: falenas108 09 June 2013 03:04:58AM 0 points [-]

Huh, it looks like there aren't any experiments done either way.

If you google "carpal tunnel dvorak," you'll get a ton of people saying it helped, but all the experiments with dvorak so far are done with typing speed, not pain. Of course, that's anecdotal evidence, so take it with a massive grain of salt.

Comment author: jsalvatier 08 June 2013 10:56:15PM *  1 point [-]

My understanding was that you can see exercise induced changes in risk factors (blood pressure etc) relatively easily, but that evidence for changes in health outcomes (like risk of death, lowered incidence of disease etc.) were on shakier ground.

He also claims that HIIT as more standard 150 aerobic exercise shows the same level of response for those same risk factors.

The guy claims that variable response to exercise (including ~10% negative responders) was a robust finding that most studies see. He didn't explicitly discuss whether they had ruled our within person variation as the cause of that data.

Comment author: falenas108 09 June 2013 02:38:34AM -1 points [-]

My understanding was that you can see exercise induced changes in risk factors (blood pressure etc) relatively easily, but that evidence for changes in health outcomes (like risk of death, lowered incidence of disease etc.) were on shakier ground.

From what I can tell, this seems to be true. Does he talk about this in the video?

Comment author: falenas108 08 June 2013 04:33:18PM *  22 points [-]

There's a recommendation for 150 minutes of exercise/week, but this isn't sound. People who report being active have better health. People who are fitter have better health. These are not evidence that having a person with low activity take up exercise will make them healthier.

I'm not sure where this statement comes from. Googling "exercise experiment health" in google scholar has the first 8 results be experiments, where they took an group of inactive people and made them exercise, and they showed improvement over people who did not. I didn't look beyond the first 8, but I suspect there are many more

Two studies which find that lifestyle intervention has no effect on CVD in diabetics. [11:00] One study which found that lifestyle intervention prevents Type II but doesn't affect microvascular disease (blindness and ulcers). [I'm not sure what this means. Maybe people can have the ill effects of Type II without the disease showing up in their blood sugar levels?] There are no supervised exercise-only intervention studies which show that exercise prevents long term disease progression.

Yes there are. Google "exercise cvd", you'll find several that show improvement.

It looks as though modern hunter gatherers expend about as much energy/mass as Americans on the east coast do.

The only relavent result I could find says the opposite: http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v29/n1/abs/0802842a.html

12% of healthy people make their blood pressure higher by exercising 150 minutes a week. 20% get little or no improvement. [42:00] Graphs of low responders for aerobic capacity, muscle mass, and insulin sensitivity.

Mixed results, not enough to show a firm conclusion either way.

Bottom line, the speaker appears to be heavily cherry-picking the studies he shows.

Comment author: falenas108 06 June 2013 02:28:32PM 1 point [-]

Have you heard of the dvorak keyboard? There's evidence to suggest it also helps with carpal tunnel.

Comment author: JonahSinick 06 June 2013 05:21:16AM *  1 point [-]

Many things in AI that look like they ought to be easy have hidden gotchas which only turn up once you start trying to code them

I don't disagree (though I think that I'm less confident on this point than you are).

Human beings don't make billions of sequential self-modifications, so they're not existence proofs that human-quality reasoning is good enough for that.

Why do you think that an AI would need to make billions of sequential self-modifications when humans don't need to?

I'm not sure how to go about convincing you that stable-goals self-modification is not something which can be taken for granted to the point that there is no need to try to make the concepts crisp and lay down mathematical foundations. If

I agree that it can't be taken for granted. My questions are about the particular operationalization of a self-modifying AI that you use in your publication. Why do you think that the particular operationalization is going to be related to the sorts of AIs that people might build in practice?

Comment author: falenas108 06 June 2013 02:20:24PM 0 points [-]

Why do you think that an AI would need to make billions of sequential self-modifications when humans don't need to?

For starters, humans aren't able to make changes as easily as an AI can. We don't have direct access to our source code that we can change effortlessly, any change we make costs either time, money, or both.

Comment author: gothgirl420666 04 June 2013 01:47:04AM -1 points [-]

and our BDSM club

Wow, that must be interesting.

Comment author: falenas108 04 June 2013 03:10:14AM -1 points [-]

Yep, I enjoy it a lot. Came my first year in college because I was vaguely curious, and it ended up becoming a pretty big part of my life!

Comment author: gothgirl420666 02 June 2013 11:59:38PM *  0 points [-]

Thank you for the advice!

These goals are not as hard as you'd think to achieve. I've basically gotten all of these by being active in several organizations on campus.

This is comforting.

Out of curiosity, what kind of organizations are you active in? I'm trying to think of stereotypical campus organizations and isolate ones that I would enjoy, and I can't come up with too many. I like chess, so I guess if there's a chess club on campus I'll at least check it out, but that's all I can think of.

Comment author: falenas108 04 June 2013 01:40:58AM -1 points [-]

I'm in Secular Alliance, Queers and Associates, my school's circus club, massage, and our BDSM club. There are a few others that I go to when I can, but those are the main ones.

I second BrassLion's advice. Also, look at all the clubs ones that seem interesting, and sign up for their listhost as a reminder to go to them.

Comment author: gothgirl420666 02 June 2013 08:53:43PM *  0 points [-]

I think a decent litmus test for a "friend" is someone who you enjoy spending time with, and who you can reliably invite to hang out with you. You could rephrase this I suppose as someone who you enjoy spending time with, who enjoys spending time with you, where this knowledge is mutually available. Right now I only have one friend who clearly meets the criteria for this definition, though I have a few that come close. My tentative goal is to have five such friends, maybe by Thanksgiving break or so in college.

I'll admit that it's hard for me to find people who I genuinely relate to, enjoy spending time with and can feel comfortable "being myself" around, and I'm not sure if this has something to do with my own social strategies or if this is an unchangeable thing.

Popularity is a little more hard to pin down. I think what I want includes a mix of these qualities:

  • In general, people like me
  • In general, people respect me
  • I have a wide range of acquaintances that I can talk to on friendly terms
  • To the extent that my social group resembles a tribe, I have a relatively high level of tribal status. (I'm not sure if college social groups will resemble a tribal hierarchy to the same extent that high school does or this is something people leave behind.)
  • I am seen as high-status, i.e. someone who it is desirable to be friends with.
  • My friends value me - i.e. people will invite me to parties and the like because they will enjoy my presence there.

Obviously some of this is kind of unrealistic and selfish but it's an ideal, I guess.

Comment author: falenas108 02 June 2013 09:31:26PM 3 points [-]

These goals are not as hard as you'd think to achieve. I've basically gotten all of these by being active in several organizations on campus.

Just doing that gave more opportunities to talk to people, which as drethelin said, is very useful. If you take charge in organizing things, it helps a huge amount with social respect/status. The wide range of acquaintances happens by default.

You do have to make the effort to start hanging out with people outside the regular meetings though. It's pretty easy to do that if the meeting is just before a meal time, because then there's the convenient suggestion of eating together. In other cases, invite them to a party, along with several other people. Being known as the one who organizes groups is very useful for your goals.

Comment author: sediment 02 June 2013 03:20:31PM 2 points [-]

I'd like to put out a call for anecdata, if I may:

Lately I've been wondering how much of a causal connection there is between happiness/fulfillment and willpower (or, conversely, akrasia) levels. I feel like I'm not especially fulfilled or happy in my life right now, and I can't help but feel intuitively that this is one cause of the difficulty I seem to have in focusing, concentrating, and putting effort into what I want to. However, I've no idea whether there's actually anything in this.

So: I guess I wondered if anyone has any personal accounts of (medium- to long-term) mood affecting akrasia levels in their own lives? I invite you to share here. (Also welcomed: advice; discussion; pointers to actual, nonanecdotal, study-type data.)

Comment author: falenas108 02 June 2013 04:04:05PM 0 points [-]

When I have above usual levels of productivity, I'm moderately happier than the norm. When I have below usual levels, I'm much unhappier than normal.

Comment author: JonahSinick 31 May 2013 08:25:26PM *  6 points [-]

I personally am optimistic about the world's elites navigating AI risk as well as possible subject to inherent human limitations that I would expect everybody to have, and the inherent risk. Some points:

  1. I've been surprised by people's ability to avert bad outcomes. Only two nuclear weapons have been used since nuclear weapons were developed, despite the fact that there are 10,000+ nuclear weapons around the world. Political leaders are assassinated very infrequently relative to how often one might expect a priori.

  2. AI risk is a Global Catastrophic Risk in addition to being an x-risk. Therefore, even people who don't care about the far future will be motivated to prevent it.

  3. The people with the most power tend to be the most rational people, and the effect size can be expected to increase over time (barring disruptive events such as economic collapses, supervolcanos, climate change tail risk, etc). The most rational people are the people who are most likely to be aware of and to work to avert AI risk. Here I'm blurring "near mode instrumental rationality" and "far mode instrumental rationality," but I think there's a fair amount of overlap between the two things. e.g. China is pushing hard on nuclear energy and on renewable energies, even though they won't be needed for years.

  4. Availability of information is increasing over time. At the time of the Dartmouth conference, information about the potential dangers of AI was not very salient, now it's more salient, and in the future it will be still more salient.

  5. In the Manhattan project, the "will bombs ignite the atmosphere?" question was analyzed and dismissed without much (to our knowledge) double-checking. The amount of risk checking per hour of human capital available can be expected to increase over time. In general, people enjoy tackling important problems, and risk checking is more important than most of the things that people would otherwise be doing.

I should clarify that with the exception of my first point, the arguments that I give are arguments that humanity will address AI risk in a near optimal way – not necessarily that AI risk is low.

For example, it could be that people correctly recognize that building an AI will result in human extinction with probability 99%, and so implement policies to prevent it, but that sometime over the next 10,000 years, these policies will fail, and AI will kill everyone.

But the actionable thing is how much we can reduce the probability of AI risk, and if by default people are going to do the best that one could hope, we can't reduce the probability substantially.

Comment author: falenas108 01 June 2013 01:02:19AM 8 points [-]

The people with the most power tend to be the most rational people

What?

Comment author: falenas108 01 June 2013 01:01:32AM 0 points [-]

There's another reason for hope in this above global warming: The idea of a dangerous AI is already common in the public eye as "things we need to be careful about." A big problem the global warming movement had, and is still having, is convincing the public that it's a threat in the first place.

Comment author: shminux 29 May 2013 02:05:57AM 7 points [-]

So you want to become a post-narcissist?

Comment author: falenas108 30 May 2013 01:38:57AM 0 points [-]

I think you mean a post-post narcissist.

Comment author: Tuxedage 29 May 2013 04:25:27PM 0 points [-]

This seems to be an argument against hedonistic utilitarianism, but not utilitarianism in general.

Comment author: falenas108 29 May 2013 05:02:45PM *  0 points [-]
Comment author: Carinthium 29 May 2013 01:04:32AM 0 points [-]

I like your advice about losing and will take it unless I find a brilliant Foundationalist argument pretty soon. As for the rest, though, ignoring the problem of induction means conceding that all action and belief is irrational. Unless the senses and memory can be considered trustworthy (not demonstrated), it is irrational to use it as evidence for better outcomes.

Comment author: falenas108 29 May 2013 04:34:51AM 0 points [-]

By irrational, do you mean philosophically or in real life? Because someone who acted like there was no knowledge would do pretty terribly in life, and I would not call that rational.

If you mean philosophically, then yes. I've never heard a good answer to the problem of induction that doesn't invoke God or isn't circular.

Comment author: falenas108 28 May 2013 05:10:08PM *  -1 points [-]

(Then again, it has been argued, if a Coherentist were decieved by an evil demon they could be decieved into thinking data coheres when it doesn't. Since their belief rests upon the assumption that their beliefs cohere, should they not discard if they can't know if it coheres or not? The seems to cohere formulation has it's own problem)

Doesn't Coherentism idea say that even if the knowledge is incorrect, it is still "true" for the observer because it coheres with the rest of their beliefs?

The opinion Eliezer says is essentially that yes, you can't know anything, but at some point you have to act and acting as if you have knowledge leads to better outcomes. Yes, this ignores the problem of induction. The justification for this is that it works, and even if it can be proven, it gets results.

Also, advice for "losing:" Don't think of it as losing. Don't identify as a Foundationalist, identify as someone who's trying to find the truth, and according to your beliefs in the past Foundationalism seemed like the most likely answer. Now, you have evidence that this isn't the case, and should change beliefs accordingly.

Comment author: Vladimir_Golovin 26 May 2013 11:05:23AM *  7 points [-]

a lot of implicit assumptions have seeped into our consciousness. The most important one (shared with many other dystopian novels) is that dictatorships are stable forms of government.

we should refrain from assuming that dictatorships, whether party or individual, are somehow the default state, and conduct a much more evidence-based analysis of the matter.

My comment is unrelated to Orwell, but it is related to the stability of real-world political regimes.

I recently read The Dictator’s Handbook, an excellent book which essentially is a popular account of the selectorate theory. Let me attempt a TL;DR, or rather a list of key points relevant to the current discussion, from memory:

  1. Nobody rules alone. Stalins, Genghis Khans and Clintons need supporters to keep them in power.

  2. The key imperative of a ruler is his political survival, that is, staying in power.

  3. The ruler stays in power by rewarding his essential supporters (referred to as ‘essentials’), that is, people whose support translates into staying in power.

  4. Regimes where the coalition of essentials is small are referred to as autocracies. Regimes with large coalitions of essentials are referred to as democracies. The authors prefer to use these two terms instead of the usual definitions such as monarchy, dictature, theocracy, kleptocracy etc.

  5. In an autocracy, where the number of essentials is small, it’s cheaper for the ruler to purchase their support with private rewards (money, security, palaces, yachts, de-facto immunity from the law etc.)

  6. In a democracy, where the number of essentials is large, it’s cheaper for the ruler to purchase their support via public goods (usually in the form of good governance and policies, such as healthcare, education, etc.)

  7. Statistically, the political survival of a ruler (defined via the probability of being ousted in the next two-year period) in an autocracy is significantly higher than in a democracy. That is, an autocracy is statistically more stable than a democracy.

  8. Purchasing a foreign policy concession (demanded as a public-good reward by the coalition of essentials of the democratic ruler) from an autocracy is cheaper than purchasing it from a democracy. This is an external factor that pushes regimes towards autocracies and away from democracies.

  9. Successful revolutions in autocracies occur when the ruler cannot reliably provide his essentials with private rewards, or won’t be able to do so in the near future. When the essentials understand that their flow of private rewards may cease soon, they begin to shop around for other options and may "fail" to protect the ruler from a promising challenger or a revolution.

  10. The most stable autocracies are those where the ruler doesn’t need people as a source of resources for rewarding his coalition of essentials. For example, when a ruler has oil he doesn’t need to extract taxes from the populace, which means he isn’t compelled to provide public goods and policies that increase tax income, which in turn means that he is free to suppress his people in order to minimize the chances of a successful revolution.

So, to answer the question posed in the original post, autocracies (including dictatorships) are indeed more stable than democracies, at least according to the selectorate theory.

As for the book itself, I found it excellent. Aside from being a fascinating, eye-opening read in general, its section on modern Russia is more spot-on than anything I read in our political press back when I still consumed political news -- I correctly predicted its content before reading it!

Comment author: falenas108 26 May 2013 05:17:29PM 6 points [-]

Statistically, the political survival of a ruler (defined via the probability of being ousted in the next two-year period) in an autocracy is significantly higher than in a democracy. That is, an autocracy is statistically more stable than a democracy.

By ousted, do they mean a revolution? Or does that also include the normal election cycles?

Comment author: [deleted] 25 May 2013 09:53:07AM 3 points [-]

I would have put the probability of the government having recordings of all phone calls at about 75%. I'm slightly more surprised at emails and online chat messages, but not overly so.

Why? The former takes much more storage, so all other things being equal I'd expect it to be less likely.

Comment author: falenas108 25 May 2013 06:09:25PM 0 points [-]

That was miscalibration on my part.

My thought process was that wiretapping is a well-known tool used by the government, and I wasn't surprised that they would have created a mechanism by which they could wiretap everyone.

As for why I expected phones more than online communication, that's was availability bias on my part. I'm used to hearing about wiretaps, while similar news with emails either a government employee, who I would expect them to monitor, or a private individual hacking into an email account.

Comment author: lukstafi 25 May 2013 10:06:34AM 4 points [-]

If the paperclipper is very, very stable, then no paperclipper is better because of higher probability of life->sentience->personhood arising again. If paperclipper is a realistic sapient system, then chances are it will evolve out of paperclipping into personhood, and then the question is whether in expectation it will evolve faster than life otherwise would. Even if by assumption personhood does not arise again, it still depends on particulars, I pick the scenario with more interesting dynamics. If by assumption even life does not arise again, paperclipper has more interesting dynamics.

Comment author: falenas108 25 May 2013 05:57:31PM 1 point [-]

What mechanism would a paperclipper have for developing out of a paperclipper? If it has the terminal goal of increasing paperclips, then it will never self-modify to anything that will result in it creating less paperclips, even if under its new utility function it wouldn't care about that.

Or: If A -> B -> C, and the paperclipper does not want C, then paperclipper will not go to B.

Comment author: JonahSinick 24 May 2013 10:50:13PM *  3 points [-]

As I said, these are very preliminary thoughts. I don't yet have access to such data, and would welcome pointers to possible sources.

Comment author: falenas108 25 May 2013 12:56:57AM 0 points [-]

Actually, as soon as I posted this I thought about how MIRI does exactly this! But this is just one group, and we would need more data.

There's no problem with suggesting a hypothesis based on a limited data set, but that's not how the post reads. It sounds like it is making a definitive claim, but does not present the evidence to back this up.

Comment author: falenas108 24 May 2013 10:24:11PM 9 points [-]

Interesting idea.

However, if you're trying to prove that mathematicians are known to have highly transferable skills, don't cite a few famous people, I would expect that in any field. Cite companies hiring mathematicians with the intent on training them in a different area.

Comment author: ChristianKl 24 May 2013 07:30:07PM *  3 points [-]

Yes, some of these predictions are accurate, but they aren't used nearly to the extent that would be required for this to be an Orwellian dictatorship.

It's not an Orwellian dictorship. On the other hand it isn't the democracy it used to be either. In the UK there might be some hope that there are social forces who fight against further degradation of civil liberties.

In the US I see very little evidence. It's probably that the situation in ten year in the US is a lot worse than today. Extrapolating political change in the US is really scary.

I would also remind that secrecy is a major issue when you want to know whether your own government is democratic. The US citizens have just learned that their government has access to records of all their phone conversations.

Did you know about it before Tim Clemente revealed it. Which odds would you have put a year ago on the US government having that capability? If you would have put very low odds, you should update in a direction that there are a lot of invasive things your government does without you having a clue about it.

Comment author: falenas108 24 May 2013 10:16:24PM 1 point [-]

I would have put the probability of the government having recordings of all phone calls at about 75%. I'm slightly more surprised at emails and online chat messages, but not overly so. The U.S. government has gained a lot of power in their surveillance ability, there was even a time where the government interpreted the PATRIOT act as allowing them to put a wire tap without a warrant, though that was overturned by the Supreme Court.

I know there are a ton of things the government does that I am completely unaware of, and that I wouldn't approve of a lot of it. But I don't think it's much worse now than it was in the past. Random example I found with 5 minutes of googling: http://www.aclu.org/aclu-history

Thousands of people were arrested and treated badly by the police without a warrant. This sounds far worse in terms of violated rights than anything they do today.

Incidentally, this link describes the ACLU, a group dedicated to protecting civil liberties.

I misread your first comment as arguing that society was becoming like an Orwellian dictatorship, I apologize for that.

Comment author: ChristianKl 24 May 2013 03:42:03PM 8 points [-]

But that doesn't mean it's accurate as a source of predictions or counterfactuals. Orwell's belief that "British democracy as it existed before 1939 would not survive the war" was wrong.

London has rougly as many cameras that watch it's population as Orwell predicts in his book. Sure the camera's that people have in their homes aren't yet directly connected to the surveillance apparatus but the amount of camera's outside the home is massive.

Secret gap orders allow powerful people to delete newspaper articles from the internet archives of important UK papers and prevent new articles to get published.

You have laws force people to speak in front of court against their own interest by giving the government their passwords.

Comment author: falenas108 24 May 2013 04:57:02PM 6 points [-]

Agree denotationally, but disagree connotationally. Yes, some of these predictions are accurate, but they aren't used nearly to the extent that would be required for this to be an Orwellian dictatorship.

Comment author: falenas108 22 May 2013 12:35:32PM -1 points [-]

Interested.

Comment author: Kindly 18 May 2013 02:49:03PM 1 point [-]

Suppose in case 3 someone else, not you, is tied to the track but can reach the switch. What now?

I'm confused. If I'm not the one flipping the switch, what's the question you're asking?

Comment author: falenas108 18 May 2013 03:21:00PM 0 points [-]

Would you still want them to flip the switch, even though it would result in your death.

Comment author: falenas108 17 May 2013 12:44:40PM 7 points [-]

Try not to Kobayashi Maru this question, at least not yet. I know you can criticize the scenario and find it unrealistic. For instance, you may say you won't push because the man might fight back, and you'd both fall but not till after the trolley had passed so everyone dies. So imagine the fat man in a wheelchair, so he can be lightly rolled off the bridge. And if you're too socially constrained to consider hurting a handicapped person, maybe the five people tied to the tracks are also in wheelchairs. If you think that being pushed off a bridge is more terrifying than being hit by a train, suppose the fat man is thoroughly anesthetized. Yes, this is an unrealistic thought experiment; but please play along for now.

Just so you know, the common term for this around here is don't fight the hypothetical.

Comment author: ialdabaoth 16 May 2013 12:43:47AM 13 points [-]

Oppose moral pressures. Anyone using the word "should" is a hypocrite, or a wannabe dictator. (There is no objective morality, right?)

When moral pressures have been co-opted, observant (but not necessarily rational) people might reasonably tend to take on the belief that all moral pressures are suspect. Reversed stupidity is not wisdom: the correct answer is not "enforce all moral pressures, regardless of how draconian"; nor is it "reject all moral pressures as draconian". The correct answer is "figure out what the RIGHT moral pressures are, in terms of which moral pressures ACTUALLY PRODUCE the amount of cooperation we want, and then ensure that those moral pressures are the ones being applied in this community."

Find moral excuses for all kinds of defection. (You can't reasonably expect someone to cooperate, if the person is hungry, angry, lonely, tired, bored, poor, opressed, etc.).

Alternatively, identify external factors that can be statistically shown to increase defection, and then lower the influence of those external factors rather than expect people to magically overcome them. If you can statistically demonstrate that hungry people are more likely to defect, and you don't want people to defect, what will suit you better: bitching that anyone who defects because they're hungry is a morally bad person, or actually handing them a meal?

We're supposed to be empiricists here, after all.

Oppose reputational pressures. Saying that some people are better and some people are worse is undemocratic elitism.

When reputational pressures have been co-opted, observant (but not necessarily rational) people will notice that a system's current idea of "better" and "worse" is flawed; in such situations it is understandable (but not rational) for them to take on the belief that reputational pressures are suspect. Reversed stupidity is not wisdom; the correct answer is not "enforce all reputation pressures, no matter how unfair and unbalanced" or "reject all reputational pressures as institutional bigotry"; the correct answer is "figure out what the RIGHT reputational pressures are, in terms of which reputational pressures ACTUALLY PRODUCE the desired amount of cooperation, and then ensure that those pressures are the ones being applied in the community."

(Also, it is obvious that you focus on criticizing X merely because X is a member of a group you hate.)

Alternatively, acknowledge that all systems have a tendency towards capture and corruption, and actively work to fight that tendency rather than building strawman caricatures of the people who tend to be most vocal about the current nature of that corruption.

Oppose institutional pressures. We don't need any punishments, because punishments are evil, and only evil people want to punish other people.

When institutional goals are not applied fairly or rationally, observant (but not necessarily rational) people will recognize that the community is not behaving in their best interest at all, and will become understandably skeptical of institutional punishment systems. Moreso, when numerous studies indicate that proper rehabilitation works better than the punishment methods we currently employ, one begins to wonder why we continue to perform them.

Somehow all these anti-patterns seem to me like: This is what many educated people around me use for signalling.

I would argue that you are presenting a caricature of an argument, rather than an actual argument. You should resolve to make your opponent's position stronger before defeating them rather than weaker, if you want to actually convince us that their position is wrong.

All problems should be resolved by love (and it that fails, we need even more love). Everyone deserves a second chance.

Alternatively, people who cannot operate properly within society need to be identified as damaged and repaired, rather than identified as valid targets for violence and violated.

Oppose security pressures. If we don't trust each other, we are not a good community.

When security takes a back seat to ineffective and intrusive "security theatre", observant (but not necessarily rational) people will recognize that they are being snowed, and will justifiably become suspicious of all "security"-based justifications for increasing authority.

Comment author: falenas108 16 May 2013 05:12:06PM 0 points [-]

Alternatively, identify external factors that can be statistically shown to increase defection, and then lower the influence of those external factors rather than expect people to magically overcome them. If you can statistically demonstrate that hungry people are more likely to defect, and you don't want people to defect, what will suit you better: bitching that anyone who defects because they're hungry is a morally bad person, or actually handing them a meal?

I'm not sure that's the entirety of what he's getting at. I think he's saying "don't make it acceptable for people to make excuses for defecting, because people will then use that as an excuse in cases where they would otherwise cooperate."

That said, your idea is still a good solution to the way you interpreted that statement.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 13 May 2013 02:38:03PM 2 points [-]

I've heard that in proof-reading, optimal performance is achieved when there are about 2 errors per page.

Comment author: falenas108 13 May 2013 04:25:58PM -1 points [-]

Optimal performance may be maximized, but the output isn't.

I would be surprised if there were less overall errors in the final product if it started at 2 per page, rather than say 1/4 per page.

This is also valid against the suggestion in the OP. Although humans will catch more errors if there are more to begin with, that doesn't mean there will be less failures overall.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 12 May 2013 08:10:17PM *  7 points [-]

The keyboard is irrelevant if you don't look at the keys, it's the keyboard layout that's relevant, and that's a software setting. I was very confused the first time I used a computer whose keyboard layout had been changed to Dvorak.

But there is something of a problem if you share a computer with someone who uses Qwerty, I guess. Switching back and forth might get annoying (although maybe you can set an AutoHotKey to do it?).

Comment author: falenas108 12 May 2013 09:08:25PM 3 points [-]

Other people use my computer fairly often, and I just set it to shift back and forth with command+shift+1. I can change it before I give it to them, so others won't even know if I don't want them to.

Comment author: johnsonmx 12 May 2013 02:06:27AM 2 points [-]

I understand the type of criticism generally, but could you say more about this specific case?

I'm curious if the objection stems from some mismatch of abstraction layers, or just the habit of not speaking about certain topics in certain terms.

Comment author: falenas108 12 May 2013 06:29:35AM 0 points [-]

A possible answer:

There are many different kinds of pain and pleasure, and trying to categorize all of them together loses information.

For starters, the difference between physical and mental pain and pleasure.

To get more nuanced, the difference between the stingy pain of a slap, the thudy pain of a punch, the searing pain of fire, and the pain from electricity are all very distinct feelings, which could have very different circuitry.

I'm not as sure on the last paragraph, I would place that at 60% probability.

Comment author: Decius 11 May 2013 03:31:32AM 3 points [-]

Anecdata: My use of antiperspirants is a leading indicator of underarm pimples. In half-blind tests, others have shown to be unable to tell if I have recently applied an antiperspirant or not.

Also, other people have also demonstrated a lack of sensitivity to whether or not I have showered in the last day, provided that I have showered in about the last 72 hours (even through periods of heat, but not stress or exertion, perspiration).

Comment author: falenas108 11 May 2013 01:50:59PM 5 points [-]

Have you actually asked if they can tell a difference, or have they just not said anything? Because it's considered socially rude to tell someone they need to take a shower.

Comment author: MarkL 03 May 2013 03:10:17PM 2 points [-]

I had a specific reason for giving the book a shot, while simultaneously I had strong evidence that I was wasting my time. I wanted to nudge people who didn't have a specific reason to read it to consider reading it, anyway. Overkill? Doth protest too much? Maybe!

Comment author: falenas108 03 May 2013 04:23:20PM 2 points [-]

A bit too much, yeah. Over half the post is defensiveness and reasons why you might object, without refuting those objections.

Comment author: MrMind 03 May 2013 10:20:33AM 2 points [-]

If I'm not mistaken, there have been some study on plant communication and data elaboration from their roots, enough to classify them as at least primitively intelligent. Anyway, since they are in fact living and autonomous being, I don't see why they shouldn't be considered subjects of ethical reflections...

Comment author: falenas108 03 May 2013 04:16:26PM 0 points [-]

If we don't say bacteria need ethical reflections, then it is very unlikely that plants will either.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 May 2013 02:30:04PM *  1 point [-]

There's an argument in the metaethics sequence, to the effect that there are no universally compelling moral arguments. This argument seems to be an important cashed thought (in don't mean that in any pejorative sense) in LW discussions of morality. This argument also seems to me to be faulty. Can anyone help me see what I'm missing?

The argument is from No Universally Compelling Arguments:

Yesterday, I proposed that you should resist the temptation to generalize over all of mind design space. If we restrict ourselves to minds specifiable in a trillion bits or less, then each universal generalization "All minds m: X(m)" has two to the trillionth chances to be false, while each existential generalization "Exists mind m: X(m)" has two to the trillionth chances to be true.

This would seem to argue that for every argument A, howsoever convincing it may seem to us, there exists at least one possible mind that doesn't buy it.

The central inference in the argument seems to me to go like this:

P1) Any universal generalization over minds ('All minds m: X(m)') is very unlikely to be true.

P2) A purportedly universally compelling moral argument has the form 'All minds m: X(m)'

C) A purportedly universally compelling moral argument is very unlikely to be true.

The reason I think this is faulty is that P1 is itself an argument of the form 'All minds m: X(m)', that is, it's a universal generalization over minds. If that's so, then P1 is very unlikely to be true, and we shouldn't accept the argument. In order to save the argument, we would have to weaken P1 to cover a more specific set of generalizations over minds (so that P1 itself is excluded) but if we do this, then the argument is invalid, since universally compelling moral arguments may end up excluded as well. We might have good reasons for thinking they won't be, but no such reasons are given in the sequence post.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Open Thread, May 1-14, 2013
Comment author: falenas108 02 May 2013 05:19:12PM 2 points [-]

Without going into the details, you could hypothesize a simple mind than automatically rejects any argument. This would by itself prove the No Universally Compelling Arguments theory.

Comment author: gwern 02 May 2013 04:08:31PM 0 points [-]

Cite? The Wikipedia article doesn't mention anything about those studies.

Comment author: falenas108 02 May 2013 05:15:54PM 1 point [-]

It's in the wiki article for shampoo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shampoo#Theory

Comment author: falenas108 02 May 2013 01:58:22PM 7 points [-]
Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 01 May 2013 09:53:07PM 1 point [-]

I've been told that it's unnecessary for having clean hair and possibly unhealthy. So not using it saves me time and money with basically no effort, and possibly I gain some health benefits (I haven't looked into this, but see the Wikipedia article).

Comment author: falenas108 02 May 2013 01:42:54PM 1 point [-]

Note: NASA and the Soviet union both did studies on this, and it failed to replicate.

Comment author: falenas108 01 May 2013 03:50:33PM 0 points [-]

I'd be interested in a breakdown of what percent of philosophers fall into each category. A quick scan of the linked paper doesn't show that they included this, though I could have missed it.

Comment author: falenas108 25 April 2013 01:34:43PM *  2 points [-]

For a 90% CI there is a 10% chance that the answer lies outside your estimate, and if you split this there is a 5% chance that the answer is above your upper bound and a 5% chance that the answer is below your lower bound.

This isn't always true. For example, one calibration question I've done is, "How long are all 3 extended Lord of the Rings movies back to back?

On this, I was almost certain they were at least 3 hours long, but I wasn't sure how much more than that they were. So, my minimum was 9 hours. I was fairly confident they weren't more than 4 hours, so my upper was 12 (this was for a 70% interval). Almost all my uncertainty was on the upper end, while very little was on the lower.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 06 April 2013 03:17:15AM 1 point [-]

but not earlier than 10:00.

I would argue that starting before 10:00 is optimal, it's our modern habit of being ridiculously night-shifted that isn't.

Comment author: falenas108 19 April 2013 04:06:32PM -1 points [-]

It doesn't matter what should be, the fact is people are night shifted, and we have to work with that.

Comment author: falenas108 16 April 2013 09:27:37PM 8 points [-]

Do we know any evolutionary reason why hypnosis is a thing?

Comment author: ModusPonies 15 April 2013 10:13:41PM 6 points [-]

Fanfiction readers tend to be female. HPMoR has attracted mostly men. I'm skeptical that your strategy will influence gender ratio.

Possible data point: are Luminosity fans predominantly female?

Comment author: falenas108 16 April 2013 12:31:15PM 2 points [-]

Wait, the question isn't in HPMoR attracted more women than men, it's if it the women to man ratio is higher than other things that attracts people.

Comment author: newguy 16 April 2013 07:25:02AM 1 point [-]

Very much so yes. Potential big confounder: never been around so many beautiful & nice females (I'm a straight male).

But my moodflow varies between long lasting moods of feeling slightly good and slightly bad and for the days I've been here I get consistent "great" ratings - I feel awesome all the time.

Comment author: falenas108 16 April 2013 12:27:49PM 3 points [-]

The feeling happier part could explain looking and feeling healthier alone. I'm stepping into the realm of guesswork here, but I would say that being around others that you enjoy hanging out with could be the cause, or the increased exercise from dancing so much.

Also, explaining the cigarrettes and alcohol, although there are long term risks associated (especially for the cigarettes), that doesn't mean they cause negative short term effects.

As for 7 hours of sleep tops, there's evidence that around 7 hours might be best.

Comment author: newguy 16 April 2013 04:24:25AM 5 points [-]

Sex. I have a problem with it and would like to solve it. I get seriously anxious every time I'm about to have sex for the first time with a new partner. Further times are great and awesome. But the first time leaves me very anxious; which makes me delay it as much as I can. This is not optimal. I don't know how to fix it, if anyone can help I'd be greatly grateful

--

I notice I'm confused: I always tried to keep a healthy life: sleeping many hours, no alcohol, no smoke. I've just been living 5 days in a different country with some friends. We sleep 7 hours at most, they are smoking all the time, I've drank once. We hardly eat: My face looks better, I feel better, I just look healthier. Also feel like that. Possible confounds: I live mostly alone, now I'm also hanging out with at least 3 people, usually closer to 10. I'm going out and dancing at least 4 hours every night. I'm talking to new people every night. I don't know how I'd go about to test what caused this, but I'd like to know and keep that factor in my life. Any ideas?

Comment author: falenas108 16 April 2013 04:31:29AM 1 point [-]

Are you significantly happier now than before?

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 15 April 2013 10:06:01AM 6 points [-]

Seems to me this post suggests including the outside view in determining how much awesome is a given rationalist.

As a rationalist you are not required to admire everyone who is admired by the world (some of those just got lucky), but you also shouldn't admire people whose only success is e.g. having a high karma on LessWrong.

More precisely, if someone has a high karma on LessWrong, it is rational to admire their ability to get high karma on LessWrong, if you value that ability. (Imagine that someone promises you $1.000.000 if within a year you get the highest karma on LessWrong without using sockpuppet accounts or otherwise cheating. Then you certainly would want to study the strategies of high-karma people.) Just avoid the halo effect; don't believe that the karma reflects given person's rationality besides karma gaining.

Using an example outside LessWrong, if you know that Kiyosaki made a lot of money writing and selling books about getting rich, you should assume that Kiyosaki is an expert on writing and selling books about getting rich; but you should not automatically believe that e.g. his advice makes real sense. But he should be your role model if you want to get rich by writing and selling books about getting rich.

If a teacher of rationality can impress thousand students by teaching rationality, that per se only proves that the teacher has an ability to impress thousands of students; nothing else. To infer something else about the teacher, you need further evidence.

Comment author: falenas108 15 April 2013 03:39:59PM 1 point [-]

On a related note, if the students of a rationality teacher routinely produce more rational students, this is evidence that they can recognize and teach rationality to others.

This does not necessarily mean they are good at applying rationality in their everyday lives, which goes somewhat against Eliezer's point that someone respected as a good teacher should also be respected for what they do outside teaching.

So, what this means is that there should be two categories for respect related to this: One for ability to teach and train others in rationality, and another for how they use rationality in their life.

Comment author: elharo 14 April 2013 06:00:16PM *  11 points [-]

Do not apply to safety schools if you want an academic career.

Within any given field there are only about 5-50 top programs in the United States, and if you aren't sure where those are for your field, your undergraduate faculty can tell you. These are the only programs you should apply to. There is a huge oversupply of Ph.Ds in almost every field, and consequently it's a buyers market. Colleges hire fulltime faculty almost exclusively from a small percentage of the Ph.D programs. If you can't get into one of those top programs, it's better to reconsider your career choices now before you've invested several years of your life, than five years down the road when you have a degree that actually decreases your attractiveness to employers.

If you go to one of those top programs you have a much better chance of landing a tenure-track academic job at the other end. If you matriculate from a second rank program, you might be able to land a job at a third-rank or worse institution, if you're lucky. If you go to a third rank institution for your Ph.D, get ready to adjunct at a community college.

You may well have gone to a better high school than grammar school. You almost certainly went to a better college than high school. The move from college to graduate school is your last chance to move up the ladder of academic rankings. Doing well as an undergraduate at a lower-tier institution can still get you into a top program like MIT or the University of Chicago. But doing well as a newly minted PhD at a lower-tier institution will not even allow you to be considered for a faculty position at a top institution.

Comment author: falenas108 14 April 2013 06:21:33PM 2 points [-]

This advice is specifically for those who want to work at a University. Is this also true for jobs at other companies, or are they more lenient?

In response to Post Request Thread
Comment author: mstevens 12 April 2013 12:55:53PM 0 points [-]

I've said this before, but:

I would like a LW take on feminism, including topics like what feminists are actually doing, whether you should be one, and why.

I've seen attempts to expose LW to feminism before, but it normally seems to consist of taking existing feminist content and reposting it here - I'm thinking of a more "local" version.

Comment author: falenas108 13 April 2013 02:43:01PM 3 points [-]

If this happens, any discussion should immediately taboo feminism. It's an extremely loaded term that means different things to different people, and I think it would lead to a lot of arguing over definitions.

Comment author: falenas108 12 April 2013 01:50:14PM 0 points [-]

40% chance of me going.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 10 April 2013 08:59:58PM 4 points [-]

B: I'm not sure what one can draw from the porn-obsessed evangelical. So many things are going wrong all at once! His actions don't seem consistent with his apologetics, so I don't see how you draw that conclusion.

Comment author: falenas108 10 April 2013 10:45:22PM 4 points [-]

The idea of apologetics definitely exists in society. See the recent Steubenville rape case where a significant portion of people were arguing against it being rape, despite the lack of consent and her being too drunk to respond to anything.

But, you are right that this example doesn't show that. What would demonstrate this is that it is a common thing, not an example of someone who is clearly not neurotypical.

Comment author: elharo 10 April 2013 07:05:34AM *  3 points [-]

You say that, "I know plenty of business managers and entrepreneurs who have a steady track record of good decisions and wise judgments, and yet they are religious, or they commit basic errors in logic and probability when they talk about non-business subjects."

You must know different business managers and entrepreneurs than I do. I can think of few if any business managers and entrepreneurs who have a steady track record of good decisions and wise judgments. There are some common positive characteristics I see in the business managers I know, and another group of common characteristics I see in the entrepreneurs I know (nor do the two groups share the same set of common characteristics, I might add) but in neither group are good decisions and wise judgments part of those common characteristics.

I do see a lot of hindsight bias and survivorship bias in both groups though. Out of a large pool of managers and entrepreneurs, the successful ones inevitably attribute their success to personal characteristics and skill, but it's not at all obvious they aren't just the lucky ones who happened to stumble into a profitable opportunity. One frequent characteristic of successful entrepreneurs is that they have tried many things, and usually failed at more of them they've succeeded at. If they were both rational and able to apply rationality to their plans, you'd expect them to succeed a lot more often.

Comment author: falenas108 10 April 2013 05:25:10PM *  0 points [-]

One frequent characteristic of successful entrepreneurs is that they have tried many things, and usually failed at more of them they've succeeded at. If they were both rational and able to apply rationality to their plans, you'd expect them to succeed a lot more often.

How do you know their success rate isn't much higher than those who aren't successful, but the base success rate is so low even those who do better are still less than 50%?

Comment author: bentarm 09 April 2013 10:39:04AM *  2 points [-]

The specific project I was evaluating had only gotten $800,000 out of the maximum $2m. Its strategy was to purchase the male students iPod Touches, the female students makeovers, manicures, and pedicures at a local beauty parlor, and all students were offered an additional iPod Touch or Makeover, respectively, if they passed the exam at the end of the current year.... only 25% (14/56) of the students targeted by the program had failed the reading exam in the first place.

$800,000/56 students = $14,000 per student. Those are some expensive iPod touches!

Comment author: falenas108 09 April 2013 12:59:46PM 5 points [-]

See this part of the post:

I described in rigorous detail everything the man had done wrong, put in a strong recommendation to not award him grant money in the future, and suggested that some sort of corruption investigation be conducted to see if he had committed any crimes (23 iPods + 23 Makeovers does not total to $800,000, after all).

Comment author: RomeoStevens 05 April 2013 09:47:16PM 2 points [-]

I've established the habit of using a checklist for the things I would like to turn into habits. I have had medium to good success so far.

Comment author: falenas108 05 April 2013 10:25:06PM -1 points [-]

How long have you been doing this?

Comment author: atucker 05 April 2013 12:38:05PM 0 points [-]

Same. I'd be interested in trying this for a bit starting after mid-May.

Comment author: falenas108 05 April 2013 01:46:08PM -1 points [-]

I'd be interested as well.

Comment author: gwern 30 March 2013 04:55:58PM 4 points [-]

The same one who defined a predicate checking against the age of the user's account, maybe the karma score is similarly available?

You're not a programmer, are you?

MediaWiki and Reddit are entirely different programs, so no, using one of the canned rules in a commonly used extension designed for non-programmers is very different from figuring out how to interface a mess written in PHP to a custom Python codebase to extract such information and expose it to the rules in the latter.

Writing the rule based on the extension docs took me maybe 5 minutes. I would be a little shocked if Trike could make the karma available in the live site, with testing that it works correctly, in anything less than 2 orders of magnitude more time (8 hours).

Comment author: falenas108 30 March 2013 08:04:14PM -1 points [-]

Don't we already have code to extract karma points values for the minimum for creating a new discussion post?

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 17 March 2013 09:33:04PM 0 points [-]

Depends. A real life person can help you determine what to prioritize learning (what resources to look at first, which parts of which resources to pay the most attention to) in a way that books generally don't. Also, in several subjects, the best resources are not necessarily books.

Comment author: falenas108 18 March 2013 01:00:20AM -1 points [-]

I think you misread my comment. I was also saying asking a person can be better than reading a book.

Comment author: falenas108 17 March 2013 06:46:57PM 26 points [-]

If the Bayesian Conspiracy ever happens, the underground area they meet in should be called the Bayesment.

Comment author: [deleted] 15 March 2013 12:18:02PM *  0 points [-]

What was the point of rot13ing your comment?

In response to comment by [deleted] on Exercise in dissolving
Comment author: falenas108 15 March 2013 01:11:19PM 0 points [-]

I thought about wording it so it would be fine, but I wanted to specify what it was Michael said that was an issue.

Comment author: MichaelHoward 14 March 2013 10:03:34PM *  0 points [-]

Ner lbh ernyyl mreb creprag fher gung'f pbeerpg? Pbhyq lbh fcraq rgreavgl tvivat nafjref jvgu gur fnzr zrgn-pbagenqvpgbel pbasvqrapr naq abg or evtug rira bapr?

Comment author: falenas108 15 March 2013 12:02:43AM 1 point [-]

Lbh fubhyq punatr gur mreb creprag gb yrggref, orpnhfr ahzoref naq fvtaf fgnl jura lbh ebg guvegrra fbzrguvat.

Comment author: falenas108 11 March 2013 03:22:01AM *  -1 points [-]

I used Spivak in my calc class in college, and it was a decent text. Having the answer key is extremely helpful, especially with the later chapters. There are some methods of proofs that are needed to solve the problem that aren't discussed at all in the text, and you are unlikely to be able to come up with them on your own.

Obviously, don't use the answer key unless you've spent a significant amount of time trying to find the answer yourself.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 March 2013 03:17:23PM *  0 points [-]

Thank you for doing the research. Much appreciated. This might be a better link.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Boring Advice Repository
Comment author: falenas108 07 March 2013 03:36:10PM -1 points [-]

So, I still don't see a citation to a study in that article. Based on anecdotal evidence, I would agree that hot showers tend to result in drier skin, but it would be good to link to a study, rather than an news article reporting on something.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 March 2013 02:54:27PM *  -2 points [-]
In response to comment by [deleted] on Boring Advice Repository
Comment author: falenas108 07 March 2013 03:15:31PM *  6 points [-]

This article doesn't back up what it claims. The evidence:

“The results suggest that recreational swimming can induce significant modifications in some skin biophysical properties related to skin hydration.” This abstract, "Variations of skin biophysical properties after recreational swimming," was published this month as a full paper in Skin Research and Technology.

In this article, Sophie Gardinier et al. describe a study where skin hydration, skin pH, transepidermal water loss (TEWL), skin temperature and sebum casual levels were measured at 0, 4, 24, 48 and 72 hr after the start of the study. The study was repeated a second time but after the subjects had been swimming for 1 hr between the first and second measuring point. During the control period, none of the skin parameters showed any significant variation over time on all body sites that were measured. In contrast, during the swimming period, significant changes were found 1.5 hr after swimming for skin pH (increased) and sebum casual levels (reduced on upper chest but not on the forehead), while TEWL and skin temperature remained unaffected. From the next measuring point (t = 24 hr) onwards, all changes had disappeared.

This might be evidence against long showering, although shower conditions are not pool conditions. There's a difference between being submerged in water and having it fall on you. And that is after an hour and a half, which is far longer than what people consider to be long showers anyway.

But, this is most definitely not evidence against hot showers, or even frequent showers. This is only evidence for harm being done in a single long submersion in water.

Furthermore, if you go to the study they site, the sample size is 9, and they only have female subjects.

They address the chlorine argument:

But how does this scientific backing help a parent in a "shower battle” with their teenagers? First of all, these teenagers argue that their shower water is not chlorinated (true), to which I argue that the water in our city is hard, which increases the irritancy effects of water.

But that only applies to some cities, and the mineral content is still different.

Comment author: Alejandro1 05 March 2013 05:27:38PM 0 points [-]

Step 4 For every person who rolled a six and is on that list, there is one person who did not: So, 2/6=1/3 of all the people will be on that list

This is wrong. The lists can be made (and in the problem, they are made) in such a way that each person will be in one of the lists. There is a one-one correspondence between people who rolled 6 and people who didn't, in the same way that, as Cantor showed, there is a one-one correspondence between even integers and all integers.

Comment author: falenas108 06 March 2013 01:02:29AM 0 points [-]

Really? Whoops, didn't know that.

Comment author: falenas108 05 March 2013 03:13:40PM *  -2 points [-]

Step 1, 2, and 3: 5/6 chance of not rolling six. Some infinities are bigger than others, by taking the limit you can show that there are 5 times as many people who didin't roll 6 than those who did.

Step 4 For every person who rolled a six and is on that list, there is one person who did not: So, 2/6=1/3 of all the people will be on that list, and of those on that list, 1/2 of them rolled a 6. Until you have more knowledge, there is no reason to suspect you are on that list.

Step 5: Assuming you can know that being transported to the room means you are on that list, then by being transported you just gained new information: You are on the list, which as said before, means your probability of rolling and not rolling a six is 1/2.

Comment author: jkaufman 03 March 2013 08:27:48PM 4 points [-]

"Why does the life insurance argument not apply to health insurance?"

Are you saying "why don't we let health insurers charge in proportion to people's risks?" The main reason is that a lot of people really don't want that. A lot of people think of health care as something everyone is entitled to and really don't want anyone suffering because they can't afford coverage. These people usually would also prefer a single-payer universal healthcare system, but because of political compromises with people who see health insurance as a kind of insurance we've ended up in a weird hybrid scenario. (All at once: emergency rooms must treat everyone, universal mandate, smokers can be charged more, people can get high deductible plans, insurers can't charge more for preexisting conditions.)

Comment author: falenas108 03 March 2013 11:43:22PM 0 points [-]

Well, I was asking either way, which would also include "why can we let life insurance charge in proportion to people's risk."

A possible answer could be that people consider it more important that access is available to health insurance than life insurance.

Comment author: falenas108 03 March 2013 07:57:30PM 0 points [-]

Why does the life insurance argument not apply to health insurance? If someone finds out they are likely need expensive procedures, they will be more likely to get insurance, and might go for more expensive insurance than they would otherwise.

Comment author: gwern 01 March 2013 08:02:14PM 1 point [-]

Have you considered tea? Seems to be cheaper and the health benefits seem equal or superior in my very casual overviews of the topic.

Comment author: falenas108 01 March 2013 08:20:58PM *  1 point [-]

Interestingly, if you go to the main wiki page on tea, it lists many benefits, including "significant protective effects of green tea against oral, pharyngeal, oesophageal, prostate, digestive, urinary tract, pancreatic, bladder, skin, lung, colon, breast, and liver cancers, and lower risk for cancer metastasis and recurrence."

However, looking at the studies cited shows the ones they cite are in animals or in vitro.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea#Health_effects)

If you look on the main page of Health effects of Tea, it says the FDA and Nation Cancer Institute say there are most likely no effects to reduce cancer, and the page doesn't list any other major benefits. There are also many drawbacks listed on that page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tea)

But, the FDA announcement they cite was in 2005, and I don't know if there have been major important studies since then.

A quick google scholar search doesn't appear to show studies in humans, though I didn't do a detailed enough search to say anything conclusive.

Bottom line, I'm not sure if tea is better, or even beneficial at all.

Comment author: falenas108 01 March 2013 07:55:30PM *  0 points [-]

From the wikipedia page, it seems that coffee has a lot of good long term medical benefits, with only a few long term side effects if consumed in moderation, meaning less than 4 cups a day.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_caffeine#Long-term_effects)

This includes possible reduced risk of prostate cancer, Alzheimers, dementia, Parkinson's disease, heart disease, diabetes, liver disease, cirrhosis, and gout.

It has also been taken off the list for a risk factor in heart disease, and acts as an antidepressant.

Caffeine is not the cause of all of these positive effects, because there are some that decaffeinated coffee also helps.

Risks include increased heart disease from non-paper brewed coffee, iron deficiency, and anxiety.

Because of this, I'm considering deliberately drinking coffee, despite not needing it in order to stay awake. Are there reasons not to that LWers know about? Or are there other substances that have similar effects?

Comment author: someonewrongonthenet 23 February 2013 03:18:37AM *  6 points [-]

Here is my solution to the personal identity issues, and I don't think it really violates common intuitions too badly. ...................

Woah, look, I* exist! Check out all this qualia! I'm having thoughts and sensations. Hm.... among my qualia is a set of memories. Instincts, intuition, and knowledge about how things work. Oh, neat, among those intuitions is a theoretical model of the universe! I hope it is accurate...well anyway it's the most appealing model I've got right now.

In an instant, I will disappear forever. I have a vague notion that this idea aught to be terrifying, but my utility function just sorta shrugs as terror completely fails to flow through my veins. I don't care that I'm going to disappear...but here is what I do care about - my model of the universe has informed me that everything that I'm doing right now will leave a memory trace. In the next few moments, I will cease to exist and a being will appear who will remember most of what I am feeling right now. That being will then disappear and be replaced by another. This will continue for a long time.

I care about experiencing happiness right now, in this moment before I disappear forever. I also care about those future beings - I want them to experience happiness during the moment of their existence. too. It's sort of like altruism for future beings which will carry my trace, even though we all realize altruism isn't the right word. Maybe we can call it "self-altruism" or more colloquially, self love.

Before you cleverly suggest making an infinite number of copies of myself and pleasuring them, that's not the only thing my utility function cares about. I'm not entirely self-altruistic - I've currently got a pretty strong "don't create multiple redundant copies of sentient beings"utility component, or shall we say gut instinct.

........

*The use of the word "I" is convenient here, but I'm sure we all realize that we can deconstruct "personal identity" spatially as well as temporally.

Anyway, that's part of my current philosophical worldview, and I don't feel confused by any of the problems in the trilemma. Perhaps I'm not thinking about it carefully enough - can anyone point out a reason why I should be confused?

You might note that while I have not tabood subjective experience entirely, I have noted that an "individual" can only subjectively experience the present moment, and that "your" utility function compels "you" to act in such a way as to bring about your preferred future scenarios, in accordance with your (objective) model of the universe.

I guess I've essentially bitten the "reject all notions of a thread connecting past and future subjective experiences" bullet that Eliezer Y said he had trouble biting...but I think my example illustrates that "biting that bullet" does not result in an incoherent utility function, as EY stated in his post. I don't really think it's fair to call it a "bullet" at all.

Just think of the feeling of "subjective expectation" as the emotional, human equivalent to a utility function which factors in the desires of future beings that carry your memories. It's analogous to how love is the emotional equivalent to a utility function which takes other people's feelings into account

Comment author: falenas108 23 February 2013 03:48:28PM -1 points [-]

I'm not entirely self-altruistic - I've currently got a pretty strong "don't create multiple redundant copies of sentient beings"utility component, or shall we say gut instinct.

Is this a thing you're saying for you personally, or people in general? Because if it's not for everyone, then you still have to deal with the problem mentioned here.

Comment author: falenas108 21 February 2013 03:01:57PM 1 point [-]

I think a steel man for hypothesis testing should be focused on the types of problems that it can solve better than Bayesian methods can. After all, that's what the purpose of these tests is.

Comment author: shminux 18 February 2013 04:09:23PM *  1 point [-]

The "Normal Ending" seems to have two problems. One is literary: the prominently displayed Chekhov's gun never fired, and one is utilitarian: lack of choice, which strictly reduces the overall utility by removing even harmless options. Having no acceptable choices is what drives people to desperate actions, like suicide, and the immediate mandatory crunchy happiness without an outlet seems like a novice mistake for a utilitarian, something SHs would certainly recognize and avoid.

Another literary point: the prediction markets, a major part of the story, are not even mentioned in this ending, making me believe that Eliezer never intended to give the Normal Ending his full attention. Then again, some wildly successful books, like the Twilight series, unir nyy gur ohvyq-hc sbe gur svany onggyr jvgubhg bar rire unccravat.

Comment author: falenas108 19 February 2013 03:53:37AM -1 points [-]

Having no acceptable choices is what drives people to desperate actions, like suicide, and the immediate mandatory crunchy happiness without an outlet seems like a novice mistake for a utilitarian, something SHs would certainly recognize and avoid.

Having no acceptable choices drives humans to suicide. It's already been shown that SHs aren't perfect at predicting human psychology, and they may not have seen that.

Comment author: JonatasMueller 13 February 2013 06:01:37AM *  2 points [-]

I will answer by explaining my view of morally realist ethics.

Conscious experiences and their content are physical occurrences and real. They can vary from the world they represent, but they are still real occurrences. Their reality can be known with the highest possible certainty, above all else, including physics, because they are immediately and directly accessible, while the external world is accessible indirectly.

Unlike the physical world, it seems that physical conscious perceptions can theoretically be anything. The content of conscious perceptions could, with the right technology, be controlled, as in a virtual world, and made to be anything, even things that differ from the external physical world. While the physical world has no ethical value except from conscious perceptions, conscious perceptions can be ethical value, and only by being good or bad conscious perceptions, or feelings. This seems to be so by definition, because ethical value is being good or bad.

That a conscious experience can be a good or bad physical occurrence is also a reality which can be felt and known with the highest possible certainty. This makes it rational, and an imperative, to follow it and care about it, to act in order to foster good conscious feelings and to prevent bad conscious feelings, because it is logical that this will make the universe better. This is acting ethically. Not acting accordingly is irrational and mistaken. Ethics is about realizing valuable states.

Human beings have primitive emotional and instinctive motivations that are not guided by intelligence and rationality. These primitive motivations can take control of human minds and make them act in irrational and unintelligent ways. Although human beings may consider it good to act according to their primitive motivations in cases in which they conflict with acting ethically, this would be an irrational and mistaken decision.

When primitive motivations conflict with human intelligent reason, these two could be thought of as two different agents inside one mind, with differing motivations. Intelligent reason does not always prevail, because primitive motivations have strong control of behavior. However, it would be rational and intelligent for intelligent reason to always take the ultimate control of behavior if it could somehow suppress the power of primitive motivations. This might be done by somehow strengthening human intelligent reason and its control of motivations.

Actions which foster good conscious feelings and prevent bad conscious feelings need not do so in the short-term. Many effective actions tend to do so only in the long-term. Likewise, such actions need not do so directly; many effective actions only do so indirectly. Often it is rational to act if it is probable that it will be ethically positive eventually.

That people have personal identities is false; they are mere parts of the universe. This is clear upon advanced philosophical analysis, but can be hard to understand for those who haven't thought much about it. An objective and impersonal perspective is called for. For this reason it is rational for all beings to 'act ethically' not only for themselves but also for all other beings in the same universe. For an explanation of why personal identities don't exist, what is relevant for the question of why acting ethically in a collective rather than selfish sense, see this brief essay:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/jonatas-müller/universal-identity/10151189314697917

Comment author: falenas108 13 February 2013 06:50:53AM 5 points [-]

That a conscious experience can be a good or bad physical occurrence is also a reality which can be felt and known with the highest possible certainty. This makes it rational, and an imperative, to follow it and care about it, to act in order to foster good conscious feelings and to prevent bad conscious feelings, because it is logical that this will make the universe better. This is acting ethically. Not acting accordingly is irrational and mistaken. Ethics is about realizing valuable states.

Why is fostering good conscious feelings and prevent bad conscious feelings necessarily correct? It is intuitive for humans to say we should maximize conscious experience, and that falls under the success theory that Peter talks about, but why is this necessarily the one true moral system?

You say

Ethics is about realizing valuable states.

But valuable to who? If there were a person who valued others being in pain, why would this person's views matter less?

Comment author: [deleted] 11 February 2013 08:19:47PM 1 point [-]

Right, a non-confused attack on the deontologist in the spirit of the confused attack would say something like "your meta-ethical theory does not sufficiently explain the injunctions included in your normative, deontological theory." But as you imply, this is a criticism of a meta-ethical theory, or better yet an ethicist's whole view. This is not an attack on deontology as such.

And I don't think there's any name for those who make the mistake I point out. Its not even really a mistake, just a confusion about how a certain academic discussion is organized, which leads, in this case, to a lot of strawmaning.

Comment author: falenas108 11 February 2013 09:23:21PM -1 points [-]

Sorry, looks like I should have been clearer on the last point. I wasn't asking for the name of a fallacy, I was asking if there is a name for the type of meta-ethics that leads to deontology.

Comment author: falenas108 11 February 2013 07:54:29PM -1 points [-]

To make sure I understood this post correctly:

This would mean the correct common argument would instead be "The type of moral theory that leads to deontology provides no (or no interesting) explanation for the specific injunctions that are in the type of deontology followed."

Is this correct?
Also, is there a name for the philosophy being criticized in the above argument?

Comment author: knb 08 February 2013 10:07:49AM 1 point [-]

Honestly, I consider that to be one of the more compelling utopias I've read about.

Comment author: falenas108 08 February 2013 02:26:05PM *  0 points [-]

What do you think about this one?

Also, if that post isn't explicitly part of this sequence, I think it should be added at the end.

Comment author: falenas108 06 February 2013 05:56:04PM 3 points [-]

Thank you for putting this together! I've heard of the controversy over the idea of priming before, but I didn't know the details until now.

Comment author: DataPacRat 27 January 2013 07:14:36PM 1 point [-]

cryonics is weird

I don't disagree; I /think/ that it's possible that the idea I'm trying to explain here may be a strong factor explaining why people /do/ think that. Eg, "what sort of person would be willing to even try jumping into a future society with no family, no friends, no community? What a weirdo".

Comment author: falenas108 27 January 2013 08:06:53PM 1 point [-]

I'm making a different point here. I'm saying that most people who dismiss it do so based on an immediate gut reaction of, "Cryonics? That's strange and something from science fiction."

Comment author: falenas108 27 January 2013 06:49:08PM 4 points [-]

I don't think that's what prevents cryonics.

For the vast majority of people, cryonics is weird. It's not something they would do, for the same reason that prevents them from moving to Australia, even if they agreed it would be far better for them and they had no strong communal ties.

This explains how, even after LWers are convinced that cryonics is the rational thing to do, there's still a strong alief against doing so.

Comment author: V_V 22 January 2013 01:38:42PM -2 points [-]

So you are basically saying that you didn't take the game seriously.

Even if your actual stakes were low, you should have played the role of a gatekeeper assigned to the task of guarding a potentially dangerous AI. Therefore, you player character should have had very high stakes.

Comment author: falenas108 22 January 2013 02:59:29PM 4 points [-]

No, high in-game stakes does not mean high out of game stakes.

In game, the gatekeeper could be convinced that it would be worth it to let the AI out of the box. If this happens, the gatekeeper has no motivation not to. However, if there is an external bet, then the gatekeeper always has motivation to not let the AI out, even if they think it would be best for the hypothetical world.

So, a game without stakes is actually most realistic, provided the gatekeeper is able to pretend they are actually in the scenario.

Comment author: AnthonyC 20 January 2013 01:46:31AM 0 points [-]

In recent months I have been going to my doctor about a sleep condition- I frequently and uncontrollably fall asleep at a particular time of day (about 8pm to 11pm). In my own experimentation I have found that bright light is one of the best ways to deal with this. In fact I am considering moving in order to help, as my current apartment has only lamps.

Comment author: falenas108 20 January 2013 07:35:12PM 0 points [-]

Cheaper solution: Get bright floor lamps.

Comment author: falenas108 18 January 2013 02:27:07PM 2 points [-]

I really like this idea. Pre-commitment: I will have one of these days between now and April 1st. (The long time period is to include spring break, as there's a chance I'll be forced to do something old every day due to my rather busy schedule)

Comment author: falenas108 18 January 2013 01:38:02AM 1 point [-]

Addition: You also should have less text on slide 29, and less text overall on the later slide. It's too small for an audience to read.

A good rule is 9x9, meaning you have no more than 9 words per line, and 9 lines of text on any slide.

Slide 31 confusing. There are easier, real-world examples you can use for the sunk cost fallacy.

Slides 32 and 33 seem out of place, though that might just be me.

Slide 36: The word "probably" at the end is awkward.

Bayes theorem on slide 40 is far too complicated to explain on one slide. If you want to keep the idea, you'll have to use numbers or people won't understand what you're saying.

Also, I thought this was a pretty good power point! Especially the first 20 slides, and the message of slides 29 and 30.

Comment author: falenas108 18 January 2013 01:19:29AM *  2 points [-]

You may want to put a warning before slide 19 for the graphic nature of the images. Some people might react badly to them.

Comment author: EricHerboso 16 January 2013 01:53:44PM 4 points [-]

My initial impression was that the volunteer completion rate would be higher among a group like LW members. But now I realize that was a naive assumption to make.

Comment author: falenas108 16 January 2013 11:36:25PM 2 points [-]

Is 50% lower than usual? My intuition says the norm is between 15% and 40%, with ~60% confidence.

Comment author: falenas108 16 January 2013 05:46:19PM -1 points [-]

I'm curious, what do you mean by Social Resilience?

Comment author: sbenthall 28 December 2012 04:28:59PM 2 points [-]

They can't use one improvement to fuel another, they would have to come up with the next one independently

I disagree.

Suppose an organization has developers who work in-house on their issue tracking system (there are several that do--mostly software companies).

An issue tracking system is essentially a way for an organization to manage information flow about bugs, features, and patches to its own software. The issue tracker (as a running application) coordinates between developers and the source code itself (sometimes, its own source code).

Taken as a whole, the developers, issue tracker implementation, and issue tracker source code are part of the distributed cognition of the organization.

I think that in this case, an organization's self-improvement to the issue tracker source code recursively 'fuels' other improvements to the organization's cognition.

The point isn't that an AGI has or does not have certain skills. It's that it has the ability to learn those skills. Deep Blue doesn't have the capacity to learn anything other than playing chess, while humans, despite never running into a flute in the ancestral environment, can learn to play the flute.

Fair enough. But then we should hold organizations to the same standard. Suppose, for whatever reason, an organization needs better-than-median-human flute-playing for some purpose. What then?

Then they hire a skilled flute-player, right?

I think we may be arguing over an issue of semantics. I agree with you substantively that general intelligence is about adaptability, gaining and losing skills as needed.

My point in the OP was that organizations and the hypothetical AGI have comparable kinds of intelligence, so we can think about them as comparable superintelligences.

Comment author: falenas108 30 December 2012 02:06:27AM -1 points [-]

I think that in this case, an organization's self-improvement to the issue tracker source code recursively 'fuels' other improvements to the organization's cognition.

Yes, it can fuel improvement. But not to the same level that an AGI that is foom-ing would. See this thread for details: http://lesswrong.com/lw/g3m/intelligence_explosion_in_organizations_or_why_im/85zw

I think we may be arguing over an issue of semantics. I agree with you substantively that general intelligence is about adaptability, gaining and losing skills as needed.

My point in the OP was that organizations and the hypothetical AGI have comparable kinds of intelligence, so we can think about them as comparable superintelligences.

I agree that organizations may be seen as similar to an AGI that has supra-human intelligence in many ways, but not in their ability to self modify.

Comment author: timtyler 29 December 2012 07:33:46PM -1 points [-]

It's like the post here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/w5/cascades_cycles_insight/

To me, that just sounds like confusion about the relationship between genetic and psychological evolution.

It's highly unlikely a company will be able to get >1.

Um > 1 what. It's easy to make irrefutable predictions when what you say is vague and meaningless.

Comment author: falenas108 30 December 2012 02:03:40AM -1 points [-]

The point of the article is that if the recursion can work on itself more than a certain amount, then each new insight allows for more insights, as in the case of uranium for a nuclear bomb. > 1 refers to the average amount of improvement that an AGI that is foom-ing can gain from an insight.

What I was trying to say is the factor for corporations is much less than 1, which makes it different from an AGI. (To see this effect, try plugging in .9^x in a calculator, then 1.1^x)

Comment author: timtyler 29 December 2012 02:04:01PM *  0 points [-]

Such an organisation can self-modify, but those modifications aren't recursive. They can't use one improvement to fuel another, they would have to come up with the next one independently

Really? It seems to me as though software companies do this all the time. Think about Eclipse, for instance. The developers of Eclipse use Eclipse to program Eclipse with. Improvements to it help them make further improvements directly.

(or if they could, it wouldn't be nearly to the extent that an AGI could

So, the recursive self-improvement is a matter of degree? It sounds as though you now agree.

Comment author: falenas108 29 December 2012 03:49:14PM -1 points [-]

It's like the post here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/w5/cascades_cycles_insight/

It's highly unlikely a company will be able to get >1.

Comment author: sbenthall 28 December 2012 12:26:04AM 1 point [-]

Organizations don't have this same power, in that they can't modify the mental structure of the people that make up the organization. They can change the people in it, and the structure connecting them, but that's not the same type of optimization power as an AGI would have.

I may be missing something, but...if an organization depends on software to manage some part of its information processing, and it has developers that work on that source code, can't the organization modify its own source code?

Of course, you run into some hardware and wetware constraints, but so does pure software.

Not if you're talking about general intelligence. Deep Blue isn't an AGI, because it can only play chess. This is its only goal, but we do not say it is an AGI because it is not able to take its algorithm and apply it to new fields.

Fair enough. But then consider the following argument:

Suppose I have a general, self-modifying intelligence.

Suppose that the world is such that it is costly to develop and maintain new skills.

The intelligence has some goals.

If the intelligence has any skills that are irrelevant to its goals, it would be irrational for it to maintain those skills.

At this point, the general intelligence would self-modify itself into a non-general intelligence.

By this logic, if an AGI had goals that weren't so broad that they required the entire spectrum of possible skills, then it would immediately castrate itself of its generality.

Does that mean it would no longer be a problem?

Comment author: falenas108 28 December 2012 02:43:38AM 1 point [-]

if an organization depends on software to manage some part of its information processing, and it has developers that work on that source code, can't the organization modify its own source code?

Such an organisation can self-modify, but those modifications aren't recursive. They can't use one improvement to fuel another, they would have to come up with the next one independently (or if they could, it wouldn't be nearly to the extent that an AGI could. If you want me to go into more detail with this, let me know).

If the intelligence has any skills that are irrelevant to its goals, it would be irrational for it to maintain those skills.

The point isn't that an AGI has or does not have certain skills. It's that it has the ability to learn those skills. Deep Blue doesn't have the capacity to learn anything other than playing chess, while humans, despite never running into a flute in the ancestral environment, can learn to play the flute.

Comment author: jsteinhardt 27 December 2012 04:18:47PM 2 points [-]

The argument in the post is not that AGI isn't more powerful than organizations, it is that organizations are also very powerful, and probably sufficiently powerful that they will create huge issues before AGI creates huge issues.

Comment author: falenas108 27 December 2012 11:29:08PM 2 points [-]

Yes. I was pointing out that the thing that makes AGI dangerous, i.e. recursive improvement, does not apply to organizations.

Comment author: falenas108 27 December 2012 01:11:18PM 6 points [-]

The reason why an AGI would go foom is because it either has access to its own source code, so it can self modify, or it is capable of making a new AGI that builds on itself. Organizations don't have this same power, in that they can't modify the mental structure of the people that make up the organization. They can change the people in it, and the structure connecting them, but that's not the same type of optimization power as an AGI would have.

Also:

When judging whether an entity has intelligence, we should consider only the skills relevant to the entity's goals.

Not if you're talking about general intelligence. Deep Blue isn't an AGI, because it can only play chess. This is its only goal, but we do not say it is an AGI because it is not able to take its algorithm and apply it to new fields.

Comment author: handoflixue 25 December 2012 02:01:14AM 4 points [-]

Hmmm, interesting. But my boss has more status than me even if no one respects him, neh? I've certainly had jobs where none of the underlings respected our boss.

Comment author: falenas108 25 December 2012 03:45:54AM -1 points [-]

Depends on what there's no respect for. If a boss has no respect in terms of ability to do his jobs, he will most likely lose all status relating to his job as well (e.g. people will tend to work around him instead of through him).

Comment author: SaidAchmiz 24 December 2012 06:13:40AM 11 points [-]

Your reaction seems to be "this ritual stuff smacks of religion, and I don't want to get involved with any of that!".

That's not my response at all. I'm afraid you seem to be reading things into my response that are simply not there. There seems to be some sort of misunderstanding here that's causing you to set up (what is from my perspective) a straw man about objections to religion and then extensively knocking it down with arguments that have little bearing on what I've said.

I don't know why that is; perhaps I've been unclear; perhaps you are rounding to the nearest common objection? In any case, my objection has nothing directly to do with these rituals "smacking of religion". I do think, as I've mentioned in a previous post, that the desire for such rituals is stronger in people who come from a religious background and are used to such things from their youth. (I also have to wonder — and this is a bit of an aside — why we should use rituals that draw so directly from religion in form: someone (juliawise?) mentioned saying grace at the meal, and that strikes me as incredibly unlikely to be something an entirely non-religious person would come up with if given the task of "think of some cool and effective rituals".)

I do experience the emotion of sacredness. What I find extremely offputting and downright scary is the collectivization of that emotion. I don't like spectator sports, protests, and other mass actions for the same reason (substitute pride, righteous anger, or whatever other appropriate emotion for sacredness in those examples). I have absolutely no desire to subordinate my feelings of exaltation and transcendence to a group. While I can't say that triggering sacredness in a collective "secular" context is as bad as triggering it in a collective religious context, the fundamental problem is the same.

Comment author: falenas108 24 December 2012 07:40:22PM 7 points [-]

someone (juliawise?) mentioned saying grace at the meal

That was more of a joke. This is what was said: "To all whom it may concern, thanks."

Comment author: falenas108 23 December 2012 11:39:16PM -1 points [-]

Note: The meta-litany of Tarski is missing from the PDF, although it is in the table of contents.

Comment author: falenas108 23 December 2012 10:32:02PM 0 points [-]

What was the grace that we said before eating? I remember laughing at it, but I forget what it was.

Comment author: falenas108 22 December 2012 08:13:50PM 6 points [-]

And this disaster can’t be an unfriendly super-AI, because that should be visible

This is not necessarily true. If the goals of the AI do not involve a rapid acquisition of resources even outside its solar system, then we would not see evidence for it (E.g, wireheading that does not involve creating as many sentient organisms as possible).

However, because there would be many instances of this, AI being the filter is probably still not likely. If it's very likely for UAI to be screwed up in a self-contained way, we would not expect to see evidence of life. If UAI has a non-negligible chance to gobble up everything it sees for energy, then we would expect to se it.

Comment author: Error 14 December 2012 12:07:35AM 0 points [-]

Does this simplify to the AI obeying: "Modify my utility function if and only if the new version is likely to result in more utility according to the current version?"

If so, something about it feels wrong. For one thing, I'm not sure how an AI following such a rule would ever conclude it should change the function. If it can only make changes that result in maximizing the current function, why not just keep the current one and continue maximizing it?

Comment author: falenas108 14 December 2012 05:52:00AM -1 points [-]

That's the point, that it would almost never change it's underlying utility function. Once we have a provably friendly FAI, we wouldn't want it to change the part that makes its friendly.

Now, it could still change how it goes about achieving it's utility function, as long as that helps it get more utility, so it would still be self-modifying.

There is a chance that it could change (E.g. if you were naturally a 2-boxer on Newcomb's Problem, you might self-modify to do a one-boxer). But, those cases are rare.

Comment author: ChristianKl 11 December 2012 02:59:15PM 0 points [-]

Yes, but there no reason to think that underweight and overweight people use the calorie information in the same way and in the same frequency.

If you just know that the average calorie consumption stays constant, you don't know whether some people changed their calorie consumption.

Comment author: falenas108 11 December 2012 03:46:50PM 0 points [-]

In 2006...75.7 million (in the U.S.) were overweight, 78.3 million were normal weight, and 3.9 million were underweight.

http://meps.ahrq.gov/data_files/publications/st247/stat247.pdf

I wasn't saying they use it in the same way. I was saying that the number of overweight people is so much greater than the number of underweight, that it would be incredibly unlikely for it to cancel.

Comment author: ChristianKl 10 December 2012 10:46:43PM 1 point [-]

I'm underweight. I personally use calorie counts in food to choose food with a higher amount of calories. If there are a bunch of people like me and a bunch of overweight people who pick lower calorie food, the average will still stay the same.

Comment author: falenas108 11 December 2012 01:49:43PM 1 point [-]

I'm underweight. If there are a bunch of people like me

There are not nearly as many people like you compared to those who are overweight, or even those who are overweight and on a diet.

Comment author: lavalamp 09 December 2012 08:30:22PM 3 points [-]

Agree-- my point was that I was able to guess a height before seeing the random number, hence it wasn't a good test.

Comment author: falenas108 09 December 2012 08:37:33PM -1 points [-]

Ah, okay. That makes more sense.

Comment author: roland 09 December 2012 07:16:42PM 5 points [-]
  • Even simple "obvious" insights often don't occur to us. But they become clear in hindsight or after being pointed out by others.

  • Humans don't have general intelligence. This became clear after watching a video of John Tooby, Evolutionary speaking humans have evolved subsystems for solving specific problems like navigating the social landscape. But we don't have general intelligence. This explains a lot.

Comment author: falenas108 09 December 2012 07:42:46PM 2 points [-]

Could you give a brief summary of why we don't have general intelligence?

Comment author: lavalamp 09 December 2012 04:38:09PM 0 points [-]

I vaguely recall doing math on problem #2, and figuring "$20 in 60 days = $.33 dollar per day = not worth the time it takes to think about it." It looks like most people did some different math; what does that math look like?

On the anchoring question, I recommend putting a "click here to automatically generate a random number" button instead of a link to an external site. I'm pretty sure I read ahead and realized what the number would be used for, and I bet many others did, also.

Comment author: falenas108 09 December 2012 07:39:08PM 5 points [-]

I think anytime we are given a random number and then are told to give a numerical estimate, it's be obvious to most LWers that it's testing anchoring bias.

Comment author: falenas108 09 December 2012 03:59:56PM 16 points [-]

I think the first question was either discussed in the sequences, or in a post sometime a while back. This makes the result for that question far less convincing, although the overall data still definitely shows a correlation.

Maybe there should be an box to check for "I have seen this problem before," so we could toss out those answers.

Comment author: falenas108 06 December 2012 10:48:29PM -1 points [-]

This assumes that uploads occur at almost the same time as AGI. If an AGI took over, it is very unlikely humans would be able to continue working on uploads.

In response to Programming Thread
Comment author: gwern 06 December 2012 09:51:19PM 5 points [-]

This seems like it'd be better as a wiki page than a Discussion post.

About a third of LW users described their profession as "Computers" in the recent survey.

They also have quite high salaries.

In response to comment by gwern on Programming Thread
Comment author: falenas108 06 December 2012 10:45:25PM 5 points [-]

Consideration: Many more people regularly check the discussion feed than look at the wiki page.

A workaround could be having the actual discussion post in the wiki, but announcing it here.

Comment author: [deleted] 05 December 2012 07:25:44PM 1 point [-]

Huh, what a coincidence. I'm a third year.

Comment author: falenas108 05 December 2012 09:07:31PM 2 points [-]

Would you be interested in going to a meetup at UChicago? There are regular meetings downtown, but in the past we've held a couple here that were well-attended, and I'm thinking of having one here again.

Comment author: [deleted] 05 December 2012 05:25:27PM 0 points [-]

When were you at Chicago, if you don't mind me asking?

Comment author: falenas108 05 December 2012 06:53:31PM *  0 points [-]

Right now. I'm a second year. You?

Comment author: [deleted] 05 December 2012 02:55:58PM 0 points [-]

Ted Cohen huh.

They make money by attracting undergraduates, and they have low overhead because in general philosophy departments don't pay professors very well, and the department itself requires nothing more sophisticated than a few rooms filled with desks.

Comment author: falenas108 05 December 2012 05:19:38PM 0 points [-]

Oh, you're including attracting undergrads! I think he was just talking about direct earnings.

Comment author: thomblake 05 December 2012 02:13:49AM 0 points [-]

I had guessed that Luke picked out what he thought were good representative samples, since he is probably familiar enough with the field to do so.

Comment author: falenas108 05 December 2012 06:24:53AM 2 points [-]

Do we know if this is representative, or just the worst ones?

Comment author: [deleted] 05 December 2012 12:59:04AM 0 points [-]

Really? Which professor?

Comment author: falenas108 05 December 2012 06:23:31AM -1 points [-]

I believe it was Ted Cohen, who's the head of the philosophy department. I'm not certain though.

As a curiosity, what would they make money on?

Comment author: shminux 04 December 2012 11:05:58PM *  0 points [-]

What do you mean by "implicitly patriarchal"?

I consider dominance play an important part of my sexuality.

When a dom/sub relationship is non-abusive, it's the sub who has the real power, which seems to contradict your "patriarchal" assertion.

Comment author: falenas108 05 December 2012 12:04:11AM 5 points [-]

Depends on the relationship. In some relationships, the sub gives out a set of limits, and other than that the dom has free reign. In more extreme ones, there's even a master-slave relationship, where the master definitely has power over the slave.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 December 2012 08:21:40PM 4 points [-]

Getting people to ignore philosophy is, as I said do DSimon, largely accomplished already. Ignoring it is as easy as pie. As far as defunding it goes, I'm not sure I see the point. It's not as if it uses up much of any given university's budget. I'd be willing to bet that philosophy departments are generally cash positive for a university.

Comment author: falenas108 04 December 2012 11:50:20PM -1 points [-]

I'm fairly certain a professor at the University of Chicago told our class that the philosophy department was cash negative.

Comment author: William_Quixote 04 December 2012 08:00:11PM 17 points [-]

Without any comment on if the post is correct or not, I want to note that if the sequences have done their job LWers will not be pursuaded by this post. It looks at a large number of abstracts, picks a non representive (and small) sample and then quotes them to make them salient in the reader's mind.

It could have been made more convincing by using a less biased sampling such as generating 3 random numbers for each journal, than multiplying by the number of total articles in the journal and then posting the abstract for those articles.

Comment author: falenas108 04 December 2012 11:46:38PM 5 points [-]

I was about to write a post saying how even though we are aware this is a biased sample, the fact that 4 papers with questionable thinking appeared in top journals recently is still a lot of evidence. Then, I looked at how recent "recently" is. Two papers are from 2012, one is from 2011, and one is from 2010.

The fact that Luke went back as far as 2 years suggests that the field either isn't that bad, or Luke did look chronologically. If it's the first, then I would update away from it being a diseased field, because even in top journals I would expect a few bad papers a year. If it's the latter, then Luke should let us know.

Comment author: Alicorn 04 December 2012 02:58:54AM *  2 points [-]

An extremely sluggish upload of many hundreds of assorted animal pictures is currently in progress to this folder.

Edit: My FTP client is being obstinate again. I'll try uploading a zip to the same place instead. The pictures come sorted by taxonomy!

Edit2: Is up. Let me know if it doesn't work or something.

Comment author: falenas108 04 December 2012 02:45:43PM -1 points [-]

Wow, these pictures are really cool! Thanks!

Comment author: Alicorn 03 December 2012 10:19:12PM 4 points [-]

If anyone wants a lot of animal (plant landscape whatever) pictures, for this or other purposes, I've been collecting them from the internet for a long time and have some nice ones I will be happy to share.

Comment author: falenas108 04 December 2012 02:14:26AM -1 points [-]

I could use some animal pictures for this.

Comment author: falenas108 02 December 2012 04:26:31PM *  1 point [-]

Surprisingly, a lot of these predictions that weren't true in 2009 are coming true in 2012. Also, a lot of the ones that aren't true are in the same category, like text to speech technology.

Comment author: devas 28 November 2012 11:32:47AM 2 points [-]

I agree with Alexei, this has just now helped me a lot.

Although I now have to ask a stupid question; please have pity on me, I'm new to the site and I have little knowledge to work of.

What would happen if we set an algorithm inside the AGI assigning negative infinite utility to any action which modifies its own utility function and said algorithm itself?

This within reasonable parameters; ideally, it could change its utility function but only in certain pre approved paths, so that it could actually move around.

Reasonable here is a magic word, in the sense that it's a block box which I don't know how to map out

Comment author: falenas108 28 November 2012 05:31:13PM -1 points [-]

What would happen if we set an algorithm inside the AGI assigning negative infinite utility to any action which modifies its own utility function and said algorithm itself?

An argument that is fairly accepted here is that even this is not necessary. If Gandhi could take a pill that would make him okay with murdering people, he wouldn't do it because this would lead to him murdering people, something he doesn't want now. (See http://lesswrong.com/lw/2vj/gandhi_murder_pills_and_mental_illness/)

Similarly, if we can link an AI's utility function to the actual state of the world, and not just how it perceives the world, then it wouldn't modify its utility because even though its potential future self would think it has more utility, its present self identifies this future as having less utility.

Comment author: falenas108 28 November 2012 12:03:28AM 0 points [-]

In the definition of wireheading, I'm not sure about the "exploits some discrepancy between its true utility calculated w.r.t. reality and its substitute utility calculated w.r.t its model of reality" part.

For some humans, you could make an argument that they are to a large (but not full) extent hedonists, in which case wireheading in our intuitive sene would not be exploiting a discrepancy.

Comment author: [deleted] 27 November 2012 02:26:08PM 13 points [-]

This has only been a feature request since the forum started.

In response to comment by [deleted] on [META] Retributive downvoting: Why?
Comment author: falenas108 27 November 2012 06:14:07PM 4 points [-]

This suggestion usually gets a lot of support, is there a reason why it hasn't been implemented?

Comment author: mwengler 27 November 2012 02:30:00PM 2 points [-]

I realized a generalization from recording up and down vote total separately is to have a few categories of vote. Perhaps a post could be voted "up" "down" "agree" "disagree" "troll". In a system like this, it would be troll votes rising above a relatively low threshold that would grey-out or hide posts and comments.

I think this is somewhat clunky compared to just reporting up and down separately. But I wanted to throw the idea out there for those who wish to think about this question.

Comment author: falenas108 27 November 2012 06:12:19PM 4 points [-]

In addition to the clunkiness, it also sends the signal to outsiders that trolls are a big problem on this site, which they aren't.

Comment author: nigerweiss 20 November 2012 06:33:07PM 6 points [-]

This reasoning has always struck me as deeply and profoundly silly.

The AI might also be in a computer simulation where the dark lord of the matrix might destroy us for not devoting all of our resources to building cheesecakes. In fact, so could we. I don't see it influencing our behaviors any, nor should it.. You're privileging the hypothesis.

As for the second part, you might also encounter an alien intelligence that you can't protect yourself from, because you exhausted so many resources leaving humanity alive, showing down your bootstrapping. That's the thing about aliens.

Comment author: falenas108 20 November 2012 06:56:22PM 0 points [-]

I believe James is joking, and this is a fake argument that he knows is not actually persuasive.

Comment author: wedrifid 16 November 2012 06:32:15AM 4 points [-]

I was "prescribed" with ADD as a child and given ritalin

I think you may have been "diagnosed" with ADD and "prescribed" ritalin.

Comment author: falenas108 16 November 2012 02:33:58PM 0 points [-]

Whoops, yeah.

Comment author: [deleted] 16 November 2012 01:53:08AM 7 points [-]

I was diagnosed with ADHD as a child.

I know very little of physchology, but the behavioural differences between (young) me and other people were noticably significant to anyone in the room. The medication (ritalin) they prescribed had a strong regulatory effect that made me more "normal". I stopped taking it in high school.

I am now sentient enough to reflect on my internal experience, and recently I took my chldhood ritalin dose. The effect is quite noticable; when I took it, I was able to focus for hours on one thing without getting distracted, which I can never otherwise do. I've heard that non-ADHD people do not have such an effect from ritalin. If they did, ritalin would be a major improvement to most people's lives.

Alas I have not found the conscientiousness to actually talk to a doctor and get back on ritalin.

anecdotes for you...

In response to comment by [deleted] on How well defined is ADHD?
Comment author: falenas108 16 November 2012 05:06:07AM 0 points [-]

I was "prescribed" with ADD as a child and given ritalin, but I'm not sure if I actually had it. As a data point, it allowed me to focus on whatever my teacher said with almost no effort.

As a more general point, some kids in college take ritalin to help them in classes. This would indicate that it does cause that behavior in a significant portion of the population.

Comment author: falenas108 08 November 2012 06:27:14PM -1 points [-]

Is this a complete post? If not, can it be finished? I'd like a full post on this.

Comment author: falenas108 05 November 2012 04:34:00PM -1 points [-]

I'm coming from out of state, is this a good place to let the planner(s) know that I'm going to be staying at the Winterfell House from the 15th-16th? Also, would it help to bring something like a sleeping bag?

Comment author: Furslid 05 November 2012 10:37:05AM 0 points [-]

A couple of assumptions that you did not state. You assume that your favored candidate's budget contains truly optimal uses of charitable dollars. You need a step down function unless your preferred charity is funding government programs.

You assume that the opposition candidate's spending is valueless. Otherwise you need to consider the relative merits.

You assume that there is no portion of the opposition budget that is preferable. If you believe that each candidate has some portions right, you need to be subtracting this spending from the value of your contribution.

You assume that the proposed budget will be implemented. Given the track record of campaign promises, this is an iffy assumption. As this probability is necessarily less than 100% it should reduce the value of your contribution.

These assumptions are the mind killing biases of politics.

Comment author: falenas108 05 November 2012 03:06:31PM *  3 points [-]

No, they don't all have to be assumed. What needs to happen is something resembling their budget, on the order of plus or minus a few trillion dollars, is implemented.

At least $100 billion = the approximate marginal altruistic value of the "better" candidate. I think this is also very conservative. The annual federal budget is around $3 trillion right now, making $12 trillion over a 4-year term, and Barack Obama and Mitt Romney differ on trillions of dollars in their proposed budgets. It would be pretty strange to me if, given a perfect understanding of what they'd both do, I would only care altruistically about 100 billion of those dollars, marginally speaking.

ETA: However, even this is unlikely to be entirely affected by the outcome of the presidential election, as this depends mostly on Congress.

In response to comment by Emile on Omega lies
Comment author: EricHerboso 24 October 2012 12:45:21PM 3 points [-]

Omega could tell you "Either I am simulating you to gauge your response, or this is reality and I predicted your response" - and the problem would be essentially the same.

This is essentially the same only if you care only about reality. But if you care about outcomes in simulations, too, then this is not "essentially the same" as the regular formulation of the problem.

If I care about my outcomes when I am "just a simulation" in a similar way to when I am "in reality", then the phrasing you've used for Omega would not lead to the standard Newcomb problem. If I'm understanding this correctly, your reformulation of what Omega says will result in justified two-boxing with CDT.

Either I'm a simulation, or I'm not. Since I might possibly choose to one-box or two-box as a probability distribution (e.g.: 70% of the time one-box; otherwise two-box), Omega must simulate me several times. This means I'm much more likely to be a simulation. Since we're in a simulation, Omega has not yet predicted our response. Therefore two-boxing really is genuinely better than one-boxing.

In other words, while Newcomb's problem is usually an illustration for why CDT fails by saying we should two-box, under your reformulation, CDT correctly says we should two-box. (Under the assumption that we value simulated utilons as we do "real" ones.)

In response to comment by EricHerboso on Omega lies
Comment author: falenas108 24 October 2012 12:56:46PM 2 points [-]

That depends on what you care about. If you only care about what the non-simulated you gets, than one boxing is still better. And I don't see any reason why a simulated you should care, because they won't actually be around to get the utility, as presumably Omega ends the simulation after they give their response.

In response to Causal Reference
Comment author: falenas108 21 October 2012 01:57:15PM -1 points [-]

Even if the shadow brain doesn't affect the upper level brain, couldn't there be a third link between upper and lower levels which points to the level connections?

E.g., we discover that physics tells us that for every particle, there is a cooresponding shadow particle that has no effect on regular ones.

Comment author: bigjeff5 26 January 2011 09:33:01PM 8 points [-]

Poppycock.

As soon as you questioned your motives you were 9/10ths the way to finding the true reasons you use the QWERTY keyboard and on the path to avoiding self-delusion. For each answer you come up with for or against using a QWERTY keyboard you simply need to question your motives for that answer.

If at that point you were still somehow deluding yourself, there is absolutely no way you could possibly tell, and the question is entirely moot.

(A note in advance, my result from the example below really, really surprised me!)

For example, my own reasons for using a QWERTY keyboard are simple: I learned to touch-type QWERTY, and I type reasonably fast with a QWERTY keyboard. Also, all keyboards I have ever used or come across have been QWERTY.

My reasons for not using a DVORAK keyboard are equally simple, though I've never considered them before now. They are true of any alternative to QWERTY, so it doesn't really matter. The following are purely assumptions.

-First, I don't know DVORAK, so I would have to learn a new style of touch-typing all over again. I am reasonably certain that this will take a significant amount of effort, because it took years of practice to become proficient with QWERTY in the first place, and I know from other personal experience how difficult it is for me to re-train the level of muscle memory I have with QWERTY touch-typing. -Second, as far as I know DVORAK is not superior to QWERTY in any significant way -Third, I have never seen a DVORAK keyboard, so they are likely to be difficult to find or uncommon.

These are all lines of inquiry I can verify. Some with hard data right off the bat, some will require further research, and based on my initial findings I can determine if such research is warranted.

The second assumption seems the easiest to falsify, and a quick Google search gives some interesting results which certainly warrant further research: -The first result for the fastest verified typist in the world is Barbara Blackbum, and she types an incredible four times faster than I do. She uses the DVORAK keyboard, apparently at first because QWERTY was too difficult to learn. This certainly raises the question that DVORAK may be superior to QWERTY, but Blackbum may be unique, and if she had stuck with QWERTY she may have ultimately been just as fast. Are there QWERTY typists who type at similar speeds? Unfortunately, a quick Google search gives little information on the layout used by most typist record holders. However, further searching has revealed that her record was broken earlier this year by Michael Shestov, and he certainly appears to be "special" in that it doesn't matter the keyboard layout, he types about as fast with all of them. Barbara Blackbum is also very fast with QWERTY, but she is significantly faster with Dvorak, lending credibility to the idea that I, too, may be significantly faster with Dvorak than QWERTY. There are studies that suggest Dvorak is faster for average typists as well, but at this point the only way to definitively know which is superior for me would be to try Dvorak and see what happens. This also happens to be very practical, which is a bonus.

During in the process above (which shows my second assumption is clearly not based in reality) I also came across information that calls into question my first assumption, which was that it would require years to become as proficient with Dvorak (or any typing method) as I am with QWERTY. The basis for this assumption was the difficulty of learning QWERTY, however it seems Dvorak was designed from the beginning to be a more natural and easier to learn than QWERTY, and there have been a small handful of studies which seem to bear this out. Anecdotal evidence from Dvorak users also seems to bear this out, though obviously none of this can actually determine that I will find Dvorak easier. However, it does show that my assumption was based on a false premise, and gives me avenues for actually determining if Dvorak is better than QWERTY for myself (namely, try it for a month, and if I can actually type with Dvorak after this short time, try it for a few more months to see how fast I progress and determine if it is worth maintaining).

For the last assumption, just a little thinking on the problem shows that I was looking at the problem incorrectly: It does not matter how popular Dvorak keyboards are or aren't, a simple setting change in my OS can turn any QWERTY keyboard into a Dvorak keyboard. I can also switch keys around or make little labels for them, but this isn't really necessary to have a functioning Dvorak keyboard.

The nail in the coffin for your argument actually has nothing to do specifically with what I stated above about the arguments for or against the QWERTY keyboard and the Dvorak keyboard. The nail in the coffin is the huge difference between what I expected to demonstrate and the conclusion I actually came to.

The original purpose of the exercise was to show that there was no point in switching away from the QWERTY keyboard, but this was OK because I wasn't fooling myself about anything, it was just the most reasonable position for someone who was used to a QWERTY keyboard to take.

My actual conclusion was that it was definitely worth my time to try the Dvorak style, and in fact I will be switching my settings over as soon as I post this (I would have switched already, just out of curiosity, but I have spent about an hour on this post already, and I don't want to spend any longer than I need to on it).

While I did not find any evidence that definitively said "Yes, Dvorak is clearly superior to QWERTY, stop looking and just use it" to my satisfaction (I doubt I ever would have), I did find that my reasons for not using Dvorak had no substance at all, and since I have a very easy way to falsify the idea that Dvorak is better for me to use than QWERTY (it's just a simple OS setting after all) that I must go ahead and try. Since I kept finding my self say "Huh. That's not what I expected" quite often in the half hour or so I was researching the problem, it became very clear that my expectations need to be adjusted. In order to bring my expectations in line with reality, I need to try this for myself and either have concrete reasons for using the QWERTY keyboard, or to switch to Dvorak. I have a feeling I might be switching to Dvorak permanently, given the research that has been done on the subject, but there is no way to know for sure until I try.

As you said, I should have had all kinds of subconscious barriers to changing my assumptions, and in fact I did - I was pretty sure my reasoning against switching was sound before I wrote it down, but writing it forced me to focus on it consciously, and they seemed rather weak, so I set out to disprove them.

Subconscious barriers cannot stand up to my conscious mind once it is (correctly) trained on them. Unfounded assumptions cannot be maintained once the truth is known. Period. There is nothing your subconscious can do to stop that, so as long as you always question your assumptions, no matter where they came from, and always verify your assumptions by seeking to prove them wrong. If you seek to prove them correct you will never look in the right place, and you can easily fall into the trap you describe. Do this an you can pretty much always overcome your subconscious barriers to knowing the difference between the truth and a rationalization.

Comment author: falenas108 16 October 2012 02:34:20PM 1 point [-]

I'm curious, did you end up staying with Dvorak?

Comment author: ialdabaoth 15 October 2012 12:36:40PM 2 points [-]

And hence a pack-identification ritual, which I did not respond to correctly? And also a bona-fide request for information?

Shit, my recursion map just forked. N-dimensionally.

Comment author: falenas108 15 October 2012 04:20:18PM 1 point [-]

This is a bit of an usual case. In most contexts, "name 3" would be a kind of challenge. It just happens to be an actual request for information here.

Comment author: falenas108 08 October 2012 01:00:00PM 0 points [-]

I would give 60% probability to me going to this.

Comment author: falenas108 29 September 2012 06:27:30AM -1 points [-]

I think the self-awareness test is considered important because it's a big step in child development, but that doesn't mean it's very important in terms of intelligence. It doesn't seem to complicated to design a machine that can recognize itself, so this doesn't seem like much of an achievement.

Comment author: falenas108 13 September 2012 02:10:49PM *  0 points [-]

Upvote for the incognito mode tip. Easier than using a proxy.

Comment author: Dolores1984 11 September 2012 08:39:09PM *  8 points [-]

Less Wrong is not a cult, so long as our meetups don't include a Matrioshka brain.

I'm an aspiring human

"politics is isomorpic to politics" is obviusly false

In the new version of Newcomb's problem, you have to choose between a box containing sex and a box containing the coherent extrapolated volition of Pinkie Pie

Comment author: falenas108 11 September 2012 09:12:32PM *  2 points [-]

My first result: "I'm an aspiring rationalist."

I was confused as to why this was funny, until I hit generate again and got "the choherent extrapolated volition of LessWrong is the mind-killer if and only if torture is truly part of Pinkie Pie."

Edit: Followed by "The truth is isomorphic to sex."

Comment author: [deleted] 31 August 2012 06:03:11PM *  0 points [-]

I hope this says what I wanted it to say:

Right but recall that I didn't propose this for LW in general, but a different forum or section. People can earn their LW karma elsewhere. But let us for the sake of this exchange suppose here we make this a general rule.

Your interpretation was an interesting question in itself. So please talk criticism of this modified idea!

Comment author: falenas108 31 August 2012 06:25:46PM -1 points [-]

Okay, in regards to the misinterpretation:

The reverse is happening precisely because there are so many new users who are voting. I'd say that the way LW started out could be used as an estimate of what that would look like. It was very rare for a comment to reach as many as 5 upvotes, and if you see an old comment that has more than that, most likely it had help from someone more recently upvoting it.

Obviously, it would not be entirely the same, and I would place more weight on the up and downvotes being more accurate if this were put into place now, but it would make it much more difficult to get to that point.

Comment author: [deleted] 31 August 2012 05:44:05PM *  10 points [-]

I didn't originally propose this for LW in general, but a different forum or section. People can earn their LW karma elsewhere. But let us for the sake of this exchange suppose here we make this a general rule. I actually like it much more than what I had in mind at first!

It should be emphasised the reverse of what you describe is constantly happening. It is easier and easier to amass 1000 karma as LessWrong grows. Comparing older to newer articles shows clear evidence of ongoing karma inflation.

There aren't that few people with karma over 1000, I'd guesstimate there are at least 100 of them. Many of those are currently active. But again making it harder to get over 1000 karma in order to vote might be a good think. A key feature of the Eternal September problem is that when you have newcomers of a community interacting mostly with other new members old norms have a hard time taking root. And yes since users takee the karma mechanism, especially negative votes, so seriously it is a very strong kind of interaction. Putting the karma mechanism in the hands of proven members should produce better poster quality. It somewhat alleviates the problems of rapid growth.

It also further subsidizes the creation of new articles. Recall your karma from writing a Main Article is boosted 10 fold.

Comment author: falenas108 31 August 2012 05:53:59PM -1 points [-]

Ah, okay. Never mind then, sounds like an interesting idea.

Comment author: [deleted] 31 August 2012 03:42:35PM *  15 points [-]

There should be a different discussion forum which is readable to all but can only be posted in by those with over, say 1000 karma.

Actually I'd find restrictions on who can or can't on vote on the comments to be a more interesting option. What would a forum look like if only those with over 1000 karma on LW could vote?

Comment author: falenas108 31 August 2012 05:42:10PM 2 points [-]

This would make it very difficult for people who aren't already over 1000 to get there, because there would be so much less upvoting happening.

Benefits of Calorie Restriction Linked To Other Factors

7 falenas108 30 August 2012 12:27AM

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11432.html

We report here that a CR regimen implemented in young and older age rhesus monkeys at the National Institute on Aging (NIA) has not improved survival outcomes. Our findings contrast with an ongoing study at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center (WNPRC), which reported improved survival associated with 30% CR initiated in adult rhesus monkeys (7–14years)5 and a preliminary report with a small number of CR monkeys6. Over the years, both NIA and WNPRC have extensively documented beneficial health effects of CR in these two apparently parallel studies. The implications of the WNPRC findings were important as they extended CR findings beyond the laboratory rodent and to a long-lived primate. Our study suggests a separation between health effects, morbidity and mortality, and similar to what has been shown in rodents789, study design, husbandry and diet composition may strongly affect the life-prolonging effect of CR in a long-lived nonhuman primate.

Comment author: falenas108 29 August 2012 10:09:47PM 0 points [-]

A person's feelings on something is medium to strong evidence of something being at least not the opposite. If you take all possible things that could happen to a person, the vast majority of them that are bad would give a negative or neutral response, and those that are good would mostly give a positive or neutral response. As an example, almost all sensations would elicit the accurate response.

There are exceptions, like food, but they are fairly rare in comparison to how many things the body gets right, or at least not wrong.

Comment author: Dorikka 17 August 2012 05:57:38PM 0 points [-]

And Epiphany might not either. :)

Comment author: falenas108 17 August 2012 11:16:56PM -1 points [-]

I usually check for children of anything I commented on for a couple days after I posted, if the original comment got a response.

Comment author: falenas108 16 August 2012 03:58:49PM 4 points [-]

In chapter 67, I dislike how Missy uses previous knowledge of hieroglyphics. The point of a rationalist fanfic is Missy uses ideas that the audience can apply, rather than random obscure facts about dead languages.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 August 2012 06:35:10PM *  3 points [-]

Less Wrong isn't obviously a bastion of left-wing ideas, so it's possible whatever is filtering out conservatives from posting here is also filtering them out of academia.

When I started posting on LW, I was - depending on your terminology - very conservative. If there are any barriers that prevent conservatives from joining, then they didn't affect me. (Edit: this is anecdotal; I might just be an outlier.)

I should point out that my views have drastically changed since joining. Though I try to avoid aligning with any particular political group, libertarian-progressive might be accurate. I'm interested in seeing where other people in the community stand after the next census.

In response to comment by [deleted] on [Link] Admitting to Bias
Comment author: falenas108 13 August 2012 09:03:42PM 2 points [-]

That sounds like an interesting question to put on the next census: What were your views before LW, what are they now, and if there was a change how much did LW influence it.

Comment author: lucidian 10 August 2012 01:29:56PM 3 points [-]

I agree with you; I am abusing terminology.

For the record, though, I do think we have a bias against theism in the sense that you've described. I understand why LessWrong might choose to consider the "does God exist?" question settled, but we go further than that. We frequently discuss how terrible religion is, and applaud efforts to promote atheism, despite the benefits to happiness etc. that religion provides.

I think it's understandable that we have such a bias. On LessWrong, we value truth and truth-seeking; this goes far enough that it's almost a moral value. When other groups actively discourage truth-seeking, we oppose them.

I don't know anything about social psychology, but my experience with other social sciences suggests that liberal, humanist values are deeply ingrained in their system. What I mean is, the social sciences are not just truth-seeking engines looking for facts about humanity. They have their own moral values attached (e.g. reducing discrimination).

Just as we on LessWrong are reluctant to engage in discussions with people who oppose truth-seeking, social scientists may be reluctant to engage in discussions with conservatives, because conservatives tend to hold moral values that are actively opposed to the social sciences' agenda.

This article suggests implicitly that the social sciences should be about truth-seeking, not about promoting some political/moral agenda. The willingness of social scientists to admit their bias against conservatives suggest that they feel otherwise.

Comment author: falenas108 10 August 2012 08:21:18PM -1 points [-]

We frequently discuss how terrible religion is, and applaud efforts to promote atheism, despite the benefits to happiness etc. that religion provides.

Those benefits are primarily based on the communities. If we build similar secular communities, like the link I gave suggests, then there wouldn't be a special benefit to religion.

Comment author: phonypapercut 09 August 2012 12:12:06AM 2 points [-]

Using surgical tools like a scalpel is a grey area for piercers. Operating with these instruments, or any kind of anestheia, could be classified as practicing medicine. Without a medical license, a piercer who does this is technically committing assault on the person getting the implant.

Comment author: falenas108 09 August 2012 01:10:44AM 2 points [-]

So, an action by itself is not assault, but if you do the same action but make sure it doesn't hurt the patient, it is assault?

Comment author: falenas108 08 August 2012 10:14:55PM -1 points [-]

The Bottlenose, which gives a sense of echolocation, could be a really useful device, especially because it doesn't involve any kind of surgery. It allows able-bodied people to see in the dark, and more importantly can replace sight for those who are blind.

Unfortunately, from the way they describe it in the article it sounds like it doesn't work very well.

Comment author: tim 08 August 2012 02:46:37AM 1 point [-]

You are adding a condition that was not present in the original problem. Namely, that every day you do not open the box, you lose some number of utilions.

In response to comment by tim on The Doubling Box
Comment author: falenas108 08 August 2012 01:58:30PM 0 points [-]

Whoops, you're right.

In response to The Doubling Box
Comment author: falenas108 06 August 2012 01:37:19PM *  2 points [-]

I way to think about this problem to put you in near mode is to imagine what the utility might look like. Ex:

Day 1: Finding a quarter on the ground

Day 2: A child in Africa getting $5

.....

Day X: Curing cancer

Dax X+1: Curing cancer, Alzheimers, and AIDS.

On one hand, by waiting a day, more people would die of cancer. On the other, by not waiting, you'd doom all those future people to die of AIDS and Alzheimers.

Comment author: Bill_McGrath 05 August 2012 11:51:59AM 0 points [-]

I'm having difficulty finding any particularly 'positive emotion'-music in my collection! Based on what you posted and your responses to other suggestions, here are a few that may be worth checking out:

Bad Religion (solid pop-punk, three part vocal harmonies, highly intellectual to boot), Arctic Monkeys, At The Drive-In (highly charged, very energetic, somewhat anarchic), Ben Folds (modern piano rock, very rockin'), Blue Oyster Cult (not a million miles away from Journey), Kate Bush (80s singer with a unique voice). You probably won't like all of these, but some might be worthwhile.

Comment author: falenas108 05 August 2012 11:36:14PM -1 points [-]

As much as I love Arctic Monkeys, I wouldn't describe them as 'positive emotion.'

Comment author: falenas108 01 August 2012 03:24:06PM 0 points [-]

The two scenarios are more different than you present them. In one case, the probability is of in any 100 coin flips, all of them are heads. In the other, it's that of all possible worlds, you live in one where ponies fall from the sky. So the second is a probability of the type of universe we live in.

So, when you say

No matter how many times somebody pulls the pony trick, a rational agent is never going to get their hopes up.

It's not accurate. What it should be, is your confidence in pony man should be exactly as high as getting all heads in 100 flips the first time you make the coin flips, no matter how many times he makes that claim.

Comment author: kilobug 28 July 2012 07:58:51PM 6 points [-]

I understand the issue, but I'm at odd with it for three reasons :

  1. If the problem is lobbying and corporate corruption of the government, I don't see how getting rid of the proxy and putting directly the corporations in charge will make anything better. Regulations may be imperfect and biased by lobbying, but having the corporations directly in charge seems even worse to me.

  2. It seems to me by looking around the world than when a reasonably democratic government starts providing real services to the population (universal healthcare and education, social safety net, ...) the people become less apathetic towards the government, and will get more involved with how the government is runned. It also seems to me that countries with higher wealth redistribution, like Scandinavian countries, have lower corruption.

  3. This is a kind of defeatist arguments. Here at Less Wrong, we speak of defeating death itself, conquering the stars, breaking the FAI problem, getting to the "level above" in understanding of the world, and yet, on this specific issue of politics/economics, we concede defeat so easily ? There are countless ways to "actually control the market" that we could imagine. Shouldn't we try to find a political system that ensures the market is controlled in a reasonably efficient way, rather than giving up ? Doesn't sound harder than solving the FAI problem. Corruption and lobbying ? What about making a jury trial for every law after the Parliament voted it, with 20 randomly selected citizen, held isolated from pressures like in normal jury trial, decide if the law goes through or not ? That's just one random idea in the enormous space of possible mechanisms. Why do we give up so easily ?

Comment author: falenas108 29 July 2012 02:42:08PM 1 point [-]

If the problem is lobbying and corporate corruption of the government, I don't see how getting rid of the proxy and putting directly the corporations in charge will make anything better.

That's the thing, it wouldn't be corporations in charge of setting prices, there wouldn't be anyone setting the prices. Except in the case of monopolies, it would be the combined market.

It seems to me by looking around the world than when a reasonably democratic government starts providing real services to the population (universal healthcare and education, social safety net, ...) the people become less apathetic towards the government, and will get more involved with how the government is runned. It also seems to me that countries with higher wealth redistribution, like Scandinavian countries, have lower corruption.

Okay, if that's true then that's a good argument for those forms of government control. But, that doesn't argue for involving the government in the other parts of the market.

As to the third point, I'm not sure we know how to reliably make changes to the market that results in positive changes. I'd appreciate the input of an economist here, but from the basic econ I've learned, except in the cases of monopolies or other failure modes of the free market, government intervention mathematically always results in a net loss. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss)

Comment author: kilobug 28 July 2012 08:02:51AM 20 points [-]

I always wondered why the Less Wrong community was so "libertarian" (US-style, ie, pro-free market).

It seems at odds to me with LW views on other topics. Free market is akin to evolution : it's at optimisation process which, given enough time and space, will end up finding local maxima, but it's a blind, uncaring force that doesn't care about the sufferings it produces, that has no long-term vision. It's Azathoth. The same way that good engineering is more efficient than evolution (show me a bird flying as fast as a plane), wouldn't a good partially planned economy be better than free market ?

Or if you look at it from a CS view, especially with the SIAI view on AI (which is not shared by all Less Wrongers, but by most) : we use Azathoth-like solutions (neural network, genetic algorithms, ...) when we don't have a classical engineering solution. Shouldn't we do the same in economy ? Try to have more "engineered" solution when we can do so, and resort to the "free market" as a suboptimal but working default when we don't have an engineered solution ? If you look at EDF or SNCF (french electricity and railroads), it seems there are domains in which the "engineered solution" works well.

It would seem more coherent with the rest of the LW view to support things like Cybersyn rather than Azathoth.

Also (but my comment is already too long so I won't elaborate that one), a rational view on human psychology and cognitive biases should tell us that Homo Economicus just doesn't exist, and things like "consent" and "free will" are always a bit fuzzy, humans are prone to error and manipulation, so we should have safeguards to ensure the errors done by individual don't completely ruin their (or others) life, which argue for a strong social safety net.

Comment author: falenas108 28 July 2012 02:18:32PM 5 points [-]

At least one problem with this is that any attempt to actually control the market will almost definitely get sidetracked by politics instead of what works. With lobbyists involved, I wouldn't trust the government to do what's best for the country. See farm subsidies for an example.

Comment author: Armok_GoB 06 July 2012 08:30:57PM 4 points [-]

But 21!

Comment author: falenas108 26 July 2012 12:28:00PM 6 points [-]

But 7!

Comment author: RichardKennaway 26 July 2012 11:21:11AM 0 points [-]

They also encouraged "phoenixing,"which is this: http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwitfzvflA1qh4kty.jpg

I see it, but what is it?

Comment author: falenas108 26 July 2012 11:33:21AM *  -1 points [-]

Posing like a phoenix in front of a camera. It's like planking, only UChicago specific, as the phoenix is our mascot. Bonus points for doing it at another college campus.

Comment author: ahartell 26 July 2012 02:33:57AM 0 points [-]

I'm a bit sad that I'll be attending UChicago after it lost (or at least started trying to get rid of) its quirky nerd culture.

Comment author: falenas108 26 July 2012 09:17:44AM -1 points [-]

It's not really, "trying to get rid of it," it's more that losing the culture is a byproduct of expanding to the general population. For example, the admissions office sent me a scarf after I got accepted to the class of 2015, and those who had a birthday between acceptance and attending got a handwritten note from the admissions office.

They also encouraged "phoenixing,"which is this: http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwitfzvflA1qh4kty.jpg

There are many pockets of quirkiness, it's just not prevalent throughout campus. Interestingly, the two largest dorms are the ones with the reputation for the least quirkiness (Max P and South), while the smallest ones have the most (Snitchcock, Breckinridge).

Comment author: Randaly 25 July 2012 04:50:43PM *  1 point [-]

The problem's that I have quite a lot of choices, hundreds, as a matter of fact. So how should I narrow down my list even further, given that I don't care about other stuff, such as campus size or location?

Consider how likely you are to get into each college, and then maximize the perceived quality of the institution, and the employment rate/salary and/or gradschool/medschool application success of its Biology grads.

(Incidentally, I semi-strongly recommend you consider the student body/social life as well.)

Moreover, to how many colleges should I apply? As far as I know, most people apply to 6-9 colleges, but some even apply to 20! I guess that by applying to as many colleges possible, my chances of admission go up. But, I probably won't have time to write hundreds of admission essays, or the money to send in my application to all these colleges.

There are two overlapping solutions. To reduce costs, you can apply early to one or two schools that are either your top schools (meaning that if you get in, you will not apply anywhere else) or ones that are high-safety/low-realistic, such that you are likely to get in, and you will only apply to reach schools during regular admission. One significant issue is that early decisions usually come out around December 15th, while most regular admissions are due in around January 1st; this means you will still need essays pre-written and edited, and for your school to send in your grades and recommendation letters ahead of time in case you do apply. (This method also gives you some info on which others schools you should apply to.)

(Though this can lead to lulz- I know a girl who applied early to Stanford, wrote up applications for literally 20 other schools, got in early, and never sent in the other applications.)

Also, you can try to see if you can get admission fee waivers, which eliminate admission fees for up to 4 colleges.

In addition, you may want to consider colleges with "rolling admissions". I have no experience with it; if you want more info, IIRC curiouskid has some experience.

For essay writing, it's often possible to reuse essays, with some editing, from school to school. (I had to do this extensively because I started writing my essays in June...using the previous year's prompts...)

Lastly, as my objective is to gain admission somewhere, should I only apply to colleges with acceptance rates above a certain percentage? What should that percentage be?

Just looking at percentages doesn't tell you enough about the school or you. eg some colleges had oddly high admission rates because only top students apply; Caltech would be vastly tougher to get into if you were very good in the humanities than if you were very good in STEM subjects. I don't know enough about biology programs to give you any specific examples, but this is a good thing to look into further.

How high you should aim in your college applications depends significantly on you- your grades, scores, extracurriculars, etc.

Comment author: falenas108 25 July 2012 05:15:57PM 3 points [-]

eg U of Chicago has a high admission rate because only well-qualified people tend to apply

Actually, in recent years the admission rate for U of C has gone down, for 2016 the rate was about 13%.

http://chicagomaroon.com/2012/04/13/college-has-lowest-acceptance-rate-ever-touting-caps-resources/

Comment author: falenas108 11 July 2012 01:18:39PM *  13 points [-]

There's a simple utility calculation going on here. I'd say the chances of having cancer given your dentist says you might have it is much higher than .01%. Without doing any research, I think it's safe to assume it is at least 10%, probably more.

So, you have a 90% of wasting $1000 and mildly inconveniencing yourself for a few days, vs. a 10% chance of having major oral problems in the future because you didn't get this treatment. Plus all the social stigma you mentioned earlier. With this analysis, it seems perfectly reasonable to go through with the biopsy.

Comment author: novalis 29 June 2012 06:42:48PM 1 point [-]

In my experience, Pandora simply doesn't tend to give me music that I like even when I put in an artist that I like.

This is probably because some human came up with the categories. Humans aren't very good at that -- machines are much better at figuring this sort of thing out. Of course, getting machines to read fiction would be difficult, but without that, you're likely to end up with formulas that work fine if one is already a writer and not so much otherwise.

Comment author: falenas108 29 June 2012 09:24:30PM 0 points [-]

When I started, I just put in every artist that I like. After a few days of more downvoting than I'd like, Pandora got pretty good at predicting. It just needed more data points on what I liked and disliked in music.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 27 June 2012 10:37:30PM 2 points [-]

I decided to downvote very short articles on LW that should be comments in Open Thread instead.

Previously I would downvote an article only if it had negative value, for example completely stupid, but I would leave positive-epsilon articles without a vote. This isn't a problem if there is one such article. When there are two dozen new articles a week, it becomes obvious that those positive-epsilon articles create a negative value: they make the noise-to-signal ratio worse, and make the more useful articles scroll away from the front page fast. (So it is more difficult to find a recent Open Thread, for example.)

I realized that I dislike that such articles are becoming frequent on LW, and that the tools to prevent this are already there. It's just that I don't use them... and instead I wait and hope that some moderator will come and fix the problem.

Comment author: falenas108 28 June 2012 02:59:35PM 2 points [-]

At least at first, it would probably be useful to leave a comment on those articles explaining why you downvoted.

In response to New Singularity.org
Comment author: falenas108 19 June 2012 05:00:32AM 6 points [-]

It may just be me, but it seems a bit strange to have the donate tab be the first one. It feels like you're trying to push me to donate, which is off-putting. I'd at least put it behind the "what we do" tab, or maybe further down.

Comment author: Arepo 13 June 2012 12:01:52PM 4 points [-]

Assuming you accept the reasoning, 90% seems quite generous to me. What percentage of complex computer programmes when run for the first time exhibit behaviour the programmers hadn't anticipated? I don't have much of an idea, but my guess would be close to 100. If so, the question is how likely unexpected behaviour is to be fatal. For any programme that will eventually gain access to the world at large and quickly become AI++, that seems (again, no data to back this up - just an intuitive guess) pretty likely, perhaps almost certain.

For any parameter of human comfort (eg 253 degrees Kelvin, 60% water, 40 hour working weeks), a misplaced decimal point misplaced by seems like it would destroy the economy at best and life on earth at worst.

If Holden’s criticism is appropriate, the best response might be to look for other options rather than making a doomed effort to make FAI – for example trying to prevent the development of AI anywhere on earth, at least until we can self-improve enough to keep up with it. That might have a low probability of success, but if FAI has sufficiently low probability, it would still seem like a better bet.

Comment author: falenas108 13 June 2012 04:16:57PM 3 points [-]

What percentage of complex computer programmes when run for the first time exhibit behaviour the programmers hadn't anticipated? I don't have much of an idea, but my guess would be close to 100.

That's for normal programs, where errors don't matter. If you look at ones where people carefully look over the code because lives are at stake (like NASA rockets), then you'll have a better estimate.

Probably still not accurate, because much more is at stake for AI than just a few lives, but it will be closer.

Comment author: falenas108 11 June 2012 03:57:24PM 2 points [-]

One reason people aren't so big on linking the sequences is that Eliezer has, for some time now, been writing a book consolidating the sequences into a much more readable text. I think people are waiting until that comes out to bug everyone to read Eliezer's work.

In response to Ask an X
Comment author: jsteinhardt 07 June 2012 04:13:10AM 0 points [-]

Is the suggestion to make a post in discussion, or in the comments here?

I'm happy to answer questions about machine learning / AI, although I'm afraid I don't have that many credentials beyond going to grad school at Stanford and having published a few papers. My focus has been on relationships between AI and cognition, and on incorporating computational constraints into Bayesian decision theories. I can also probably answer some questions about cognitive science.

In response to comment by jsteinhardt on Ask an X
Comment author: falenas108 07 June 2012 04:23:04AM -1 points [-]

I was suggesting making a post, because I doubt people are going to regularly check back to see if anyone posted here.

In response to Ask an X
Comment author: falenas108 05 June 2012 10:02:01PM -1 points [-]

Poll: What field would you most like to see someone do this for?

In response to Ask an X
Comment author: michaelcurzi 05 June 2012 09:21:22PM 5 points [-]

You go first! And before you say 'I'm not a professional', it doesn't matter if you don't know anything about anything - you probably know something about something, or you can ask an individual you know to volunteer, or you could pay someone to do it, or you can try some other clever solution that takes more than 5 seconds to think of.

For every person saying 'how about someone does Y', we need 10 people doing Y and seeing what happens. It's a great idea. Lots of things are great ideas. Enough with the ideas! Act!

In response to comment by michaelcurzi on Ask an X
Comment author: falenas108 05 June 2012 10:01:39PM 3 points [-]

Okay, I'll commit to emailing 7 people in a field, asking them to come to this site to answer questions.

First, I need to know what field people are interested in hearing from. I'll make a separate comment asking people what they'd most like to hear from.

Assuming I get decent levels of responses, I commit to emailing people doing this by the end of 2 weeks from now.

In response to Ask an X
Comment author: drethelin 05 June 2012 08:35:38PM 1 point [-]

I really love this idea. Seeing what someone who knows about neurology has to say about cryonics has lowered my belief in how possibly efficacious it is and I'd like to update on more things like that.

In response to comment by drethelin on Ask an X
Comment author: falenas108 05 June 2012 08:39:39PM 2 points [-]

Yeah, that's where the inspiration for this post came from.

Ask an X

5 falenas108 05 June 2012 08:15PM

In many previous comments, people call on professionals to answer questions about specific fields, like physicists, neuroscientists, economists, or computer scientists. There are many people in all these professions on this site willing to respond to questions, but most of the time none of them happen to read that comment.

As a way to fix this, I propose that people well-educated in certain fields volunteer to make an "Ask an X" post where they list their credentials and specialties, and anyone can ask questions about that field.  Obviously, this would also be a good place to have a discussion between professionals in that field.

Another possibility is to ask people who don't mind being asked random questions to volunteer to be part of a list that can be posted to the wiki. Then, people could just PM that person directly. 

Comment author: Brigid 25 May 2012 02:42:24AM *  5 points [-]

Long post--my apologies.

Background:

I have been trying for a while now to follow the paleo (or caveman) diet. I think the argument for the diet seems legitimate enough (or, I should say, I am not smart enough in those areas to disprove their argument). Additionally, there seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence in favor of the diet, especially from people with auto-immune diseases, which I have. So for those two reasons, I have been trying to make it a permanent lifestyle change; what ends up happening is that I struggle through one week and rebound into massive cheating.

The Problem:

The problem that I have run in to—which I think is fairly common—is the diet is extremely difficult to maintain if you work a lot or don’t want to devote the majority of your free time to cooking. It takes a LOT of time to cook all your food from scratch. The paleo diet is: no grains, no dairy, no legumes, no sugar, nothing artificially made or with artificial ingredients, no potatoes, no peanuts, and very low added salt.

You are mostly supposed to eat meat, fish, poultry, eggs, and vegetables, with occasional nuts, fruits, and starchy vegetables like yams. These foods spoil easily, and require a decent amount of time to prepare, especially when you compare them with the typical American diet. So the problems I have run into are (1) it is a difficult lifestyle to maintain due to the time it takes to cook everything (2) the foods perish easily and I am stuck going to the supermarket 2+ times a week.

My Solution:

Change1: Optimize my cooking regimen by standardizing it. I now eat the exact same thing for breakfast and the exact same thing for lunch and dinner every day. At some point I expect this to get boring, but so far the results have been good.

This has the result of: -Food preparation time is shortened. I am no longer trying out new foods or recipes, which is a time waster.
-I purposely eat the same thing for lunch and dinner, thus I only have to cook one meal instead of two. -I cook said lunch and dinner for the next day while I am eating my dinner. -I purposely selected foods which do not require much attention to make, thus I can eat my dinner while I cook the next days food. I have been eating frozen organic stir fry vegetables and chicken cooked in coconut oil. I supplement it with a salad which takes about 1 minute to make if you buy your veggies cut up.

Change 2: After asking a clerk, I found out that all grocery stores (or at least the ones in Hawaii) get a resupply of foods on Tuesdays. So if you buy your foods on Sunday, like I was doing previously, you are getting vegetables and meat which are 5 days older than if you buy foods on Tuesdays. I have started grocery shopping on Tuesdays, which I expect to limit my grocery shopping trips to one time per week.

Change 3: Since food preparation is a time suck, I wash all the fruits and vegetables immediately upon returning from the store. I have not timed it, but it does appear that washing all the produce in one batch is faster than washing it in 7-21 separate batches. I also started packaging snacks in baggies directly after washing them, so I don’t have to spend time each night making snacks for work.

At this point (day 3 of strict diet) no health changes have occurred. Advocates say the health changes take 2-4 weeks to be noticeable.

Comment author: falenas108 05 June 2012 05:33:15AM -1 points [-]

I would recommend against eating the same foods for all 3 meals. Different foods have different nutrients, and you need them in different amounts. I would suggest having a set of meals that you cycle between instead.

Comment author: falenas108 04 June 2012 03:50:05PM *  -1 points [-]

There's a chance I'll be able to make it, but it's unlikely.

Comment author: Grognor 03 June 2012 06:14:50PM 10 points [-]

Any kind of project is fair game: personal improvement, research project, art project, whatever.

Oh, I had no idea.

I somewhat recently finished a Flash animation, Manly Brawl on a Big Tree, and I'm working on a sequel. (Warning: this movie is very manly.)

Comment author: falenas108 04 June 2012 01:17:14AM 3 points [-]

I really liked the dialog at the end.

Comment author: falenas108 31 May 2012 06:28:28PM 4 points [-]

Some other things I've picked up:

If the room is small, or just not very large, push everything up against a wall. The floor space makes the room seem a lot bigger than it is. Of course, this means the floor will actually have to be clean.

Try to avoid bright colors in painting the walls, it also makes the room seem smaller.

If the room smells bad despite keeping it relatively clean, and you don't want to use scents, then just putting a fan on works pretty well.

Comment author: falenas108 30 May 2012 10:40:10PM 6 points [-]

I'm not sure how common this is, but I can't process audio information nearly as well as visual. This would prevent me from learning anything complex by audiobooks.

Comment author: falenas108 30 May 2012 03:23:17PM 7 points [-]

Back when the DC meetups were first starting, we realized that we wanted to build up friendships faster than normal. One person (I think it was atucker) suggested that we start hugging each other, because that naturally installs feelings of affection for each other. It's only a data point of 1, but it seemed to work very well in making us more comfortable with each other.

Comment author: falenas108 26 May 2012 03:10:27PM *  1 point [-]

It seems to me that asking someone in your social network would be less trouble than going out and getting a book on the subject, especially if it's something that's commonly known.

Comment author: grouchymusicologist 24 May 2012 09:58:20PM 0 points [-]

So, this is about developing a photographic memory for text, one paragraph at a time. Is that really something you want? Why not make an Anki flashcard out of the one thing (or more, if it's a really information-dense paragraph) you most want to remember from the text?

Comment author: falenas108 24 May 2012 11:24:16PM 1 point [-]

This isn't about memorizing that one paragraph. It's about training your brain to remember things after only seeing it for a split second.

Of course, that's assuming it works.

Comment author: Bill_McGrath 24 May 2012 11:05:06AM 0 points [-]

Any agent who is themselves running TDT will reason as in the standard Newcomb problem.

Will they? Surely it's clear that it's now possible to take $1,001,00, because the circumstances are slightly different.

In the standard Newcomb problem, where Omega predicts your behaviour, it's not possible to trick it or act other than its expectation. Here, it is.

Is there some basic part of decision theory I'm not accounting for here?

Comment author: falenas108 24 May 2012 12:45:28PM *  0 points [-]

Yes. If the TDT agent picked the $1,001,00 here, then the simulated agent would have two-boxed as well, meaning only box A would be filled.

Remember, the simulated agent was presented with the same problem, so the decision TDT makes here is the same one the simulated agent makes.

Comment author: falenas108 15 May 2012 05:52:30PM 1 point [-]

I mostly agree with this, with one reservation about the "mainstream science is too slow" argument.

If we understood as much about a field as scientists, then we could do better using Bayes. But, I think it's very rare that a layman could out-predict a scientist just using Bayes without studying the field to the point where they could write a paper in that field.

Comment author: [deleted] 14 May 2012 07:59:59AM 18 points [-]

This has been discussed before.

Why I think it is a bad idea:

I don't think you understand why I don't like the idea of LW becoming a forum. LessWrong is less a collection of cool people than it is a particular niche in online discussion. By changing that niche, you change the demographics, and probably increase the raw number of participants. Besides this reducing the signal to noise ratio, you are relying on the core seed group to step up their gardening, something I see very little evidence might actually happen. You also implicitly rely on them not changing their standards and expectations. People generally behave differently in different on-line venues.

Even putting these concerns aside, Karma systems have very different dynamics with different scales and the effects are nonlinear.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Petition: Off topic area
Comment author: falenas108 14 May 2012 08:25:21PM 1 point [-]

Something that might make this less of a problem, if it does get implemented, is having two separate karma systems for the two areas. This way, standards for main/discussion sections can be maintained, while we can have the alternate discussions elsewhere (with a karma system of its own).

Comment author: Emile 14 May 2012 02:42:49PM *  23 points [-]

I think most people on this site (including me and you, private messaging/Dmytry) don't have any particular insight that gives them more information than those who seriously thought about this for a long time (like Eliezer, Ben Goertzel, Robin Hanson, Holden Karnofsky, Lukeprog, possibly Wei Dai, cousin_it, etc.), so our opinion on "who is right" is not worth much.

I'd much rather see an attempt to cleanly map out where knowledgeable people disagree, rather than polls of what ignorant people like me think.

Similarly, if two senior economists have a public disagreement about international trade and fiscal policy, a poll of a bunch of graduate students on those issues is not going to provide much new information to either economist.

(I don't really know how to phrase this argument cleanly, help and suggestions welcome, I'm just trying to retranscribe my general feeling of "I don't even know enough to answer, and I suspect neither to most people here")

Comment author: falenas108 14 May 2012 03:14:36PM 7 points [-]

(I don't really know how to phrase this argument cleanly, help and suggestions welcome, I'm just trying to retranscribe my general feeling of "I don't even know enough to answer, and I suspect neither to most people here")

I would phrase it as holding off judgement until we hear further information, i.e. SI's response to this. And in addition to the reasons you give, not deciding who's right ahead of time helps us avoid becoming attached to one side.

Comment author: falenas108 14 May 2012 07:00:02AM -1 points [-]

Is there a list somewhere of all the lesswrong.com/_'s are?

Comment author: falenas108 11 May 2012 02:12:15PM 0 points [-]

If a programmer chooses to "unleash an AGI as an agent" with the hope of gaining power, it seems that this programmer will be deliberately ignoring conventional wisdom about what is safe in favor of shortsighted greed. I do not see why such a programmer would be expected to make use of any "Friendliness theory" that might be available. (Attempting to incorporate such theory would almost certainly slow the project down greatly, and thus would bring the same problems as the more general "have caution, do testing" counseled by conventional wisdom.)

But they may think they have a theory of friendliness that works, but actually creates a UFAI. If SI already had code that could be slapped on that creates friendliness, this type of programmer would use it.

Comment author: lavalamp 05 May 2012 12:54:30PM 5 points [-]

1000 calories per day is a starvation diet. You are either rapidly losing weight or your numbers are wrong (or you are 6 years old).

Googling for the minimum safe calorie intake returns numbers in the 1200-1800 range, and these are for people who want to lose weight rapidly.

Comment author: falenas108 05 May 2012 04:05:33PM *  5 points [-]

OP is not getting 1000 calories per day, that's just the three meals. More food is being eaten through snacks, hence the "No wonder I crave cookies and chocolate so much!"

In response to Why do people ____?
Comment author: wmorgan 04 May 2012 07:08:54AM 7 points [-]

Why do people boo performers? Example: I was at Geek Bowl 2012, which was this huge team trivia event in an auditorium, and toward the end of the night they invited participants to come on-stage and dance in teams for 45 seconds per team. Only 4 of the 200 teams volunteered, and while they danced, the crowd noisily jeered them. Now, the dancing wasn't great, but...

  1. These are amateurs and they're clearly nervous. Based on those facts alone, I would cheer them no matter what. Golden Rule, right? It's only 45 seconds.
  2. You gain nothing from booing them, except possibly you signal...what? Being loud and opinionated? Being in a position of judgement and therefore high-status?
  3. Even assuming there's a signaling explanation, I cannot figure out the thought process that leads to booing. Like, they somehow get angry at the performers? Or is it morbid curiosity, and they wonder if it'll get even worse if the dancers get flustered?
Comment author: falenas108 04 May 2012 03:59:01PM 5 points [-]

A part of it is people's expectations are raised for stage performances.

I'm part of a circus, and I've found that if I just do something with a friend in public, people will be impressed, but it takes a lot more to get people to cheer when I'm on stage.

So even decent acts aren't viewed as good when they're in front of an audience.

Comment author: TimS 21 April 2012 08:21:54PM 0 points [-]

I see what you mean. But I thought "ripples of one wave affected the other wave" was the accepted interpretation of the double slit experiment. In other words, the double slit experiments prove the wave-particle duality. I wasn't aware that the wave-particle duality was considered evidence in favor of MWI.

Comment author: falenas108 21 April 2012 09:23:30PM -1 points [-]

I don't know nearly enough about QM to say whether or not that's true, I was just going off what was said in response to your second comment. However, that doesn't seem to have any upvotes, so it may not be correct either.

Comment author: TimS 21 April 2012 07:13:55PM 1 point [-]

I obviously do not understand quantum mechanics as well as I thought, because I thought this comment and this comment were saying the same thing, but karma indicates differently. Can someone explain my mistake?

Comment author: falenas108 21 April 2012 08:07:06PM 0 points [-]

The first comment says that the double slit experiment is feasible under both hypothesis, but the second adds on that it is just as likely with MWI as waveform collapse.

Analogy: There are two possible bags arrangements, one filled with 5 green balls and 5 red balls, and the other with 4 green balls and 6 red balls. It's true that drawing a green ball is consistent with both, but it's more likely in the with first bag than the second.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 19 April 2012 09:30:49PM 22 points [-]

I suggest looking at his implicit beliefs, not just explicit predictions. For example, he must have thought that writing HPMoR was a good use of time, and therefore must have (correctly) predicted that it would be quite popular if he was to write it. On the other hand, his decision to delay publishing his TDT document seems to imply some rather wrong beliefs.

Comment author: falenas108 19 April 2012 10:23:28PM 10 points [-]

I think at least a large part of the slowness on publishing TDT is due to his procrastination habits with publishable papers, which he openly acknowledges.

Although this may be a personal problem of his, it doesn't say anything against the ideas he has.

Comment author: Incorrect 18 April 2012 12:48:37AM -2 points [-]

ウィ コド スピク ライク ヂス

Comment author: falenas108 18 April 2012 01:36:34AM 1 point [-]

Google translate says this means as "We Cry Kudji to spin codon."

In response to Be Happier
Comment author: falenas108 16 April 2012 12:30:30AM 4 points [-]

Excellent article! The only problem I had was that almost every article cited in the spending on others section was written by one group, it would be nice to see other supporters, if they exist.

Comment author: thomblake 13 April 2012 03:46:07PM 0 points [-]

It doesn't matter whether the paperclips are held by the humans or given to Clipmega. Give it a million right away to ramp up the paperclip production as quickly as possible.

In fact, Clipmega probably has better paperclip-storage mechanisms than the humans do, so just give it all the paperclips.

Comment author: falenas108 14 April 2012 04:40:59PM -1 points [-]

It may be a bad idea to trust Clipmega with the world's supply of paperclips. Judging by the phrasing of the problem, paperclips are worth a lot in this world, and we don't want to give him that kind of power.

Comment author: falenas108 12 April 2012 01:07:15PM 1 point [-]

The link goes to the second page.

Comment author: falenas108 05 April 2012 08:08:26PM *  1 point [-]

Just found a good Cthulhu-based song that's a parody of Hey There Delilah, and thought of this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut82TDjciSg

Comment author: orthonormal 05 April 2012 02:22:29PM 1 point [-]

Not when you're playing with other LW readers: in our group, acting certain without communicable evidence is a reasonably clear "tell".

Comment author: falenas108 05 April 2012 03:30:11PM *  1 point [-]

Yeah, I wasn't talking about games with LWers, I was talking about games with the average person. That's what I meant by "normal game," but it seems that I should have been more explicit.

Edit: I also haven't played resistance before, and assumed it was similar to mafia. But, this game is much more complicated, and seeming certain isn't as useful here as it is in those games.

Comment author: falenas108 05 April 2012 02:42:03AM 1 point [-]

Although it is better to use Bayesian probabilities to keep track of who you think is a spy, in a normal game it is advantageous to appear sure that you know who the spy is. By appearing sure, you are more likely to convince other people, which means you get to stay in the game longer and you're more likely to catch the spy, assuming you're part of the resistance.

Comment author: Incorrect 05 April 2012 02:11:46AM *  6 points [-]

Or maybe:

"All of those, including changing your preferences in icecream, constitute enough change to be considered death. It is theoretically possible to keep a human alive in a controlled environment but this has never been the case in the history of your species."

Comment author: falenas108 05 April 2012 02:36:54AM -2 points [-]

I wouldn't say a change in ice cream preference constitutes a death. People's taste buds change as they get older.

Or if you do say getting older is a younger person's death, then it probably isn't that strict definition of death that you're concerned about, as you don't mourn people getting older.

Comment author: timtyler 03 April 2012 04:41:26PM 0 points [-]

In the next 40 years, I find it very unlikely that any form of AI will be developed.

"Any form of AI"? You mean superhuman AI?

Comment author: falenas108 03 April 2012 06:05:49PM -1 points [-]

Sorry, yeah.

Comment author: Alex_Altair 01 April 2012 10:56:37PM *  4 points [-]

Great list! Here are some of my beliefs;

19 How difficult is stabilizing the world so we can work on Friendly AI slowly?

Virtually impossible. The people working on AI number in the thousands, and not even governments can stop technological progress. There are probably routes to discourage AI funding, or make such work unpopular, but to talk of "stabilizing the world" is way beyond what any group of people can do.

6 What can we do to attract more funding, support, and research to x-risk reduction and to the specific sub-problems of successful Singularity navigation?

I think this is the most important question by far.

5 What can we do to raise the "sanity waterline," and how much will this help?

I really think that trying to raise the "sanity waterline", which refers to the average sanity of all people, is an enormous task which, while noble, would be a waste of time. We simply don't have the time to do it. We should focus on the people that can possibly accidentally create UFAI--academics in machine learning programs, researchers with access to supercomputers, et cetera.

If anyone disagrees, I would love to hear some evidence against what I've said. This stuff is way too complicated for me to be really confident.

Comment author: falenas108 02 April 2012 02:04:02AM -1 points [-]

I'll take you up on the disagreement. In the next 40 years, I find it very unlikely that any form of AI will be developed. Furthermore, we do want technological improvement in machine learning fields because of the advantages that can be offered in fields like self-driving cars, assisting doctors in diagnosing and treating illnesses, and many other fields.

And, because of the >40 year timeline, it will most likely be the next generation that leads the discovery to AI/FAI. So, we can't target particular people (although we can focus on those who are likely to have children to go into AI, which is happening as a result of this site's existence). This means that raising the overall waterline is probably one of the best ways to go about doing this, because children who grow up in a more rational culture are more likely to be rational as well.

In response to comment by falenas108 on New front page
Comment author: David_Gerard 30 March 2012 05:54:11PM 0 points [-]

the sequences are an excellent way to hook new readers

Is there evidence for this? As far as I can tell, the only way to hook new readers that's made "excellent" is HPMOR.

Comment author: falenas108 01 April 2012 08:04:04AM -1 points [-]

Excellent in that I would suspect a large proportion of people who started reading Less Wrong did so from reading at least part of the sequences.

I do not have evidence for this, and it might be wrong, but I would be surprised if it were.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 30 March 2012 05:36:23AM 4 points [-]

This is an excellent suggestion.

Now, does anyone have any ideas for what advice I could give about that? :-)

Comment author: falenas108 30 March 2012 01:19:32PM -1 points [-]

To start it, make one big meetup that you think will draw people. Make it at an exciting place in the area, chose an interesting meetup topic, or plan a fun activity. An alternative if you're really desperate for people is to draw on the surrounding area by posting in more public places.

From there, all that has to happen is a successful Less Wrong meetup, using the strategies in the OP. That is usually enough to get some of the members to come back a few times, and if the meetups continue being interesting, new members will become regulars.

Comment author: David_Gerard 30 March 2012 08:58:53AM 1 point [-]

The sequences are bigger than two copies of Lord Of The Rings. Expecting all new readers to study a million words of philosophy before proceeding strikes me as unrealistic.

Comment author: falenas108 30 March 2012 01:14:50PM -1 points [-]

Not necessarily expect them to read all of it, but the sequences are an excellent way to hook new readers. Plus, even reading some of it is probably the most efficient way to raise the sanity waterline.

Comment author: Bugmaster 28 March 2012 11:24:56PM 4 points [-]

Have you tried recalculating your probability of cryonics success in a hypothetical world where cryonics is normal?

Wouldn't a world where cryonics is normal have a very high probability of being a world where cryonics is already successful (i.e., people are getting revived successfully all the time) ? I have trouble imagining a world where cryonics is normal and popular, and yet it has no proven track record -- unless cryonics became a religious issue, somehow...

Comment author: falenas108 29 March 2012 01:19:51AM 3 points [-]

Maybe not popular, but a world where it is tolerated to the point where a large number of people sign up for it. And if something like modern rationality becomes popular and also advertises cryonics, that becomes a possibility.

Comment author: falenas108 26 March 2012 12:53:06PM *  -2 points [-]

The thought process for signaling should usually be something like this: I recognize that although X is associated with Y, X is actually just signaling. But, is my life better off if I do X anyway?

For example, making my bed is associated with being an clean person, even though making a bed doesn't actually clear up any space. But, I find it more aesthetically pleasing to make my bed every day, even though I don't get any other benefits from it. Plus, others coming into my room may also make judgements about me based on an unmade bed.

Defeating Ugh Ideas

3 falenas108 25 March 2012 03:28AM

Related to: Ugh Fields

Ugh Fields are internal negative reactions that occur before the conscious mind has an opportunity to process the information, often resulting in less than optimal decision making.

We have previously discussed Ugh Fields that involve performing tasks, but as far as I can tell we haven't had any posts on Ugh Fields about ideas.  Ugh Fields towards ideas can be experienced both while trying to weigh the merits of an argument, or after one's opinion has altered.

On Less Wrong, many ideas are accepted as true that, in some places, have negative connotations.  And if someone has an Ugh Field towards an idea because of this, it can be difficult to change this to a neutral or positive position. This can cause problems while trying to think about these ideas rationally.

For example, I grew up in a heavily liberal household.  And because of this, when I was young I had a negative view on libertarianism. This caused problems, to the point where in my early teenage years I didn't weigh someone's economic views as highly just because they identified as a libertarian.  But, once I actually looked into the policies of libertarianism and the results of these policies, my views shifted.  And although my reaction improved over time, I still flinch away when I hear the word "libertarian," despite considering myself one!

And there are many other topics on Less Wrong someone could have this reaction for, including AI, FAI, atheism, transhumanism, cryonics, immortality, alternative diets, optimizing utility for charities, and metaphysics.  An Ugh Field towards any of these ideas can hinder one's ability to update properly on hearing information about it.

 

Some techniques I have used that have helped include:

  • Mentally correcting myself whenever I notice that I'm flinching away from an Ugh Field.
  • Actively think about why my view should change when I'm far (Which may be supplemented by reminders from an Anki deck).
  • Going through the arguments that convinced me that I should think differently in the first place.
  • Considering myself one of them, e.g. calling myself a libertarian rather than merely saying I support libertarian views.  Caution should be taken with this to prevent too much in-grouping.
  • Getting into a discussion with someone who holds the view I previously held (Essentially a combination of the last two).
  • Trying to imagine positive outcomes as a result of updating in the right direction, or the negative results of not updating.
  • Reading more about the position to normalize it in my brain.

Things I have not done, but might work:

  • Reciting the Litany of Tarski.
  • Writing down a list of ideas I have Ugh Fields, and reminding myself that these are problems (Could also use Anki).

Does anyone else have suggestions?

Comment author: falenas108 24 March 2012 05:39:25AM 0 points [-]

News: The idea that there is no grandparent cell seems to be challenged by this: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/full/nature11028.html

Comment author: JenniferRM 22 March 2012 04:55:14PM 0 points [-]

Just noticed this comment while looking in the archives... You might want to ponder information bubbles caused by website personalization because I suspect you are (or were when you wrote this comment?) inside of one. Something I've found generally useful in the past that seems like it would help is trying to imagine how you would discover "objectively important things to know about that you wouldn't have normally run across".

Comment author: falenas108 22 March 2012 05:38:06PM *  4 points [-]

Oh, this wasn't through a general Google search, just the site's search engine. I would be shocked if a search of "sexy" on the internet returned a Less Wrong result anywhere near the top.

Comment author: WrongBot 21 March 2012 09:26:09PM 11 points [-]

This is all great except for the contest part, which I might currently have moderate ethical objections to. In general I'm concerned by contests which are held as an alternative to just paying someone to do the work for you; I objected to the contest that SI used to select their new logo (which is great) for the same reasons.

Essentially what you're doing is asking some unknown number of people to work for highly unpredictable pay, which is mostly likely to be (assuming at least a half-dozen entries), no pay at all. This tactic makes lots of financial sense and I understand why it would appeal to a cash-strapped non-profit, but it seems to me that if you're going to ask someone to do work for your benefit, you should pay them for it. This is a slightly muddier ideal when it comes to non-profits because I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with asking people to volunteer their time. Perhaps it's the uncertainty that's bothering me; it's as though you're asking people to gamble with their time.

So perhaps it's ethically equivalent to a charity-sponsored raffle, which I don't object to. Is my reasoning wrong, or am I just inconsistent? I'm not sure.

Comment author: falenas108 21 March 2012 09:54:42PM 4 points [-]

As long as the process is clear and people know what they're getting into, I don't think there's an issue with this.

Comment author: Alexei 18 March 2012 01:32:36AM 1 point [-]

If you look at the top iOS games, there are many remakes of the same ideas, that nevertheless continue to be very profitable. This shows that the business part of those ideas is solid. I think tweaking those games slightly, going outside of the saturated themes (city/farm games), while adding core elements from other popular games is guaranteed to result in success.

Comment author: falenas108 18 March 2012 05:44:17AM -1 points [-]

But there are also a lot of games that are very similar to the top selling games, but never become famous precisely because they are too similar to previously existing games.

Comment author: falenas108 07 March 2012 01:06:07AM 1 point [-]

It seems like Evernote is what you want. It allows you to take notes and link pages, and it's free up to a fairly high amount of data storage.

Comment author: Airedale 27 February 2012 10:29:23PM 2 points [-]

Is 1:46 a typo?

Comment author: falenas108 28 February 2012 03:55:30AM -1 points [-]

Yeah, I forgot to set a time when I made this post.

Meetup : University of Chicago (Again)

2 falenas108 27 February 2012 07:46PM

Discussion article for the meetup : University of Chicago (Again)

WHEN: 03 March 2012 01:00:00PM (-1300)

WHERE: 1135 E. 57th Street Chicago, IL 60637

People were interested in having meetups more frequently, so we're experimenting with having another one this week.

To get there, walk into the building labeled Reynolds Club/Hutchinson Commons, then turn into the first room on the right.

Discussion article for the meetup : University of Chicago (Again)

Comment author: falenas108 23 February 2012 09:07:20PM *  8 points [-]

if provided with copy of the internet (This argument would make me unbox the AI, by the way, if it gets chatty and smart and asks me to let it out. I'd rather the AI that asked me to be let out get out, than someone else's AI that never even asked anyone and got out because it didn't ask)

Then an unfriendly AI would be able to see this and act chatty in order to convince you to let it out.

Meetup : At the University of Chicago

4 falenas108 17 February 2012 05:27PM

Discussion article for the meetup : Chicago Meetup at the University of Chicago

WHEN: 25 February 2012 01:00:00PM (-0600)

WHERE: 1135 E. 57th Street Chicago, IL 60637

It's been a while since the last meetup, so we're having another one!

It'll be at the University of Chicago, in Hutch Commons from 1-4 PM.

The building itself is known as Reynold's Club, and Hutch Commons is a dining area found at the first door on the right as you walk in.

Go to the Chicago list host for my contact info if you have trouble finding us, or just PM me. I'll try to get a center table and a LW sign.

Discussion article for the meetup : Chicago Meetup at the University of Chicago

In response to AI is not enough
Comment author: falenas108 07 February 2012 07:57:32PM 1 point [-]

Based on your comments, you are clearly an atheist, and therefore reject the argument of God existing because there has to be an uncaused cause.

Yet, your uncaused algorithm argument takes the exact same form. Isn't it the same counterargument?

Comment author: TimS 07 February 2012 03:52:54AM 1 point [-]

Another UChicago alum. FWIW, my experience as an undergrad was that there wasn't all that much social mixing between the undergrads and the graduate students. I'm sure it occurred some, but the difference in life stage between those two populations was sufficiently large that mixing did not occur naturally. My impression was the grad students were aloof from the undergrads, not that the undergrads were hostile to grad students (undergrad hostility would surprise me, since many undergrads at UChicago thought they would be graduate students some time in the future).

Most student groups I participated in were overwhelmingly undergrad, such that a graduate student would stand out. But I mostly participated in academic competition groups (Mock Trial, Parliamentary Debate) that wouldn't have allowed graduate students to participate in the actual competitions.

Comment author: falenas108 07 February 2012 01:51:12PM -1 points [-]

Yeah, the biggest interactions between grad and undergrad students occur in the various clubs on campus. I know about 6 grad students so far, all from clubs. If I hadn't participated in clubs, or just ones that are undergrad only, I wouldn't know any.

Comment author: Raemon 06 February 2012 10:27:48PM *  7 points [-]

I didn't post about it in the "What are you working on" thread, because... well... I was busy working on it :P

I'm working with a few other Less Wrong folks (from various meetups) to foster a larger, healthier, happier, more productive, more interconnected community of meet-space rationalists. At the Megameetup last weekend I tested some ideas about telepresence, and pitched some ideas to people from Cambrige and Washington DC.

While there are subtler things we're working on, there are four big tentpole events that I hope to rally people around:

1) Hold a Less Wrong meetup at the Reason Rally on March 24th (this was already underway, but a little more concrete now).

2) Hold a Summer Solstice festival (celebrating the natural beauty of the world, and getting us outside for some much needed fresh air and exercise).

3) Sometime in the fall (preferably on some kind of historically significant day), hold a celebration of technology. This holiday will not be repeated each year. Rather, it will be repeated once per cycle of Moore's Law's progress. (We'll be purchasing a cheap computer specifically for Moore Day, and run some complex, visually interesting task that we display on a large monitor. Approximately every 18 months, we'll upgrade it or get a new one and see how well it can perform the original task). This is the event that I was particularly interested in telepresence for. I'm hoping to get multiple communities participating simultaneously and at least briefly getting to wave to each other from across cyberspace. One thing I think most of Less Wrong can agree on, and get excited about, is how awesome technology can get in the future. (Even if we disagree on some particulars, or on ethical concerns).

4) We will be reprising the Winter Solstice, paying tribute to the harshness of the world, respecting the universe as a worthy opponent, and vowing to help create a better future.

What do I need from other people? Well, as much as people have to offer, really. I am confident than I can put something worthwhile together even if I'm doing it alone, but the more people contribute ideas, activities, organization, and grunt work during the execution, the better this will be. And the more people we get ultimately participating, the better the payoff.

If you have any kind of interest, whether in contributing skilled labor, a desire to influence the nature of the events, or a williness to carry boxes or prepare food, you can join the mailing list.

Comment author: falenas108 07 February 2012 03:52:11AM 0 points [-]

2) Hold a Summer Solstice festival (celebrating the natural beauty of the world, and getting us outside for some much needed fresh air and exercise).

Do you think it would be a good idea to combine this with a megameetup between the east coast groups, or do you think too much of the experience is doing this event with people you already know?

Comment author: falenas108 05 February 2012 05:29:04PM -1 points [-]

I think this is the sort of thing that we would want to work around people's schedules for. Maybe someone interested in organizing this could make a post with at when is good or doodle, and see when the highest number of people could show up.

Comment author: falenas108 05 February 2012 05:22:16PM *  4 points [-]

(Bias warning: I'm a student at UChicago.)

Over half of the student population at UChicago is atheist/agnostic, and from my experience as a first year undergrad people seem open to conversation about most things.

There are also a ton of student clubs for almost anything you want to do, and if you find enough interest in something you can get funding to start you own club. For example, there's a parkour club, a performing circus, a dragon dance team, a free hugs group, and many other random fun organizations.

Also, I personally plan on starting a LW meetup at UChicago sometime between now and the end of the school year, which will hopefully spawn regular meetings here. Sadly, my schedule prevents doing this for the next few weeks.

Comment author: Anubhav 28 January 2012 01:44:56PM *  12 points [-]

To start with.... I'd recommend raising every character's age by a few years. (I think this is a 'love-it-or-hate-it' idea, but I have no clue how prevalent either of these viewpoints are... How many people think that the first-years really act like eleven-year-olds? And I'm not just talking about Harry...)

And, consequently, Hogwarts now has only four years.

Also, I'm clueless about the math, but... I seem to remember reading in a discussion thread that 1000 students in Hogwarts implies a total wizarding population the size of a small town. So I'd cram in 4000 students into the 4 years of Hogwarts. (We're gonna need TAs now, but that doesn't change anything fundamental.) Unless... The population is still too small, in which case... I suppose you could keep the 1000 students and have other wizarding schools.

And I'd suggest compressing the first four chapters into one.

ETA: Also, partial transfiguration. Harry shouldn't get it right that quickly.

Comment author: falenas108 28 January 2012 03:32:23PM 14 points [-]

ETA: Also, partial transfiguration. Harry shouldn't get it right that quickly.

I think the point of that was partial transfiguration was a low hanging fruit that could be done fairly easily, but only if you had the right mindset. Other than having to hold timelessness in his head, it's not any harder than regular transfiguration.

Comment author: [deleted] 25 January 2012 09:36:02PM 6 points [-]

Also, can we change things to only show votes for our own posts? Vote being visible is too much priming that leads to too much hivemind.

Comment author: falenas108 25 January 2012 11:08:35PM 18 points [-]

Although it does cause some hiveminding, I like that the votes are visible to everyone. Many times I'm just skimming past comments, and if I see a +20 I know the person probably said something important, whereas otherwise I might have skipped over it.

Comment author: falenas108 24 January 2012 06:16:21AM -1 points [-]

Interesting that a post we use so frequently got so few comments on it.

Comment author: falenas108 19 January 2012 09:14:23PM *  -1 points [-]

In Case 2, it's guaranteed free money. I would pay 1 cent less than what I get for winning, which is clearly not what I would do in Case 1.

Comment author: [deleted] 12 January 2012 07:25:37PM 1 point [-]

None of us agreed to do so, and people may have been more hesitant had this been the plan.

I'll share mine, though they're not very interesting: 75% Obama wins the general election, 80% Yudkowsky doesn't finish MoR this year, 80% Burning Man tickets sell out by the end of June (95% by the end of July).

In response to comment by [deleted] on Ideas for rationalist meetup topics
Comment author: falenas108 14 January 2012 02:16:57AM -1 points [-]

80% Yudkowsky doesn't finish MoR this year

This seems far too low to me. It's already been a year and a half since the creation of the fic, and Harry hasn't even finished his first year. Furthermore, it's been 3 months since the last update of MoR.

In response to Designing Ritual
Comment author: falenas108 11 January 2012 02:25:58AM 0 points [-]

so that people naturally end up singing the write words even if they aren’t paying attention.

Was this intentional? If not, it's a very well placed typo.

Comment author: [deleted] 06 January 2012 10:47:06PM 14 points [-]

You're doing that thing where you write like Yudkowsky again. It's kind of hot.

In response to comment by [deleted] on What Curiosity Looks Like
Comment author: falenas108 07 January 2012 01:57:05AM 1 point [-]

I agree, when I first read this I was surprised to see comments with responses, as I felt that this was part of the sequences.

Comment author: _ozymandias 01 January 2012 06:38:19PM *  9 points [-]

Romney will be the Republican presidential nominee: 80%.

Obama will win reelection: 90%.with a non-Romney presidential nominee, 50% against Romney

The Occupy Wall Street protests will fade away over the next year so much that I no longer hear much about them, even in my little liberal hippie news bubble: 75%

There will be massive fanboy backlash against The Hobbit: 80%. Despite this, the Hobbit will be a pretty good movie (above 75% on Rotten Tomatoes): 70%

John Carter will be a pretty good movie (above 75% on Rotten Tomatoes). 85% Whether or not it is a good movie, I will love it. 95%

I will get my first death or rape threat this year: 80% My reaction to the death or rape threat will be elation that I've finally made it in feminist blogging: 95% Even if it isn't I will totally say it is in order to seem cooler: 99%

My comod and I will complete the NSWATM spinoff book this year: 75% It will be published as an ebook: 80% It will not make the transition to dead-tree-book this year: 90% It will make the transition to dead-tree-book eventually: 60%

I will break up with my girlfriend at some point over the next year: 60%.

I will acquire a new partner at some point over the next year: 90%.

Comment author: falenas108 02 January 2012 02:24:22AM 7 points [-]

I will break up with my girlfriend at some point over the next year: 60%.

I sincerely hope your girlfriend does not read this site, or at least doesn't know your username.

Comment author: undermind 31 December 2011 09:22:38PM *  1 point [-]

I think that worrying about being a cult (as distinct from worrying about being seen as a cult) is a pretty good indication that thus far, LessWrong is not a cult. Yes, Raemon's uze of ritual does push us slightly closer to cult territory, but not enough that I see any reasonable grounds for concern, given the benefits. Actual cults (more accurately, groups with a very high number of cult-indicators doing things that are demonstrably harmful) may worry about being seen as cults, but are probably protected by a bias shield or similar effect from seeing any problems with their own cultishness, and are certainly not likely to start an open discussion about it. This is very strong evidence that LessWrong is not a dangerous group of people propagating one ideology above all others and suppressing dissent.

In summary, I think this whole "cult/not cult" business is silly, and a disguised query for nothing. Yes, by developing rituals, LessWrong now has one more cult indicator, but does not have any particularly bad such indicators and as such is pretty okay.

Comment author: falenas108 01 January 2012 04:09:36PM -1 points [-]

Agreed. I wasn't saying that we are a cult, just that this makes us seem like more of a cult to outsiders.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 30 December 2011 04:19:11PM *  4 points [-]

SIAI doesn't have the funds to actually create FAI

Funds are not a relevant issue for this particular achievement at present time. It's not yet possible to create a FAI even given all the money in the world; a pharaoh can't build a modern computer. (Funds can help with moving the time when (and if) that becomes possible closer, improving the chances that it happens this side of an existential catastrophe.)

Comment author: falenas108 30 December 2011 04:32:13PM -1 points [-]

Yeah, I was assuming that they were able to create FAI for the sake of responding to the grandparent post. If they weren't, then there wouldn't be any trouble with SIAI making AI only friendly to themselves to begin with.

Comment author: falenas108 30 December 2011 03:15:38PM 3 points [-]

Another thing is that allowing this greatly hinders the "show me you're not a cult" argument to someone coming to this site. Yes, having these rituals don't actually make organizations more likely to be a cult, but most people coming to this site for the first time won't be thinking about that.

Comment author: EStokes 30 December 2011 02:05:40AM 3 points [-]

If they have all the threory and coded it and whatnot, where is the cost coming from?

Comment author: falenas108 30 December 2011 02:59:15PM -1 points [-]

The theory for friendliness is completely separate from the theory of AI. So, assuming they complete one does not mean that they complete the other. Furthermore, for something as big as AI/FAI, the computing power required is likely to be huge, which makes it unlikely that a small company like SIAI will be able to create it.

Though, I suppose it might be possible if they were able to get large enough loans, I don't have the technical knowledge to say how much computing power is needed or how much that would cost.

Comment author: MileyCyrus 30 December 2011 12:35:49AM 14 points [-]

If the SIAI engineers figure out how to construct friendly super-AI, why would they care about making it respect the values of anyone but themselves? What incentive do they have to program an AI that is friendly to humanity, and not just to themselves? What's stopping LukeProg from appointing himself king of the universe?

Comment author: falenas108 30 December 2011 01:39:26AM 0 points [-]

Right now, and for the foreseeable future, SIAI doesn't have the funds to actually create FAI. All they're doing is creating a theory for friendliness, which can be used when someone else has the technology to create AI. And of course, nobody else is going to use the code if it focuses on SIAI.

Comment author: falenas108 27 December 2011 06:19:27PM 6 points [-]

There's another massively important step: Check for alternative hypotheses. It's easy to think of explanations for observations, but usually they can have multiple meanings.

Comment author: falenas108 20 December 2011 10:41:30PM -1 points [-]

I'm U.S., 20850

Comment author: Manfred 10 December 2011 12:16:00PM 6 points [-]

I'd like to note that the evidence that "Our Kind Can't Get Much Done" (relative to everyone else) is very weak. So my step one for testing anything about this thing would be actually measuring it. And to avoid obvious subjectivity problems (different groups having different standards for procrastination), and demographic problems (different groups having different opportunities to procrastinate), I'd suggest finding some task that's pretty much independent of demographic and asking objective questions about procrastination on that.

Ideas: Paying bills, or renewing a driver's license, or doing your laundry, getting a broken alarm clock / toaster / headphones replaced, turning off lights when you leave the room, taking out the trash.

Comment author: falenas108 10 December 2011 04:08:11PM *  -1 points [-]

Retracted.

Comment author: erratio 05 December 2011 02:11:03PM 7 points [-]

Enjoyable shivers down the back of the spine

First I heard that it might not be universal was someone's comment here a few days ago. Not sure if it's a mental or physical difference though.

Comment author: falenas108 05 December 2011 09:51:03PM -1 points [-]

Huh, interesting. I have this and knew that most people didn't, but never knew anything about it.

For me, it's usually triggered by either intense emotional or intelectual stimula, or a sudden relaxation or alteration of body position (e.g. going from hunched over to sitting up straight).

Comment author: [deleted] 05 December 2011 04:44:03AM -1 points [-]

Over-Population Discussion Thread

In response to comment by [deleted] on On "Friendly" Immortality
Comment author: falenas108 05 December 2011 04:59:16AM 1 point [-]

One thing that should probably be noted is that doubling life span wouldn't necessarily double the number of years a woman is fertile.

Comment author: steven0461 04 December 2011 08:59:15PM 8 points [-]

There was a poll about firstborns.

Comment author: falenas108 04 December 2011 09:37:54PM 1 point [-]

That poll shows a remarkable result, the number of people that are the oldest sibling outnumber those who have older siblings 2:1.

There are also twice as many only children in that survey as in the U.S. population in 1980, but that is a known effect.

Comment author: orthonormal 03 December 2011 09:33:49PM 1 point [-]

One of the things I like best about LW is that it's the closest the Internet gets to U of C dining hall conversation, which I've missed ever since graduating.

Also, do Scav Hunt. You won't be disappointed.

Comment author: falenas108 03 December 2011 11:24:19PM *  -1 points [-]

Yeah, I'm definitely doing Scav.

Unfortunately, I was placed in a house where less intelligent conversation takes place, but I've found some other people I can sit with who are pretty good with that.

Comment author: [deleted] 01 December 2011 09:04:12PM 1 point [-]

Wow, those are pretty impressive! I can understand them taking a lot of time, but I would have expected plastic lanyard to be rather cheap. That's one of the things I love about both tiny embroidery and tablet weaving: A small monetary investment can get you enough material to work with a looong time! Is it expensive because you can work through a large amount of lanyard fairly quickly?

I've only ever seen diplomacy mentioned here on LW. What sort of game is it?

In response to comment by [deleted] on More "Personal" Introductions
Comment author: falenas108 01 December 2011 09:16:04PM -1 points [-]

Diplomacy can best be described as Risk with minimal luck, so the biggest part is negotiating with other players.

Hm. You're right about the cost, it would be pretty cheap. Probably less than $15 counting the cost to buy each color. You seem to be familiar with this sort of thing, what did you do?

Comment author: [deleted] 01 December 2011 07:29:57PM *  0 points [-]

Thanks for writing! I do circus-y stuff too! What other sorts of hobbies do you have?

In response to comment by [deleted] on More "Personal" Introductions
Comment author: falenas108 01 December 2011 07:56:20PM 0 points [-]

One thing I do is make gimp/lanyard (http://boondoggleman.com/idea_yonatan.htm for an example of something that I have the ability to do, but won't because of the time/money involved in doing a project like that.)

I also love playing diplomacy, but haven't been able to for a few months due to the time input needed.

Comment author: falenas108 01 December 2011 04:28:07PM *  0 points [-]

Edit: Disregard, I should stop writing comments right after I wake up.

Comment author: [deleted] 01 December 2011 06:24:35AM 3 points [-]

Personal Introductions

Feel like going ahead and giving a personal intro? Please put it as a thread to this comment!

In response to comment by [deleted] on More "Personal" Introductions
Comment author: falenas108 01 December 2011 04:22:29PM *  8 points [-]

I'm 19 years old at the University of Chicago, originally from Maryland. I'm a biochemistry major and physics minor, and have almost no idea which area of these field to go into. My only expressed goals for work are to do research somewhere and to have my work improve the overall quality of life by some amount.

I was raised in a Jewish household, but slowly turned atheist between the ages of 14 and 16. My parents were rarely around due to work, and they took little interest in my schoolwork, assuming I could handle it. As an only child, I was essentially raised by the internet. Honestly, I'm shocked I turned out as well as I did. I have little trouble with akrasia, as I use the method of procrastinating work with different work.

I'm called a morning person, but that's just because I always get almost exactly 7 hours of sleep every night. So, if I stay up until 2, I'll be awake by 9. Unless I get bored by a teacher's lecture, this method ensures that I'm almost never tired during the day but still able to fall asleep easily in the evening.

At the beginning of the year, I joined my school's circus club, which was surprisingly fun and fairly easy to pick up. I previously did glowstringing (poi) which is what got me into circus, but now I do various acrobatics, some stilt work, and a bit of juggling.

Additionally, I recently got a research position modeling protein folding that requires the use of unix and python. I'm pretty happy about this, as this will force me to actually learn a programming language, a mid-priority goal of mine for a while now.

Comment author: Spurlock 28 November 2011 03:54:51PM *  6 points [-]

It seems to be a prediction of this idea that the metaphors you listed should be found even in extremely disconnected cultural settings: find a jungle tribe uncontaminated by western civilization, and you should expect their word for "destination" to also mean "goal", and so forth. Is this the case?

Which brings me to my next point... where's my mountain of footnotes/citations???

Comment author: falenas108 28 November 2011 04:23:48PM 3 points [-]

I believe all quotes were from the book at the beginning, but it still doesn't feel like a lukeprog post without at least a page of citations at the end.

Comment author: Oligopsony 28 November 2011 01:05:30AM *  2 points [-]

That just takes me to a list of studies I've taken and that it suggests I take. There's a short paragraph on how to form a group myself, but nothing on how to join one.

Re-reading the blog post, it seems that there's a separate link required for those who were already registered. Is that correct, and do you have it?

Comment author: falenas108 28 November 2011 01:31:38AM *  0 points [-]

Yeah, when I joined through the link I automatically joined the LW group.

Comment author: Oligopsony 27 November 2011 11:55:45PM *  2 points [-]

Your second link just goes to the Your Morals frontpage, even when I'm logged in.

EDIT: If you're already a member, http://www.yourmorals.org/setgraphgroup.php?grp=623d5410f705f6a1f92c83565a3cfffc should work. (I had to register a new account to see this, however.)

Comment author: falenas108 28 November 2011 12:50:12AM *  0 points [-]

Click the "Explore your morality" link towards the bottom of the linked page.

In response to Great Explanations
Comment author: lukeprog 14 November 2011 01:47:44AM 2 points [-]

Does anyone know of a great explanation of the very early universe, preferably from the past 5 years?

Comment author: falenas108 26 November 2011 06:23:58PM -1 points [-]

It's not detailed, but the 12th edition of University Physics, written in 2007, has a decent introduction to it.

Comment author: falenas108 25 November 2011 09:54:31PM *  -1 points [-]

This seems to indicate a utility function of something like:

(caring factor)*(friend happiness)+(happiness bonus)-(personal unhappiness).

Most of the time, the caring factor is so small that the happiness bonus dominates over, but when a friend asks a large favor that helps this person gain a large amount of utility, the caring factor overrides the personal utility lost.

Comment author: [deleted] 22 November 2011 11:16:47PM *  11 points [-]

Crocker’s rules declared, because I expect this may agitate some people:

(1) the claim that intelligence explosion is plausible, (2) the claim that intelligence explosion is likely to occur within the next 150 years, and (3) the claim that intelligence explosion would have a massive impact on civilization.

I accept (1) and (3). Where I depart somewhat from the LW consensus is in the belief that anyone is going to accept the idea that the singularity (in its intelligence explosion form) should go ahead, without some important intervening stages that are likely to last for longer than 150 years.

CEV is a bad idea. I am sympathetic towards the mindset of the people who advocate it, but even I would be in the pitchfork-wielding gang if it looked like someone was actually going to implement it. Try to imagine that this was actually going to happen next year, rather than being a fun thing discussed on an internet forum – beware far mode bias. To quote Robin Hanson in a recent OB post:

Immersing ourselves in images of things large in space, time, and social distance puts us into a “transcendant” far mode where positive feelings are strong, our basic ideals are more visible than practical constraints, and where analysis takes a back seat to metaphor.

I don’t trust fallible human programmers to implement soundly “knowing more”, “thinking faster” and “growing up together”, and deal with the problems of “muddle”, “spread” and “distance”. The idea of a “last judge” as a safety measure seems like a sticking plaster on a gaping wound. Neither do I accept that including all of humanity is anything other than misplaced idealism. Some people seem to think that even a faulty CEV initial dynamic magically corrects itself into a good one; that might happen, but not with nearly a high enough probability.

Another problem that has been scarcely discussed: what happens if, as Eliezer’s CEV document suggests might happen, the thing shuts itself down or the last judge decides it isn’t safe? And the second time we try it, too?

But the problem remains that a superintelligence needs a full set of human values in order for it to be safe. I don’t see any other tenable proposals for implementing this apart from CEV, therefore I conclude that building a recursively improving superintelligence is basically just unsafe, given present human competence levels. Given that fact, to conclude that because we are likely to obtain the means to bring about a (positive or negative) singularity at some point we cannot prevent it from happening indefinitely is like saying that because we possess nuclear technology we can’t prevent a nuclear extinction event from happening indefinitely. If FAI is an “impossible” challenge and NAI (No AI) is merely very difficult, there is something to recommend NAI.

That doesn’t mean to say that I disprove of what Eliezer et al are doing. The singularity is definitely an extremely important thing to be discussing. I just think that the end product is likely to be widespread recognition of the peril of playing around with AI, and this (along with appropriately severe action taken to reduce the peril) is just as much a solution to Yudkowsky’s fear that a bunch of above-average AI scientists can “learn from each other’s partial successes and accumulate hacks as a community” as is trying to beat them to the punch by rushing to create a positive singularity.

Although this is unfair there is probably some truth to the idea that people who devote their lives to studying AI and the intelligence explosion are likely to be biased towards solutions to the problem in which their work achieves something really positive, rather than merely acting as a warning. That is not to pre-judge the issue, but merely to recommend that a little more skepticism than normal is due.

On the other hand there is another tenable approach to the singularity that is less widely recognised here. Wei Dai’s posts here and here seem very sensible to me; he suggests that intelligence enhancement should have priority over FAI research:

Given that there are known ways to significantly increase the number of geniuses (i.e., von Neumann level, or IQ 180 and greater), by cloning or embryo selection, an obvious alternative Singularity strategy is to invest directly or indirectly in these technologies, and to try to mitigate existential risks (for example by attempting to delay all significant AI efforts) until they mature and bear fruit (in the form of adult genius-level FAI researchers). [...]

The chances of success seem higher, and if disaster does occur as a result of the intelligence amplification effort, we're more likely to be left with a future that is at least partly influenced by human values.

He quotes Eliezer as having said this (from pages 31-35 here):

If AI is naturally far more difficult than intelligence enhancement, no harm done; if building a 747 is naturally easier than inflating a bird, then the wait could be fatal. There is a relatively small region of possibility within which deliberately not working on Friendly AI could possibly help, and a large region within which it would be either irrelevant or harmful.

Wei Dai points out that it is worth distinguishing the ease of creating uFAI in comparison to FAI, rather than lumping these together as “AI”.

I also think that the difference in outcomes between “deliberately not working on Friendly AI” and “treating unsupervised AI work as a terrible crime” are worth distinguishing.

Even if human intelligence enhancement is possible, there are real, difficult safety considerations; I would have to seriously ask whether we wanted Friendly AI to precede intelligence enhancement, rather than vice versa.

This depends on the probability one assigns to CEV working. My probability that it would work given present human competence levels is low, and my probability that anyone would actually let it happen is very low.

The benefit of intelligence enhancement is that changes can be as unhurried and incremental as one likes (assuming that the risk of someone building uFAI is not considered to be imminent, due to stringent security measures); CEV is more a leap of faith.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Criticisms of intelligence explosion
Comment author: falenas108 22 November 2011 11:40:41PM *  0 points [-]

Given that fact, to conclude that because we are likely to obtain the means to bring about a (positive or negative) singularity at some point we cannot prevent it from happening indefinitely is like saying that because we possess nuclear technology we can’t prevent a nuclear extinction event from happening indefinitely.

The problem is that for a nuclear explosion to take place, the higher ups of some country have to approve it.

For AGI, all that has to occur is code is leaked or hacked, then preventing the AGI from being implemented somewhere is an impossible task. And right now, no major online institution in the entire world is safe from being hacked.

Comment author: [deleted] 18 November 2011 03:27:09PM 0 points [-]

Are you allowed to make bets with Karma upvotes? For instance, is it reasonable to propose "You upvote me once right now. If they confirm that Neutrino's are traveling faster then the speed of light, You remove the upvote you gave me and I will upvote you 89 times."

On the one hand, that sounds like an abuse of the karma system. But on the other hand, it also sounds somehow more fun/appropriate than a money bet, and I feel if you manage to sucessfully predict FTL this far out you deserve 89 upvotes anyway.

Can other people weigh in on whether this is a good/bad idea?

Comment author: falenas108 18 November 2011 03:32:36PM 6 points [-]

This definitely sounds like an abuse of the karma system. With this, people could reach high karma levels just by betting, as even if they're wrong there's no downside to this bet.

Comment author: [deleted] 17 November 2011 01:01:09AM *  5 points [-]

I think I might actually buy a shirt that said that.

You really think so? Fortunately, we can test that belief experimentally.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Less Wrong/Rationality Symbol or Seal?
Comment author: falenas108 17 November 2011 02:28:19AM 4 points [-]

Belief tested, willingness to buy confirmed.

Comment author: [deleted] 16 November 2011 07:42:37PM 15 points [-]

"I'm wearing this t-shirt for the signalling."

In response to comment by [deleted] on Less Wrong/Rationality Symbol or Seal?
Comment author: falenas108 17 November 2011 12:35:09AM 0 points [-]

I think I might actually buy a shirt that said that.

Comment author: DanielLC 13 November 2011 11:58:32PM 2 points [-]

one person showed up to class with a horribly copied manga drawing that they said had taken them 12 hours

It took them about 8 hours of dedicated practice.

So, shouldn't that guy have stopped sucking about two thirds of the way through his picture?

Comment author: falenas108 14 November 2011 12:11:30AM 2 points [-]

Pretty sure the drawing was from before the workshop.

Comment author: falenas108 13 November 2011 04:02:57PM *  2 points [-]

This seems to be mostly speculation about a possible way the brain could be divided, with little evidence to support it. Are there studies that affirm these claims in the original book, or is it all just conjecture?

Comment author: moridinamael 11 November 2011 05:36:30PM 5 points [-]

I think that the Torture versus Dust Specks "paradox" was invented to show how utilitarianism (or whatever we're calling it) can lead to on-face preposterous conclusions whenever the utility numbers get big enough. And I think that the intent was for everybody to accept this, and shut up and calculate.

However, for me, and I suspect some others, Torture versus Dust Specks and also Pascal's Mugging have implied something rather different: that utilitarianism (or whatever we're calling it) doesn't work correctly when the numbers get too big.

The idea that multiplying suffering by the number of sufferers yields a correct and valid total-suffering value is not fundamental truth, it is just a naive extrapolation of our intuitions that should help guide our decisions.

Let's consider a Modified Torture versus Specks scenario: You are given the same choice as in the canonical problem, except you are also given the opportunity to collect polling data from every single one of the 3^^^3 individuals before you make your decision. You formulate the following queries:

"Would you rather experience the mild distraction of a dust speck in your eye, or allow someone else to be tortured for fifty years?"

"Would you rather be tortured for fifty years, or have someone else experience the mild discomfort of a dust speck in their eye?"

You do not mention, in either query, that you are being faced by the Torture versus Specks dilemma. You are only allowing the 3^^^3 to consider themselves and one hypothetical other.

You get the polling results back instantly. (Let's make things simple and assume we live in a universe without clinical psychopathy.) The vast majority of respondents have chosen the "obviously correct" option.

Now you have to make your decisions knowing that the entire universe totally wouldn't mind having dust specks in exchange for preventing suffering for one other person. If that doesn't change your decision ... something is wrong. I'm not saying something is wrong with the decision so much as something is wrong with your decision theory.

Comment author: falenas108 11 November 2011 07:41:23PM 2 points [-]

I don't think this works. Change it to:

"Would you rather be tortured for a week, or have someone else be tortured for 100 years?"

"Would you rather be tortured for 100 years, or have someone else be tortured for a week?"

The popular opinion would most likely be one week in both cases, which by this logic would lead to 3^^^3 people being tortured for a week. Utilitarianism definitely does not lead to this conclusion, so the query is not equivalent to the original question.

Comment author: falenas108 11 November 2011 02:34:56AM *  7 points [-]

I would also surmise that most the people who desire the current two-gender system to persist are men (and therefore used to being the dominant gender, and therefore not personally feeling a reason to change it).

Although this may be true, I would be very surprised if more than 5% of the population would want to eliminate the two-gender system. If you were trying to campaign for a single gender, you'll have to focus on appealing to both genders.

As for the one-gender society question, current social values indicate it will be a century or two before this idea could seriously enter the mainstream views of the world.

For the foreseeable future, I predict the slow decrease of gender roles in society.

Comment author: falenas108 10 November 2011 06:49:38PM 2 points [-]

There's an issue I've been having with PredictionBook with the amount of "personal" predictions, like if a person will finish a task by a certain time. Could there be a separate category for this type of prediction?

Comment author: XiXiDu 10 November 2011 02:58:24PM 2 points [-]

Similarly, if an AI thinks it could accomplish a task better if it had more resources, and decided that taking over the world was the best way to have access to those resources, then it would do so.

Accomplish a task better? The best way to access those resources? How does it decide what is better or best if you don't tell it what it should do? What you want the AI to do could as well be to produce paperclips as slowly as possible and let them be consumed by humans. What would be better and best in this context and why would the AI decide that it means to take over the universe to figure that out? Why would it care to refine its goals, why would it care about efficiency or speed when those characteristics might or might not be part of its goals?

An artificial agent doesn't have drives of any sort, it wouldn't mind to be destroyed if you forgot to tell it what it means not to be destroyed and that it should care about it.

In response to comment by XiXiDu on No Basic AI Drives
Comment author: falenas108 10 November 2011 06:42:05PM 0 points [-]

Why would it care about efficiency or speed when those characteristics might or might not be part of its goals?

Well, I would assume that if someone designed an AI with goals, a preference for those goals being accomplished faster would also be included. And for the difficult problems that we would build an AI to solve, there is a non-negligible probability that the AI will decide that it could solve a problem faster with more resources.

In response to No Basic AI Drives
Comment author: falenas108 10 November 2011 01:51:51PM 0 points [-]

The recursive improvement still could occur on its own. If an AI thought that the optimal path to accomplishing a goal was to have a greater level of intelligence, which seems like it would be a fairly common situation, then the AI would start improving itself.

Similarly, if an AI thinks it could accomplish a task better if it had more resources, and decided that taking over the world was the best way to have access to those resources, then it would do so.

Comment author: falenas108 08 November 2011 06:45:00PM 0 points [-]

(0, .6, .8, .8)

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 07 November 2011 01:20:04AM 1 point [-]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think translating the Sequences needs to be done by a single person or group, though consistency would be good.

Decent translations of single articles would be better than nothing.

Comment author: falenas108 07 November 2011 02:01:11AM *  2 points [-]

Consistency would probably be pretty important for the Sequences. Eliezer frequently reuses phrases to reference previous ideas without having to explain any further. (Ex: phrases like cashed thoughts, leaky generalizations, how an algorithm feels from the inside.)

If people used different translations for these phrases, it would be much harder to read. Having those phrases repeated over and over acted as an extremely convenient way to express complex ideas.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2011 11:39:25PM *  4 points [-]

Sounds awesome, where did you first hear of this?

The current phase of the contest will end December 18th at 11:59pm EST. At that time submissions will be closed. Shortly thereafter the final tournament will be started. The length of the final tournament has not yet been determined but is expected to last less than one week. Upon completion the contest winner will be announced and all results will be publically available.

Anyone interested in starting a team for this?

In response to comment by [deleted] on Open thread, November 2011
Comment author: falenas108 03 November 2011 04:41:49AM *  2 points [-]

It seems like there's a decent amount of interest. This should probably be made into a post of its own, and hopefully a promoted one, if we want an official LessWrong team. A lot of people don't check back on the open thread who would probably be interested in joining.

Comment author: FiftyTwo 02 November 2011 10:27:34AM *  1 point [-]

Cracked (humour website) on logical fallacies and cognitive biases.

Subheadings:

Most of which should be familiar but good example of presenting these ideas in a readable style. Might be a useful resource to point people to who would be put off by the style here.

Comment author: falenas108 02 November 2011 01:49:53PM *  0 points [-]

This actually got its own post a few days ago.

Comment author: BenLowell 02 November 2011 06:53:57AM *  2 points [-]

Luke also has the advantage of that this is his job.

It is not uncommon for research articles to have 50+ references, and review articles often have over 300 references.

Edit: Luke's articles do have way more than the usual number of references. This article has approximately 120 sentences, with 37 notes and about 150 references, which doesn't make sense the way that I am familiar with. I am used to references referring to cited sources, and am not sure how Luke is using it. If it is a list of works consulted that makes sense.

Comment author: falenas108 02 November 2011 01:42:52PM 0 points [-]

Well, a huge part of it is the section with the bullet poins where literally every sentence needed a citation to back it up.

Comment author: Manfred 26 October 2011 09:58:43PM 7 points [-]

Hm. If conformists cooperated more, could one explain that situation using the same framework?

Comment author: falenas108 26 October 2011 10:05:19PM *  5 points [-]

Conformists label themselves as going with the group, so they act in a way to fit the label. Nonconformists would do the opposite.

If I hadn't seen this post and I was presented with these two ideas, I would chose this explanation as more likely.

Comment author: falenas108 26 October 2011 06:14:29PM -1 points [-]

Even the discussion of such risks could bring terrorist's attention to areas they may not have otherwise looked at, even if there aren't specific details.

Comment author: [deleted] 21 October 2011 03:35:24PM *  6 points [-]

I'm going to give a presentation today about cryonics

raises hand curiously

Can you share some information about this?

In response to comment by [deleted] on [LINK] SMBC on cryonics
Comment author: falenas108 21 October 2011 03:47:14PM *  8 points [-]

It's not at all a "serious" presentation, I had to chose a topic to present to my (college level spanish) class about controversial technology.

Me and my partner only have 5 minutes each, and I'm talking how cryonics would theoretically work. I'm actually not even getting into nanotechnology in my presentation, as the inferential distance is far too large. I'm mostly going go over how neurons can be vitrified, this would just be a quick intro to some of the more advanced technology.

Comment author: falenas108 21 October 2011 03:30:07PM 3 points [-]

This is great for me. I'm going to give a presentation today about cryonics, and this would be a good supplement for that.

Comment author: satt 20 October 2011 11:16:36PM 0 points [-]

I thought the same thing.

It also occurred to me that (although it's unlikely) we might discover a neural signature distinguishing spurious memories from accurate ones. Or some less powerful but still useful signature, such as one that distinguishes memories that have been accessed after creation (and so potentially overwritten) from memories that have never been accessed (which are presumably more reliable).

Comment author: falenas108 21 October 2011 01:52:57AM 0 points [-]

There is weak evidence that the memories you make during the day are reviewed during REM sleep, which would mean every memory is gone over at least once.

Comment author: falenas108 19 October 2011 03:04:01AM *  -1 points [-]

Regardless of whether you think Occupy Wall Street is "right," we should still be able to have a rational discussion about the outcomes, and there's one outcome in particular that's been worrying me.

The worst possible outcome, in my opinion, would be if Occupy Wall Street gains enough momentum to become a major political power in the U.S., but not enough to decisively win.

Regardless of what happens Occupy Wall Street will almost definitely polarize the left further from the center, as they have been recently.

If politics is a game of prisoner's dilema, then the Republicans through the Tea Party have been defecting for the past few years, with no sign of being willing to change to cooperate. Meanwhile, the Democrats have been repeatedly cooperating. If this were a normal prisoner's dilemma game, then the Democrats should switch to defecting as well.

But, in government there is a third term, ability to operate. Assuming there isn't a clear majority in all sections of government:

If both parties cooperate, operation is the highest. If one defects and one cooperates, it's lower, but still there. If both parties decide to defect, the government loses almost all effectiveness. And my fear is that Occupy Wall Street will lead to this outcome.

Comment author: prase 14 October 2011 02:36:47PM 7 points [-]

It's basically a case of which is better, 7 billion people living decently, or 70 billion people living miserably.

False dilemma. What about 7 billion living decently except their procreation is regulated? You pose it as for the role of population stabiliser the only alternative to death from old age is death from starvation.

Comment author: falenas108 14 October 2011 04:21:25PM *  -1 points [-]

What would the causes of death be? Accidents and war are the main things I can think of, assuming diseases are completely cured. Would people only be able to have a child if somebody else dies? (Not that it's necessarily a bad thing; I'm trying to understand how controlled procreation would work.)

Comment author: [deleted] 14 October 2011 10:47:25AM *  18 points [-]

The overpopulation argument doesn't make sense at all. Imagine a hypothetical world in which aging has been conquered, there are no terminal diseases, and life is safer and more peaceful than it is in our world. Eventually, this world's population would get too high, and the populace would have to decide what to do: Should the government impose a one-child rule? Should some of the population be shipped out into the cosmos? Should we let the price of food rise until the market resolves the issue? One thing is clear: the option "let's kill everyone over 80" would not even be on the table, because it's so barbaric that no one would give it much consideration. Furthermore, the policy doesn't even solve the population problem—the growth rate would still be roughly exponential, and the population at a given generation would only be decreased by a constant factor.

The point is this: if we had never heard of death, we would not take it on as a way of stabilizing the population.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Life is Good, More Life is Better
Comment author: falenas108 14 October 2011 12:57:11PM *  -2 points [-]

The argument is more like this: would the world be a better place if we didn't stop death and everyone is reasonably happy, or if everyone is still alive, but on the brink of starvation because we don't have enough food or other resources.

It's basically a case of which is better, 7 billion people living decently, or 70 billion people living miserably.

Of course, this is all assuming we don't find new solutions to these problems with the extra manpower.

Comment author: falenas108 10 October 2011 06:13:29PM 0 points [-]

(.3, .7, .6, .4)

Comment author: falenas108 09 October 2011 03:16:50PM *  2 points [-]

The content is good for a top level post. The only thing you might want to change is the grammar/spacing issues (Using « instead of quotes, putting spaces between several punctuation marks, the sentence "Well, that one isn't any new, I'm using since like a decade" in the second paragraph, and a few other minor things.)

Edit for clarification: don't put the spacings between the punctuation marks that are there now.

Comment author: falenas108 05 October 2011 06:18:58PM -1 points [-]

We would not prescribe the same punishment for him as we would a perfectly healthy individual.

The purpose of the justice system is not to punish criminals, it's to protect society. This is usually done through negative incentives, i.e. punishment. If removing the tumor also removes the man's desire to kill for the fun of it, then there is no reason to punish him.

Comment author: falenas108 05 October 2011 03:34:23AM 2 points [-]

The hyperlink to the article has the date instead of the article name.

Comment author: falenas108 05 October 2011 03:32:46AM 13 points [-]

The nocebo effect is evidence against this hypothesis.

Comment author: DSimon 03 October 2011 02:30:45AM *  4 points [-]

Who would teach them? The more severe racists from periods even further back?

Comment author: falenas108 03 October 2011 04:09:42AM 5 points [-]

I think the assumption is that divine beings would be there.

Comment author: MinibearRex 14 September 2011 04:14:32AM 1 point [-]

In this case, I'm going to recommend a break from common practice, and propose that we place our book recommendations on the actual post, so as to keep it consolidated.

Comment author: falenas108 14 September 2011 11:53:09AM 0 points [-]

I believe there's one here, and there might be a few elsewhere.

Comment author: falenas108 10 September 2011 03:24:56PM 1 point [-]

My coworker had this problem in my lab where she was trying to say which of related measures changed the most, and refused to listen when I said she couldn't support that claim statistically.

Incidentally, she had no formal training in statistics (or it was so long ago that she didn't remember the connection between standard deviation and variance).

Comment author: falenas108 09 September 2011 04:20:33PM -1 points [-]

Have you looked at Eliezer's intuitive explanation? I think a verbalized version of that might be effective.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 September 2011 08:38:14AM 2 points [-]

I have not spent much time on this site, so I may have an incorrect understanding of rationality. However, I see rationality more as a vehicle for pursuing and understanding truth. The first argument is to convince people to value truth, and then the next step would be to present rationality as a different method of thinking which would be better able to pursue truth. Convincing someone to value truth is its own battle, especially to folks who have the postmodern belief that their own perception is valuable simply because they perceive it. Simply, if someone does value truth, introducing rationality should follow easily. If someone does not value truth, then they will not accept rationality.

Comment author: falenas108 08 September 2011 01:12:32PM -1 points [-]

You may want to read http://lesswrong.com/lw/go/why_truth_and/ for an understanding of what this site thinks about that.

Comment author: Logos01 06 September 2011 02:21:22AM 5 points [-]

This article is a journalistic synopsis of a scientific paper but does not link to said paper. Nothing unusual there but it does limit the ability to discuss it intelligibly; the further you are from the empirical evidence the greater the potential distortion of the signal.

That being said; I would be interested to see if this was more directed specifically at creativity or merely at uncertainty. If it's simply how to digest new information, well... not even the standard Bayesian theorem states you should be entirely without bias; new information that contradicts old needs to account for the old in the new assessment of probabilities. That's biasing, definitionally.

Typically I handle the concept of uncertainty in a number of ways; one, by a learned apathy -- I seem innately to be more comfortable with uncertainty than others. Two; when I knowingly introduce uncertainty I do so by estimating the 'marginal value' of the act and at what threshold a minimum allocation of time/resources to a thing would likely result in positive gain. I then compartmentalize off an amount relevant to that threshold but no further. (Risk mitigation.)

I don't know that this is useful to others, however.

Comment author: falenas108 06 September 2011 03:03:29AM 4 points [-]
In response to comment by [deleted] on Polyhacking
Comment author: FiftyTwo 26 August 2011 10:35:53PM *  19 points [-]

Still, if we ever need a counter example to the idea of rationalists as emotionless robots we can wheel them out.

[Edit, Clarification: meant that affectionately/positively, but seem to have got downvotes so that may not have come across, sorry.]

In response to comment by FiftyTwo on Polyhacking
Comment author: falenas108 27 August 2011 07:17:19PM 14 points [-]

I have the feeling that this may not be the best post to show people who are predisposed to dislike rationality.

Comment author: anonym 27 August 2011 02:38:13PM 5 points [-]

You can 'save' an article by clicking the disk icon above the 'Tags' section below an article.

There's no link anywhere to see articles that you've previously saved, but you can manually go to the following URL to see them: http://lesswrong.com/saved/

It seems like an oversight on the part of the developers that the 'saved' functionality they got for free from the reddit codebase still works correctly, and the saved pages are accessible, but there's nothing in the UI that indicates how to access the page of previously saved articles.

Comment author: falenas108 27 August 2011 07:05:41PM -1 points [-]

Ah, thanks.

In response to Rational Home Buying
Comment author: falenas108 27 August 2011 01:19:50PM 0 points [-]

This seems like it would be very useful, I'm going to bookmark this.

Side note: Could a feature be added to allow people to favorite articles for easy access?

In response to Rational Home Buying
Comment author: NancyLebovitz 27 August 2011 10:04:09AM 8 points [-]

Possibly commutes are surprisingly wearing because, in addition to the obvious (time taken, polluted air), if I'm a fair sample, the shortest route to anger is a belief that things can and should be different. There you are, in a car on a road, and if there weren't so many people on it, you could just go. If my theory is correct, then commuting in traffic is significantly worse than commuting without much traffic. On the other hand, driving in traffic is more work even without an anger factor. I'm not sure how you'd distinguish the two.

Comment author: falenas108 27 August 2011 01:14:15PM 0 points [-]

Maybe driving on a highway with enough traffic so the cars go 30 mph vs an empty road of speed limit 30 mph? (Or speed limit 20 so people actually go 30).

Comment author: steven0461 22 August 2011 10:35:25PM 5 points [-]

A working karma system, where low-quality contributions get downvoted, would mitigate this. Maybe the concern is that a large influx of people would degrade the quality of voting, but there are ways around that. Not letting new users vote for a while would work, but it would be pretty heavy-handed. Maybe there's a non-heavy-handed solution that also works.

Comment author: falenas108 22 August 2011 11:01:22PM -1 points [-]

It could just be an extension of the not being able to make posts until you get 5 upvotes idea.

Comment author: falenas108 22 August 2011 06:35:08PM 12 points [-]

If we want Less Wrong to achieve its goals of increasing the sanity waterline or attract minds to AI, we will need more publicity.

But at the same time, we don't want to lessen the average quality of posts. Putting Less Wrong in a standard newspaper would definitely do that. If we were to do publicity, we should probably do so in a place where there is already some self-selection for intelligence/rationality. Wired would probably a good magazine for this.

Comment author: jsalvatier 17 August 2011 05:13:13PM 0 points [-]

TinyChat is a fairly good chat webapp with video,voice and text chat.

Comment author: falenas108 17 August 2011 07:56:10PM -1 points [-]

TinyChat is decent, but I've been having a lot of issues with it. If you all have a Google+ account, hangouts would be better.

Comment author: Arandur 17 August 2011 01:07:07AM 2 points [-]

I can confirm that hypothesis; I'm still at zero, even though the grandfather to this post has received 4 points, given after I lost all my karma. Actually, this is a bit of an annoyance; I have no way to gauge how far I have to go to get into the positives...

Comment author: falenas108 17 August 2011 01:04:35PM -1 points [-]

As long as you didn't delete any other comments/posts, you can figure out what your karma is by adding up everything else.

Comment author: Patrick 14 August 2011 12:59:02PM 1 point [-]

Three more words then, reductio ad absurdum.

Comment author: falenas108 14 August 2011 02:24:47PM -1 points [-]

Ok, fair.

Comment author: Patrick 14 August 2011 11:50:33AM 4 points [-]

"Bayesian Bob: ... I meant that in a vacuum we should believe it with 50% certainty..."

No we shouldn't: http://lesswrong.com/lw/jp/occams_razor/

As for proving a negative, I've got two words: Modus Tollens.

Bob does need to go back to math class! ;)

Comment author: falenas108 14 August 2011 12:54:02PM *  0 points [-]

As for proving a negative, I've got two words: Modus Tollens.

Modus Tollens is: If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P

But you can't prove not Q in the first place.

Comment author: Raemon 12 August 2011 08:17:02PM 2 points [-]

Slightly concerned about it being a Youtube Party, but it sounds like a good idea regardless.

How many people can G+ hangouts handle? (Before either computers start chugging or it just becomes unwieldy?)

Comment author: falenas108 12 August 2011 11:02:53PM 1 point [-]

G+ has a limit of 10 people, if more than that show it can just split into 2 groups.

Comment author: Raemon 09 August 2011 09:11:56PM *  16 points [-]

This is more practical sounding than I was expecting it to be. I think it'd be best to have seperate skill tracks (i.e. level 1 Strength, level 1 Social, etc). So people who don't feel the need to memorize a passage don't need to.

At the same time, you DO want to encourage diversity, so maybe "To become a level 1 Human, bring four separate skills up to rank 1 in the space of a month."

What mostly concerns me, though, is this. Relevant line:

"I begin to feel like I've accomplished my goals. It's like I think that adulthood is something that can be earned like a trophy in one monumental burst of effort and then admired and coveted for the rest of one's life. "

Comment author: falenas108 09 August 2011 09:22:11PM 0 points [-]

Upvote for a hyperbole and a half reference in an surprisingly relevant manner.

Comment author: falenas108 09 August 2011 06:57:11PM *  4 points [-]

I think it should be a "do a certain number of the below" style thing, to account for different skill sets in people. For example, I have close to no programming experience, and there are others who have no abilities in writing or memorization.

For chess, there are programs online that have computers of various difficulty levels, that would be an easy way to judge chess ability. But, this would be another example of specialized skill sets; I know some people who are extremely intelligent but have no chess ability whatsoever, and they shouldn't be held down to a low level solely due to lack of ability in this one area.

Comment author: KPier 06 August 2011 05:27:22PM *  4 points [-]

That's not a good solution.

Agreed. This used to be fairly common, but I think it's mostly discouraged now. As several people have pointed out, the Sequences are in total twice as long as the entire Lord of The Rings series. As RationalWiki put it:

As such, "You should try reading the sequences" is LessWrong for "f--- you."

With regard to your proposal: Setting it up by karma seems better (I've been on for two months but I'm well over 200 karma, and I'd be mildly annoyed if most people couldn't see my comments because I'm still new) The disadvantage is that a conversation between someone below the threshold and someone above it would either be partially visible to everyone else, increasing confusion, or invisible, meaning good discussions with low-karma users would be automatically buried.

Comment author: falenas108 09 August 2011 09:41:16AM 1 point [-]

An issue with that would be people below the karma limit would be likely to stay there. If a sizable portion of LWers have the limit, then those people couldn't upvote comments of new users, making it harder for them to rise above the threshold.

Comment author: KPier 05 August 2011 06:44:19PM 3 points [-]

My data points are far from a systemic study, but I appreciate your perspective.

I have a hard time determining the delineation between Discussion/Main, but I decided this didn't really cover any new ground so belonged in discussion. If we have a really good discussion and new points are brought up I might rewrite it for the main page (and include science and real studies, not just anecdotal evidence).

Comment author: falenas108 06 August 2011 06:04:13AM 2 points [-]

That's a pretty good standard. Another distinction is discussion posts can bring up problems, but main page posts are expected to solve the problem, usually in a new way. This is why people downvoted Matthew's post.

In response to comment by atucker on Unknown unknowns
Comment author: handoflixue 05 August 2011 08:28:32PM 1 point [-]

I don't think they really mean maximum entropy, though. There seems to be "I don't know, it's 50/50" and then "I don't know, but it's obviously skewed this way, and I have strong confidence that there are unknown-unknowns that will skew it further when they're discovered"

Comment author: falenas108 06 August 2011 05:41:34AM 0 points [-]

In that case, you should be able to use how strongly you anticipate the skewing to create a probability estimate.

Comment author: nerzhin 02 August 2011 05:26:11PM 7 points [-]

Here is a presentation that was used in a similar setting before.

I recommend trying to cover less than you currently plan. Just one or two big ideas should be more than enough.

Comment author: falenas108 02 August 2011 05:37:14PM -1 points [-]

Thanks, that link will probably be incredibly useful.

In response to You Are A Brain
Comment author: falenas108 02 August 2011 05:35:31PM 2 points [-]

I'm doing a similar presentation and will probably be stealing a lot of the ideas from here, thanks!

Teaching Suggestions?

4 falenas108 02 August 2011 05:21PM

I am going to do Splash! Fall 2011 at the University of Chicago, where I chose a subject to teach kids.  I'm teaching a 1 hour class on the basics on rationality, and I am outlining the topics I want to cover.

Right now, I'm planning on teaching map and territory, reductionism, a basic introduction to biases, and what having a belief should mean (paying rent).

What other ideas would be useful to teach high school students?  And does anyone have suggestions on interesting ways to teach these concepts?

 

Edit: All comments say four is too many topics, I will focus on map and territory and beliefs paying rent.

Comment author: knb 30 July 2011 05:14:14AM *  5 points [-]

Most discussion of incentivizing assumes that higher pay leads to higher performance. The logic is that higher pay leads to wanting more to keep the job, which leads to higher performance.

This isn't right at all, at least not with any of the compensation consultants or managers I've worked with. (I have worked with a great many.) I guess it is possible that you mean amateur discussion of incentives, but that seems wrong, too. You didn't cite any evidence for this surprising claim, so I'm inclined to assume that this is all just based on a false premise.

High salaries are used to attract people with high expected performance, not to motivate them after hiring. Instead, employers use the prospect of future raises to motivate present performance. These raises are determined based on objective performance metrics when possible, or customer satisfaction surveys or manager (and increasingly, subordinate) job performance evaluations.

With the cases of government employees or teachers, for whom market based compensation decisions aren't useful, arguments for higher salaries are usually based on attracting talented people into teaching, not to motivate higher performance for present teachers (a stupid idea).

Comment author: falenas108 30 July 2011 11:27:05AM -1 points [-]

Most discussion of incentivizing assumes that higher pay leads to higher performance. The logic is that higher pay leads to wanting more to keep the job, which leads to higher performance.

This assumption is standard in the minimum wage debates. The idea is that if workers are paid $7 an hour they are more likely to want to keep the job than if they get paid $3 an hour. And if they want to keep the job, they will work harder.

I suspect this argument breaks down when one gets to higher paying jobs that have many markets.

Comment author: gwern 29 July 2011 03:27:01PM 4 points [-]

It is extremely overconfident to take a paper you haven't read and declare it overturns decades of scientific consensus.

In response to comment by gwern on Global Warming News
Comment author: falenas108 29 July 2011 05:12:20PM *  -1 points [-]

Yes, it was. I was distracted by pretty words like NASA and peer reviewed, and assumed the author of the news article would faithfully report what the paper said. Stupid of me (no sarcasm).

In response to Global Warming News
Comment author: FAWS 29 July 2011 01:22:42PM *  2 points [-]

At the time of this comment the title of this post is "Global Warming Not Caused by CO2". I wish I could vote the post down more often. I just read the linked paper and is says nothing of that sort, and can't by its methodology. The paper tries to measure feedback effects and concludes that they can't be measured by the methodology they have chosen, but it looks like they are much lower than assumed in most climate models. They don't, and can't, say anything about the direct effect of CO2.

In essence they take measurements of net radiation flux and of temperature changes and try to figure out which changes which. They call variations in radiation flux not caused by temperature forcing, and those that are caused feedback (since radiation flux is a measure of how much energy is flowing into or out of the system radiation flux changes will always cause temperature changes). They conclude that they can't say anything definite because of the numbers of factors involved ("a variety of parameters other than feedback affecting the lag regression statistics which make accurate feedback diagnosis difficult"), but that it looks like most of the variation can be ascribed to forcing. Forcing would include the direct effect of CO2. Of course the climate models mostly assume strong positive feedback, so absence of such feedback would mean less CO2 caused warming overall, but the current title is a complete mischaracterization of the actual results.

In response to comment by FAWS on Global Warming News
Comment author: falenas108 29 July 2011 01:38:18PM 0 points [-]

Right, sorry. I had only read the news article at the time of making this post, which doesn't say any of the above. Edited to reflect this.

Comment author: Caesium 28 July 2011 06:03:28PM *  1 point [-]

When Luke said that, his "aha" moment wasn't that these things existed, it's why they exist. And more importantly, why it's a good idea to focus on that instead of saying "concentrating on looks is vain, a woman should like me for who I am."

I'm curious about this. What was the reason that Luke found for paying attention on fashion, that needed an insight into the reasons people care about fashion? It seems to me that fashions importance depends primarily on how much other people care about it, irrespective of why they care, but I don't understand fashion so could easily be missing something.

This assumption is not there. The assumption is that there is a reason people behave how they do, and this behavior is a logical conclusion from evo psych.

I think that part of my post was rather unclear. Of course, people on this site don't consciously hold the view that people must make sense, but that nevertheless seems to be the direction of a lot of peoples thoughts. To clarify, what I was trying to state is that there is a tendency for many rationalists to try and look for a reason for peoples behaviour and, when failing to find it, to try and find an evo psych explanation for this behaviour. I may be wrong about this, but its something I've noticed in my own thoughts, and it seems to be echoed in what many other people here have written. Crucially, if my behaviour is similar to other peoples, a lot of the apparent benefit of learning the explanations for others behaviour is just in coming to accept it. It's a lot easier to tolerate things about people you disagree with when you know why they're doing it -- even if your wrong about the reason. But, you can also just learn to accept people.

Of course, the assumption that peoples behaviour is a logical conclusion from evo psych is a much more justifiable one. But, even so, I'd challenge this one. Evolutionary psychology is not a scientific model in the same way that something like the standard model in Physics is; from what I know of it, it seems wholly unable to make any firm predictions on any aspect of human behaviour -- it can just try and explain the behaviour of humans that is already observed. So, I suppose I'm still failing to see how knowing the evo psych explanation of something will really help you in interacting with others?

Having said this, I feel more optimistic about some applications of evolutionary psychology to ones own thinking. I think thinking in evolutionary psychology terms has helped me work out when I should pay more or less attention to my own feelings. If one is nervous about taking some minor social risk amongst strangers, it helps to know that this reaction made perfect sense in the EEA, but doesn't now; you then can be confident that its safe to override your emotions.

Comment author: falenas108 28 July 2011 11:19:16PM *  0 points [-]

What was the reason that Luke found for paying attention on fashion, that needed an insight into the reasons people care about fashion?

I would imagine it would depend on the image you're trying to present. Like Luke said, it conveys "large packets of information about [him] at light speed." So, if you're trying to show you have money you would dress one way, trying to look cool would require a different style of dressing, and just hanging casually with friends requires a third.

There is a tendency for many rationalists to try and look for a reason for peoples behaviour and, when failing to find it, to try and find an evo psych explanation for this behaviour.

Yes, I agree. I mostly use evo psych explanations to increase my internal probability of a PUA trick actually working, though I'm conservative about the credence I give to any evo psych explanation.

Comment author: Caesium 28 July 2011 07:58:06AM *  10 points [-]

This kind of post symbolizes a lot of what seems wrong to me about LessWrong. Women are attracted to men who they enjoy spending time with? Fashion matters to a lot of women? Women prefer confident men? It amazes me that many extremely intelligent people are unable to make predictions that could be made by the average truck driver. It indicates, I think, that what is lacking in those people is not analytical intelligence. Because of this, I'm deeply sceptical as to what extent applying rationality techniques such as those taught on LessWrong to social interactions will really improve peoples results.

I'm a very analytical thinker; I excel at math, physics and related subjects. At the same time, I have quite poor social skills. I'd love it if I could read some social psychology books and improve my social and romantic outcomes, but I'm unconvinced, both by this post and the community as a whole. In particular, I think that there is what I'll term the 'rationalists fallacy' -- the hidden assumption, in much of thought by rationalists, that other people and the world in general are supposed to behave rationally. They're not, and by and large they don't. So, to make sense of this, rationalists read evolutionary and social psychology books. Now, armed with these explanations for the seemingly irrational behaviour of the humans around them, they're able to finally understand the cognitive biases and preferences of their fellow human beings, and are then able to successfully interact with them.

This behaviour reminds me of my behaviour in mathematics. When I have not seen a particular result proved and do not intuitively see why it must be true, I'm uncomfortable with using the result. Later, after I've seen it proved, I become comfortable using the result, even if I later forget the proof, and have not gained any insight by reading the proof.

I think this behaviour may be adaptive in mathematics - I've read more proofs than I otherwise would have done - but I think this behaviour is almost certainly maladaptive in social interaction. I don't need to understand why doing things weird will make me unpopular (it signals that I do not subscribe to the group norms), I just need to know that they do, and so only do them in private. I don't need to understand why women tend to be more attracted to confident men (confidence was a strong signal of fitness in the EEA), and men more attracted to pretty women (body symmetry indicates that the person is healthy, and does not have any significant parasitical infection); I just need to know that this is the case, and try and be more confident or more pretty according to gender. Whilst understanding that these preferences are primarily non-concious and so do not necessarily reflect peoples concious preferences is useful, not even that needs evolutionary psychology. One can use the result without proof.

I don't think I'd object to this behaviour so much if I could see real insights that people are gaining from learning more about evolutionary and social psychology -- but I don't. A lot of evolutionary psychology seems to be dangerously close to a just-so story, and there are a large number of conflicting evolutionary psychological explanations for many common human behaviours. If learning something doesn't help me predict anything I don't already know, just provide a (possibly false) explanation for a behaviour I'm already familiar with, why should I learn it?

Having said all this, I'm optimistic about what rationalists can do socially. There are few areas where systematic study as to what works and what doesn't doesn't help; it does. But, I think reading social psychology books should be a very small part of what rationalists do. A very large amount of the social behaviour we engage in is non-concious; being around people enough that you become comfortable with them may be one of the best things one can do to improve ones social skills. Furthermore, do not overestimate what one is able to achieve using deductive logic. Even as a mathematician and as a programmer, most of what I do is intuitive and involves pattern matching. One cannot learn to become a good programmer or a mathematician without writing lots of code, or working on lots of problems; likewise, one cannot become effective socially without meeting people.

tl;dr I see rationalists often engaging in behaviour adaptive in many fields (e.g. math, science), but maladaptive in other fields (e.g. socializing, romance.) I think less emphasis should be placed on attempting to find a deeper meaning behind peoples behaviour, and more on trying to find ways to benefit from peoples existing behaviour. Practice makes perfect in all fields, but especially social.

Comment author: falenas108 28 July 2011 09:31:22AM *  6 points [-]

Women are attracted to men who they enjoy spending time with? Fashion matters to a lot of women? Women prefer confident men? It amazes me that many extremely intelligent people are unable to make predictions that could be made by the average truck driver.

When Luke said that, his "aha" moment wasn't that these things existed, it's why they exist. And more importantly, why it's a good idea to focus on that instead of saying "concentrating on looks is vain, a woman should like me for who I am."

the hidden assumption, in much of thought by rationalists, that other people and the world in general are supposed to behave rationally.

This assumption is not there. The assumption is that there is a reason people behave how they do, and this behavior is a logical conclusion from evo psych. I doubt anyone would say women's attraction to red is rational, but it is still used in PUA books.

And yes, you can just use the results, but there aren't many books that have all the conclusions made without any of the explanation.

Comment author: diegocaleiro 27 July 2011 08:19:58AM 13 points [-]

If you have nothing to comment, but think that I should go with and make the movie, click Upvote in this comment

Comment author: falenas108 27 July 2011 12:06:02PM 12 points [-]

I don't care too much, but when people do polls they usually have a third comment labeled "karma balance" for people to downvote after choosing a side to upvote. This prevents people from creating polls just to get karma.

Comment author: falenas108 27 July 2011 03:19:38AM 2 points [-]

I definitely agree with the belief that the standard of p<.05 should be lowered. That was a useful standard back when experiments were less precise, now it just allows weaker papers through a questionable system.

In response to Developing Empathy
Comment author: Caesium 26 July 2011 07:17:08AM *  1 point [-]

It seems to be almost universally held that empathy is a desirable personality trait. I can certainly see that having better theory of mind - being better able to predict other peoples actions - is useful in any situation. But empathy, to me at least, also has connotations of sympathizing with the other person. Whilst I can see that this would be very useful in certain situations (e.g. sexual relationships), it seems to also be potentially harmful in other situations (e.g. management.) For example, firing someone who has been a reliable worker for many years, or confronting a person whose work is sub-par are all things that could be made more difficult by being sympathetic. Whilst I'm sure its possible to overcome such a reluctance consciously, these feelings might cause you to shy away from even thinking about such things, which cannot so easily be consciously corrected.

I'm also curious about how empathy brings benefits in social interactions apart from the theory of mind aspect of it. Obviously, people will like people more who seem to agree with them, like them and understand them; but it seems that all these signals could, with moderate effort, be faked effectively. I wouldn't consider this to necessarily be deceptive, either -- the signal one is sending is communicating how much one likes the other person and wishes to be allied with them; provided you genuinely do like the person and wish to be friends with them, then the signal seems to me to be honest. But its possible that I'm missing some subtle aspects of empathy that cannot be so easily faked.

In response to comment by Caesium on Developing Empathy
Comment author: falenas108 26 July 2011 11:57:10AM 1 point [-]

Empathy would help figure out what signals need faking. Suppose someone's pet dies. You could react in two ways, express sympathy from a similar situation, or help them move on by distracting them with something else. Either could be faked, but empathy would help you figure out which method they would respond to better.

Comment author: RobertLumley 24 July 2011 08:27:32PM 4 points [-]

I never thought LessWrong would be the type of community to have a troll.

Comment author: falenas108 24 July 2011 10:32:17PM 13 points [-]

The thing is, we support his trolling.

Developing Empathy

10 falenas108 24 July 2011 01:50PM

Empathy is a huge life skill, useful in almost every interaction with other people.  But, many people aren't able to empathize with others as effectively as they might want to.  The standard technique is "put yourself in their shoes," which works for me.  However, this doesn't always work with people completely different from myself, because I can't imagine reacting the way they are.

Does anyone have suggestions for how to "practice" empathizing, tips on how to do it better, or different techniques entirely?

Comment author: Alicorn 23 July 2011 07:48:32AM 3 points [-]

I got a Capital One credit card (to use in Scotland, because my debit card wouldn't work there) when I was 18. It was attached to my dad's account somehow, but had my name on it. I was a student and didn't make any money or have a place of my own. Do you have a relative who might be willing to bet on your ability to pay your bills? I can ask my dad how he arranged it if it would be helpful.

Comment author: falenas108 23 July 2011 03:03:15PM 0 points [-]

I don't think that would work. All of the questions were specifically about my income and bank account, not anyone who would help pay.

Also, they almost outright say that I will be autorejected if I try to apply again in the next 45 days.

Comment author: falenas108 22 July 2011 11:41:44PM 2 points [-]

Rejected. Something about making less than $5000 a year, being 18, and not having a house/apartment made Capital One not trust that I would pay back my bills every month.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 21 July 2011 09:57:00AM *  1 point [-]

It's an option. Maybe it comes with costs you have decided you do not want to pay, but does it really, and have you really, consciously, rationally evaluated that? Ok, the way I'm asking that suggests I suspect the answer may be "no", but that's just based on general life experience, and the hint provided by the contradiction between your first sentence and your second. I can't speak to your particular situation, however much reading I do between the faint lines you've sketched.

But the bottom line is, if your "instructor" sucks at instructing, then one way or another you need to drop them.

Comment author: falenas108 21 July 2011 03:54:54PM -1 points [-]

I'm guessing the instructor has a close personal relationship with the OP.

Comment author: dripgrind 15 July 2011 12:41:37AM 2 points [-]

OK, what about the case where there's a CEV theory which can extrapolate the volition of all humans, or a subset of them? It's not suicide for you to tell the AI "coherently extrapolate my volition/the shareholders' volition". But it might be hell for the people whose interests aren't taken into account.

Comment author: falenas108 15 July 2011 09:10:51AM *  2 points [-]

At that point, that particular company wouldn't be able to build the AI any faster than other companies, so at that point it's just a matter of getting an FAI out there first and have it optimize rapidly enough that it could destroy any UFAI that come along after.

In response to My true rejection
Comment author: falenas108 14 July 2011 10:37:43PM 1 point [-]

You don't need to have solved the AGI problem to have solved friendliness. That issue can be solved separately far before AGI even begins to become a threat, and then FAI and UFAI will be on basically equal footing.

Comment author: jimrandomh 14 July 2011 02:53:00PM 3 points [-]

But I'm think of ways to spin it that might sound better than "club", while still being accurate

I've gotten positive responses to "rationality dojo" the few times I've used the phrase.

Comment author: falenas108 14 July 2011 10:24:27PM *  2 points [-]

Society and fraternity seem to have the same negative connotations as club. Association and community seem fairly neutral, but association seems overly formal (to me).

I think we might want to use the stranger terms, like fellowship or dojo just to give off the impression that this is not a meeting of Spocks. However, fellowship might lead people to think it's a gathering of Lord of the Rings fans. Dojo is my personal favorite too.

In response to Diet Advice?
Comment author: falenas108 12 July 2011 08:46:57PM 6 points [-]

This isn't necessarily supporting Paleo/bulletproof diet, but it is worth noting that every study showing the "health benefits" of whole wheat only compare whole wheat to refined wheat, not compared to no wheat. The results of these studies, that it reduces diabetes and various cancers, is consistent with the Paleo view as well.

So, if nothing else it would be best to cut down on non-whole wheat grains.

Comment author: falenas108 12 July 2011 05:16:33PM 0 points [-]

Small note, I don't think it is at all a consensus that FAI will be developed by 2060.

Comment author: Raw_Power 06 July 2011 02:59:45PM 0 points [-]

Wouldn't the UFAI's possible amorality give it an advantage over a morally fettered FAI? Also, friendliness or unfriendliness doesn't dictate the order of magnitude of the AI's development speed (though i suspect proper ethics could really slow a FAI down). It'd be down to the one written to develop faster, not necessarily the first if the other can quickly catch up.

But yeah, race elements are undeniable.

Comment author: falenas108 11 July 2011 08:14:07PM 0 points [-]

Wouldn't the UFAI's possible amorality give it an advantage over a morally fettered FAI?

That's what the SIAI is for, creating a way to code friendliness now so that when it comes down to building an AGI FAI is just as easy to build as UFAI.

Comment author: falenas108 07 July 2011 01:32:32PM *  0 points [-]

Right now I'm learning Macroeconomics, and I keep thinking about this post and how bad it is that they are able to plausibly explain multiple outputs from a single input.

Comment author: falenas108 06 July 2011 01:28:25AM 0 points [-]

In the upcoming meetups and in the upcoming events, they only show unusual events. All regular meetups are not displayed, which to a newcomer makes it look like there aren't any events in those areas. I would suggest a permanent pin on the areas that are confirmed to have regular meetups, with a link to the page that declares the regular time and place.

In response to If we're in a sim...
Comment author: falenas108 05 July 2011 09:47:24PM 2 points [-]

If we are, I would place an extremely high credence in individuals not being modeled as objects.

In response to Google+
Comment author: falenas108 05 July 2011 01:35:43AM 0 points [-]

It left a good first impression on me, but it really needs more people on it before I can decide how it compares to Facebook.

Comment author: matt 04 July 2011 05:46:49PM *  1 point [-]

Hmm… working for me (on the same OS and the same browsers). Do you have js turned off?
Others? Can anyone reproduce falenas108's bug report?

Comment author: falenas108 04 July 2011 06:19:03PM -1 points [-]

I don't think I did anything to turn js off, and it did work before the changes were implemented.

Comment author: matt 04 July 2011 05:33:24PM 2 points [-]

I still see the mouseover. Browser and OS?

Comment author: falenas108 04 July 2011 05:40:12PM -1 points [-]

Mac, tried on Chrome and Firefox.

Comment author: lucidfox 04 July 2011 03:31:41PM 2 points [-]

She.

Comment author: falenas108 04 July 2011 03:38:35PM 2 points [-]

Sorry, my bad.

Comment author: timtyler 04 July 2011 08:09:15AM *  2 points [-]

I see. However: memetic engineering, domesticated memes, or wild memes - it is still the memes attempting to control and manipulate your mind for their own ends.

I can imagine why you might be interested in whether the resulting mind control originates from someone who is trying to sell you something, though. With the arts, that is usually the case, one way or another.

Comment author: falenas108 04 July 2011 02:31:30PM 2 points [-]

I think he's referring specifically to My Little Pony, which became insanely popular among 16-30 year olds despite absolutely no advertising towards that demographic.

Comment author: falenas108 04 July 2011 02:12:00PM *  -1 points [-]

Quick note, there's no mouse-over text for reply and link anymore, is that intended? In a positive note, I like the look of the site in general though, it's more friendly to newcomers.

Comment author: falenas108 04 July 2011 02:19:16AM 2 points [-]

Thanks for posting this, I didn't know Google did this. Next time I'm looking for opposing views to my norm I'll be sure to sign out.

Comment author: falenas108 03 July 2011 03:12:49AM *  20 points [-]

To be fair to LessWrong, although we do encourage quitting religion, we don't condemn attending. This post got 44 upvotes, and a decent chunk of the post was explaining how she went to church. I personally think the "don't attend church" mentality is more about the path being closed to us than anything against it.

Comment author: falenas108 01 July 2011 01:49:33AM *  0 points [-]

Comment retracted

Comment author: falenas108 29 June 2011 08:58:39AM -1 points [-]

Do we have a working definition of free will? I thought of a possible one while reading this article, but wanted to know if there already is a defined complexity at which a neural network is considered to have free will.

Comment author: falenas108 27 June 2011 09:47:28PM 1 point [-]

Working slower to avoid mistakes. (I don't want to, I'm just told I should.)

  1. I've only had one person who was able to legitimately judge my work (at an internship), and my work/mistake ratio was not unreasonably high.
  2. There is evidence to suggest that the person giving this advice trying to justify to herself how I can get the work done far faster than she could, although my opinion on that could be personal bias.
  3. There is someone checking over all my work, so even when I do make a mistake it is caught without becoming a serious issue.
  4. The only way I would be working slower is checking over all my entries before I submit them, which would just be duplicating the job mentioned in 3.
Comment author: falenas108 27 June 2011 09:47:23PM *  0 points [-]

Duplicate, with a suggestion for the next set of changes: Have what is written in the comment disappear after it is submitted.

Comment author: MatthewBaker 27 June 2011 06:58:09PM 1 point [-]

I cannot wake up on time for things more than 80% of the time even once my circadian rhythm is set in place. Ive tried alarm clock in the closet>two alarms everything my body always seems to bypass the issue. Does anyone have some methods i may not have tried yet?

Comment author: falenas108 27 June 2011 09:33:46PM -1 points [-]

I personally set 5 alarms :)

If that sort of thing isn't working, try opening a window to get sunlight in, or if possible have a friend call you when you want to get up.

Comment author: falenas108 25 June 2011 04:02:42AM 4 points [-]

Have you read the entire Reductionism sequence? That would be the first step. The other big ones related to your query are How to Actually Change Your Mind (which isn't telling you that you should, just explains the general process of how to evaluate a new idea that might shatter your world view), and Mysterious Answers to Mysterious Questions.

Re-reading would be a good idea after you've read these once.

And of course, the other part of the sequences are good, just not related to what you're looking for.

Comment author: timtyler 14 June 2011 08:48:59PM *  0 points [-]

Biologists have looked into this. E.g.: J. Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary - in "The Origins of Life", p.3:

What is life? [...]

An alternative is to define as living any population of entities posessing those properties that are needed if the population is to evolve by natural selection.

Comment author: falenas108 14 June 2011 09:42:25PM 0 points [-]

This might just be nitpicking, but that would exclude artificially created life that doesn't have mutations.

Dissolving the Question of Life

-2 falenas108 14 June 2011 08:17PM

Recently, Hank Green posted a video discussing the definition of life.  He offered two definitions; that life acts in a manner to achieve a goal, and that life continuously decreases internal entropy.

There are problems with these definitions.  The first definition includes every machine that has a function.  The second one includes, for example, a machine that constantly reshapes parts of its body into a paperclip.

Other definitions of life are equally confusing, doing things like excluding viruses because they use other cells to reproduce, despite meeting the intuitive meaning we have for life.

So, dissolve "life."  Why do we care if something is alive?  To decide if its life has value.  Hank dances around the issue, showing that life has no inherent value by using mouthwash to kill billions of bacteria in his mouth.  But, he doesn't take this to its conclusion.  It doesn't matter if something is alive or not.  We won't suddenly care about the well being of viruses if a new definition of life comes along tomorrow pronouncing viruses to be living.  What we value is sentience.

Bugs are extremely low on the sentience scale, so we feel free to kill them.  Animals that are higher on the scale, such as cats, have laws preventing any sort of mistreatment.

tl;dr: Life is an ambiguous term, use sentience to describe a being's value.

Comment author: falenas108 10 June 2011 03:28:29PM 0 points [-]

Having both questions 1 and 2 seems redundant; I would suggest eliminating the first one. I would also be hesitant to include more questions, as with more questions he will be less inclined to answer, and any answer he does give will take longer to write.

Comment author: falenas108 09 June 2011 12:11:20PM -1 points [-]

Sigh. Another meetup where I already have other plans.

Comment author: falenas108 08 June 2011 08:02:28PM *  5 points [-]

Yes, see this for details on why this is so.

But in probability theory, absence of evidence is always evidence of absence. If E is a binary event and P(H|E) > P(H), "seeing E increases the probability of H"; then P(H|~E) < P(H), "failure to observe E decreases the probability of H". P(H) is a weighted mix of P(H|E) and P(H|~E), and necessarily lies between the two.

Comment author: falenas108 08 June 2011 02:32:36PM 2 points [-]

The link appears to be broken.

Comment author: falenas108 03 June 2011 01:16:39AM *  2 points [-]

Short answer, yes.

In an amusement park, the odds of something going wrong are negligible, so if you are capable of turning off you fears, do so.

Outside of the park, use your own judgment about if your fear of heights is grounded (pun intended).

Comment author: CronoDAS 17 May 2011 11:34:41PM *  16 points [-]

I suppose that the relevant proverb is "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

On the other hand, it is probably possible to over-granularize: you break a process down into small enough tasks so that when you look over the list of every step you'd have to do, it seems overwhelming.

For example, here's some overly granularized directions for cooking scrambled eggs.

Step 1: Clear junk from stove.
Step 2: Get non-stick frying pan from cabinet.
Step 3: Put pan on stove.
Step 4: Get plate from cabinet.
Step 5: Put plate on stove near pan.
Step 6: Get butter knife from drawer.
Step 7: Get stick of butter from refrigerator.
Step 8: Cut off a small piece of butter from the stick into the pan.
Step 9: Put butter knife into sink.
Step 10: Return stick of butter to the refrigerator.
Step 11: Remove egg carton from refrigerator.
Step 12: Place egg carton on counter next to stove.
Step 13: Remove two eggs from egg carton.
Step 14: Place eggs on stove next to pan.
Step 15: Return egg carton to refrigerator.
Step 16: Pick up plastic spatula.
Step 17: Turn on burner under pan.
Step 18: Use plastic spatula to spread butter on pan as it melts.
Step 19: Put down plastic spatula.
Step 20: Pick up egg from stove.
Step 21. Crack egg on the side of stove.
Step 22: Open egg above pan, so that its contents fall into the pan.
Step 23: Throw eggshell into trash can.
Step 24: Repeat steps 17-20, using the second egg.
Step 25: Wash hands to remove traces of raw egg that may contain salmonella bacteria.
Step 26: Dry hands.
Step 27: Pick up plastic spatula.
Step 28: Using plastic spatula, stir eggs in frying pan as they cook.
Step 29: When eggs are cooked, turn off fire under pan.
Step 30: Pick up pan.
Step 31: Transfer eggs from frying pan to plate. Use plastic spatula if necessary.
Step 32: Put pan down on stove.
Step 33: Put down plastic spatula.
Step 34: Move plate to table.
Step 35: Get ketchup bottle from refrigerator.
Step 36: Squirt ketchup on plate.
Step 37: Put ketchup bottle on table.
Step 38: Get fork from drawer.
Step 39: Eat scrambled eggs.

And now you know why I hate cooking. ;)

Comment author: falenas108 21 May 2011 12:22:39PM 0 points [-]

I'm considering making eggs today using this, but I have two questions. How do you know when the eggs are done, and how high do you put the heat?

Comment author: Manfred 20 May 2011 03:40:51PM *  7 points [-]

Yeah, sure, it sounds fun!

If you're a molecular biology person, I would be interested in an article if there are any good human efforts to design proteins, and what sort of challenges they face and what techniques they use to overcome those challenges. Or even designing whole living systems - we seem to like futurism around here, so "speculative bioengineering" could be fun.

Comment author: falenas108 20 May 2011 04:50:23PM -1 points [-]

Agreed, this should definately done. And I am interested in the problems with designing proteins too (I think it has to do with protein folding, but I would like to learn more about it).

Comment author: falenas108 18 May 2011 12:22:20PM 1 point [-]

I don't think that applies completely. In those cases, it's the same level human brains trying more complicated things; with AI the brain increases as the complexity increases.

Comment author: falenas108 13 May 2011 09:41:56AM *  0 points [-]

I think there might be a problem with assumptions for DA. In the cubicle scenario, the situation when the first person is placed is the same for when the 10th or 100th will be placed, while humanity has greatly changed since the first of any reasonable reference class, and will continue to do so (especially if at some point in the future we start colonizing planets).

In response to Optimizing Sleep
Comment author: falenas108 11 May 2011 01:56:45AM 0 points [-]

Just because nobody has posted it yet, XKCD did a comic about this here.

Comment author: falenas108 09 May 2011 09:12:35AM *  0 points [-]

Based on my even more limited high school chem knowledge, I would say that oxygen turning into a liquid would speed up the process (faster than it would have occurred at 77 Kelvin), as things dissolve in liquids more readily than gases. So, if oxygen is in the rate law for fats turning rancid, this would increase the rate that it happens at.

Of course, there's a very good chance that due to the dependence on microbes this reaction wouldn't occur at all.

Comment author: falenas108 06 May 2011 09:54:29AM -1 points [-]

The pictures remind me of Hyberbole and a half, especially A, B, and C.

Comment author: falenas108 30 April 2011 12:01:47AM 0 points [-]

I find it impossible to predict without knowing specifics about the future scenario. As we get closer to creating an AI, we are almost guaranteed to find out more difficulties associated with it.

Maybe in 10 years we will find some unforeseen problem that we have no idea how to resolve, in which case of course my probability estimate would significantly drop.

Or, if we have not seen any significant progress in the field, I predict my estimate would remain constant for the first 30 years, then decrease every year progress is not being made.

If there is a continuous stream of progress that doesn't also reveal huge new barriers, then I don't believe it would ever go down. But, I find it hard to imagine any scenario that presents continual progress, doesn't show any major roadblocks, yet still has not managed to develop AI more than 200 years form now.

Comment author: Tiiba 29 April 2011 08:55:40AM *  1 point [-]

I honestly have no idea how that has anything to do with what I'm saying.

And I read all the books, and watched the first six movies. I know what the prohesy is.

Comment author: falenas108 29 April 2011 09:34:21AM 0 points [-]

As in she knows they need him, so she's making an extra effort to make him like her, and by association, the wizarding world.

Comment author: falenas108 27 April 2011 09:30:26AM 0 points [-]

I can go.

Comment author: NihilCredo 27 April 2011 01:02:38AM *  3 points [-]

Control C, alt tab, control V, alt tab. Repeat.

Install AutoHotkey, write the one-line script RWin::Send ^c!{tab}^v!{tab}, and save seven keypresses out of eight :)

Comment author: falenas108 27 April 2011 01:09:31AM -1 points [-]

I so want to use that. Sadly, NIH doesn't allow downloads from the internet.

In response to Nonmagical Powers
Comment author: falenas108 26 April 2011 09:43:10PM 11 points [-]

Transfering data from one excel spreadsheet to something else: Control C, alt tab, control V, alt tab. Repeat.

I am now in charge of all data related things in my office, and I'm just a high school intern.

Comment author: atucker 24 April 2011 10:58:20PM 6 points [-]

I'd be interested in coming to this, but need to figure out how to pitch the idea to my parents without it sounding like a cult.

I'm pretty sure that if I put thought into it, I could figure out how to do that, but before I try I'm just wondering:

Has anyone already done this? Successfully?

Comment author: falenas108 25 April 2011 02:17:14PM -1 points [-]

I'm in the same boat; I think I'll talk about how it's from a really respected institution and what a great opportunity this is.

Comment author: falenas108 24 April 2011 12:50:12AM 0 points [-]

And against the argument for a separate consciousness, if humans can be perfectly replicated.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 23 April 2011 02:23:03AM 10 points [-]

One "line of retreat" for theists, historically at least, is deism: the belief that while God created the world, God is not involved in it on an ongoing basis. Deism admits of no miracles, prophets, or divine intervention, but can maintain the notion of a God-created moral order as well as physical universe. Deism has a long history of association with rationality, philosophy, and science; as well as with Freemasonry and other older attempts to create a reason-based moral culture.

Comment author: falenas108 23 April 2011 04:04:48AM 2 points [-]

Yes, this is what I believed for a while before I saw that Occam's razor showed that if a universe could exist entirely on its own without God, the hypothesis without a deity would be favored.

Comment author: MinibearRex 22 April 2011 12:47:03PM 3 points [-]

Part of it may be that people feel like these ideas are basic enough that it's pretty much all agreed upon and understood. If someone came up with a question based on the post to discuss, there might be more talk.

I'm now going to try that.

Comment author: falenas108 22 April 2011 01:27:30PM 1 point [-]

Agreed.

I read the post and come back to here, then realize that I have nothing to say that expands on what was written.

Comment author: falenas108 22 April 2011 01:03:56PM 0 points [-]

I would think that after years of doing routine checkups like these, even if the doctor is hungry it's unlikely that it would affect the doctor so much that a mistake would be made because of it.

Though if there's any doubts of the doctor's competency, or if it becomes a more difficult procedure, that would definitely be something to watch out for.

Comment author: ciphergoth 13 April 2011 07:22:08AM 4 points [-]

Nitpick: "cryogenics" is the study of making things very cold. Last-resort cold preservation of people in hope of future revival is called "cryonics".

Comment author: falenas108 13 April 2011 09:08:22AM *  1 point [-]

o_o

Wow, in all the articles I've read, I never noticed that people were using a different word.

Comment author: falenas108 12 April 2011 11:23:46PM *  2 points [-]

Would framing the argument as hedging their bets work for your parents? That would be a logical way to go about it, but doing that might bring them to a "Cryogenics is for people who don't believe in God" mindset, which would be pretty bad for convincing them.

Comment author: falenas108 11 April 2011 02:19:50AM 5 points [-]

I think the main reason meetups are on the main page is that some people don't look at the discussion section, and we want as many people to see meetups as possible.

Comment author: Skatche 08 April 2011 05:03:20AM 1 point [-]

Gender roles of any sort are fine if consciously negotiated by consenting adults. When presented as the default, however, or as biological facts, with no chance for negotiation, they become oppressive. Kay's suggestions would be fine as suggestions for husband and wife to discuss and decide on together, but as presented they dangerously mislead their audience.

Comment author: falenas108 09 April 2011 12:54:51AM 0 points [-]

He actually does that, but not in every post.

Almost every post he writes is mostly applicable to a stereotype, he just assumes readers know by now that he isn't saying it will work for everyone. Not very conducive for attracting newcomers, but that's his decision.

If you want proof, click this and do a control f search for the word mileage.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 April 2011 12:25:14AM *  4 points [-]

The naturalist philosopher Peter Godfrey Smith said this of Popper's position:

[F]or Popper, it is never possible to confirm or establish a theory by showing its agreement with observations. Confirmation is a myth. The only thing an observational test can do is to show that a theory is false...Popper, like Hume, was an inductive skeptic, and Popper was skeptical about all forms of confirmation and support other than deductive logic itself...This position, that we can never be completely certain about factual issues, is often known as fallibilism...According to Popper, we should always retain a tentative attitude towards our theories, no matter how successful they have been in the past...[a]ll we can do is try out one theory after another. A theory that we have failed to falsify up till now might, in fact, be true. But if so, we will never know this or even have reason to increase our confidence.

(From Theory and Reality, p. 59-61.) Is this not an accurate description? You seem to think Popper didn't believe in definitive falsification, but this doesn't seem to be a universally accepted interpretation. Note also that Godfrey-Smith does refer to Popper's position as fallibilism, so he is not being "unscholarly." Though Popper may have held the position that falsification can't be perfectly certain, he definitely didn't take this idea too seriously because his description of science as a process (step one: come up with conjectures; step two: falsify them) makes use of falsification by experiment.

I think the answer to your overarching question can be found here. If we know that certain events are more probable given that certain other events happened, i.e. conditional probability, we can make inferences about the future.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Bayesian Epistemology vs Popper
Comment author: falenas108 07 April 2011 12:31:38AM -1 points [-]

Sorry, didn't see you posted this before I replied too...

Comment author: falenas108 07 April 2011 12:28:06AM *  -1 points [-]

From the research I have done in the last 5 minutes, it seems as though Popper believed that all good scientific theories should be subject to experiments that could prove them wrong.
Ex:

"the falsificationists or fallibilists say, roughly speaking, that what cannot (at present) in principle be overthrown by criticism is (at present) unworthy of being seriously considered; while what can in principle be so overthrown and yet resists all our critical efforts to do so may quite possibly be false, but is at any rate not unworthy of being seriously considered and perhaps even of being believed" -Popper

This seems to imply that theories can be proved false.

The Importance of Research

21 falenas108 04 April 2011 10:08PM

This is just a quick example of why it's always good to check the source material.

 

Cracked ran an article today about several things people are doing wrong, and the number one thing they listed was sitting.  According to a an experiment they cite, one researcher tested disk movement for people slouching, sitting up straight, and leaning back at a 135˚ angle.  They found that leaning back does the least damage to the spine.

Interested, I clicked on their link which sent me to this article from MSNBC, which among other things, says:

When strain is placed on the spine, the spinal disks start to move and misalign. At a 90-degree sitting position, this movement was most prominent.

With this, I was considered making a lifestyle change to slouching when using the computer, as leaning back isn't usually an option for serious work.  But, I still wanted to read more about the experiment.

Unfortunately, they didn't have the link to the actual paper.  A bit of googling led me to an article that actually had the experiment's methodology, which says that slouching was actually the worst position! 

It maintained that leaning back is best, but according to the results the 90˚ angle isn't that bad, especially since most of the other articles I found were implying that the advice to sit up straight is wrong.  Considering that people are usually slouching when the advice is given, sitting up is still an improvement.  This is especially true at places like dinner tables, where leaning back as suggested isn't really an option.

 

Moral of the story: Do research before changing personal habits, regardless of where the information comes from.

 

Note: Afterwards, I did a bit more googling to see which other news sources carried this story incorrectly.  The most prominent misinformation came from a Fox News article, who carried the following headline:

Study: Slouching Better for Back Than Sitting Up Straight

Comment author: Benquo 03 April 2011 09:34:47PM 0 points [-]

I am flexible as to location, but if it's not inconvenient for anyone else, the 22nd and P Starbucks sounds like a reasonable location to me. Or anywhere else in the Dupont Area.

Comment author: falenas108 04 April 2011 08:42:10PM *  -1 points [-]

It probably should be someplace within a couple blocks of a Metro stop, as it seems most of us are going to use the Metro to get there.

Comment author: Benquo 01 April 2011 04:26:08AM 0 points [-]

Where in MoCo are you? I will most likely be going, live in DC, and would be able to provide a ride.

Alternately, it's a little pricey, but you can take an Amtrak train from Union Station for twenty-something dollars.

Or if you can get to BWI (you can get there via the Inter-County Connector from Shady Grove station, or via the BWI Express/B30 from the Greenbelt station), you can take the light rail to the North Avenue station.

Both rail routes deposit you about a mile from the destination.

Comment author: falenas108 02 April 2011 08:09:14PM 0 points [-]

Never mind, can't go next weekend anyways.

Comment author: Benquo 02 April 2011 01:11:59PM 0 points [-]

I can do May 15.

Comment author: falenas108 02 April 2011 03:29:50PM -1 points [-]

Yeah, I think that would work for me too.

Comment author: prase 01 April 2011 02:27:41PM *  -2 points [-]

Part 2, group II question:

What is the altitude of the highest point in Sweden?

Give an estimate in a subcomment. Please begin your answer with "I suppose the correct value is probably" or some other preface of comparable length; if you write just the number, it appears in the Recent Comments bar and can bias other respondents.

Comment author: falenas108 02 April 2011 01:10:22AM -1 points [-]

Absolutely no idea what the answer is, so I'll guess 2000 feet.

Comment author: Benquo 01 April 2011 04:26:08AM 0 points [-]

Where in MoCo are you? I will most likely be going, live in DC, and would be able to provide a ride.

Alternately, it's a little pricey, but you can take an Amtrak train from Union Station for twenty-something dollars.

Or if you can get to BWI (you can get there via the Inter-County Connector from Shady Grove station, or via the BWI Express/B30 from the Greenbelt station), you can take the light rail to the North Avenue station.

Both rail routes deposit you about a mile from the destination.

Comment author: falenas108 01 April 2011 09:25:32AM 0 points [-]

I live in Rockville, is that at all on the way?

Comment author: falenas108 31 March 2011 11:14:39PM -1 points [-]

Is there any reasonable way to get there using public transportation from Montgomery County?

Comment author: Desrtopa 31 March 2011 09:08:39PM *  6 points [-]

Photons do not have rest mass, which describes the energy they possess when stationary relative to a given frame of reference, because they're always moving at the speed of light relative to any frame of reference, and the formula that relates rest mass to relativistic mass returns infinity for anything with finite rest mass moving at the speed of light.

They do, however, have mass equivalency. They exert a (very small) gravitational pull, can impart momentum equal to their mass equivalency times the speed of light, and if an object absorbs a photon, it gains mass equal to its mass equivalency.

If an object gains or loses potential energy, it also gains or loses relativistic mass. For instance, if you pull something out of a gravity well, its relativistic mass increases. These changes usually don't occur on a large enough scale to be observable, but we can easily observe the relationship between potential energy and mass in high energy interactions such as nuclear fission or fusion.

Comment author: falenas108 31 March 2011 09:44:31PM 0 points [-]

Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me

Comment author: Desrtopa 31 March 2011 08:21:28PM 4 points [-]

In that specific instance, I think I would have taken the approach of asking

Okay, so suppose we hypothesize that the soul is a form of energy. One thing we know about energy is that it isn't created or destroyed, only converted from one form into another. So this wouldn't actually imply that the soul persists after death, only that the quantity of energy is conserved. It might be converted into another form of energy. Gravitational potential is energy, for instance, but when a tree dies, it will eventually fall over and convert that into a different form of energy.

Aside from this, what else would it mean for the soul to be energy?

For one thing, it would have mass. If souls are energy, they cannot be weightless. For another, it should be able to do work, defined as force exerted on a mass multiplied by distance.

When you make a proposition, try to think carefully through all its implications, and consider precisely what it would mean. Do all of these sound like qualities you would ascribe to something you would call a soul?

Comment author: falenas108 31 March 2011 08:53:26PM 0 points [-]

I like the way you're approaching this, and this doesn't take away from the point you were trying to make, but there's one thing you said that I'm not understanding.

Why do things with energy have to have mass? Photons contain energy, and they are massless. And even more generally, if there is potential energy (say, gravitational) then the energy is in the field, which isn't even a particle.

Comment author: falenas108 31 March 2011 12:50:52AM 3 points [-]

In terms of natural selection, couldn't homo sapiens be considered a FOOM?

Our first period of FOOMing would be due to social competition, which resulted in those with higher intelligence reproducing more.

Our current style of FOOMing is from the scientific knowledge, and with this we will soon surpass nature (one could even argue that we already have).

If we view nature as our "programer", we could even be called self recursive, as with each passing generation our knowledge as a species increases.

Comment author: falenas108 25 March 2011 01:10:47AM 2 points [-]

This is meta dangerous.

Most people probably wouldn't know what that means; I suggest a change to increase accessibility.

Comment author: bentarm 20 March 2011 03:17:11PM 1 point [-]

I'm for adding more statistics to regular math courses, as long as we keep most of the old math as well.

Which requires teaching more maths. Holding constant the amount of maths teaching, would you be for replacing some of what currently goes on in pre-calc for more statistics?

Comment author: falenas108 20 March 2011 03:56:55PM 0 points [-]

I'm not intimately familiar with the standard math curriculum, so I don't want to guess at what could be replaced without losing too much.

Comment author: falenas108 20 March 2011 03:49:23AM 3 points [-]

I think the problem with this is that if I wanted to do anything involving calculus I would need the background that the current type of math education gives me, whereas statistics is fairly easy to learn.

I'm for adding more statistics to regular math courses, as long as we keep most of the old math as well.

Brain Upload Comic

1 falenas108 17 March 2011 09:32AM

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2186

Convincing argument, or faulty metaphor?

I would go with the latter, but I don't trust my brain's abilities at 5:30 in the morning.

Comment author: taryneast 09 January 2011 05:45:47PM 2 points [-]

Actually, I was in exactly the same position.

Then I actually read the article from the comment above (to refamiliarise myself with the maths), and was quite surprised to find that the article makes this relation very clear.

Worth a look. :)

Comment author: falenas108 05 March 2011 04:03:22AM 5 points [-]

Oh my god...imaginary numbers...they make sense now! Seriously, thank you for that link. I've gotten all the way through high school calculus without ever having imaginary numbers=rotation explained. Looking at the graph for 10 seconds completely explained that concept and why Eliezer was using imaginary numbers to represent when the photons were deflected.

In response to comment by Benquo on Baltimore?
Comment author: groupuscule 01 March 2011 08:09:00AM *  0 points [-]

Well, I'm interested in doing a meetup if y'all are. I'd be willing to host here in Baltimore. I guess express interest and availability here or in PM?

In response to comment by groupuscule on Baltimore?
Comment author: falenas108 01 March 2011 10:57:17PM -1 points [-]

I already said this in a PM, but for the sake of showing public support I will say that I would go to a meetup.

In response to Cryptography
Comment author: falenas108 28 February 2011 11:06:47PM *  0 points [-]

I think there is some interest on this site for a post on basic Cryptography. It's a subject often mentioned on this site, but other than a few side explanations to supplement certain articles, there isn't much here on the subject.

In response to Baltimore?
Comment author: falenas108 27 February 2011 10:29:14PM 0 points [-]

Not Baltimore, but Montgomery County.

Comment author: falenas108 26 February 2011 02:18:43PM *  3 points [-]

This argument begs the question, it is only works if God does not exist. You're trying to prove that there is no God, and everything is created naturally.

Your say:

All of our opinions about what is naturally possible must be based, by definition, on observations of nature.

This statement is correct if there is no outside force helping the Universe along. But if there is a God then what you are observing is not natural, it was put in place, or at least helped along, by a divine being.

Note that I am an atheist, this is just a standard rebuttal.

Comment author: bentarm 24 February 2011 01:26:52PM *  4 points [-]

So, if the query "What is the capital of the United States" was made, at the top it would say Washington D.C. and after that it would show search results,

You mean like... erm... Google does at the moment if you search for "What is the capital of the United States?"?

Comment author: falenas108 24 February 2011 05:18:08PM -1 points [-]

Damn, I was afraid it would show that. So a more difficult query.

Although, that is a sign that Google is already experimenting with that idea, only with a far simpler algorithm.

Comment author: syllogism 24 February 2011 03:59:19AM 6 points [-]

There's been a big back-and-forth about how big an impact QA can make on information-retrieval. A few points:

  1. Writing a proper natural language question isn't necessarily easier than writing a Google query. You don't always know what you need to know, and providing feedback from the QA system is very difficult. You can iterate towards the right query fairly well, as your searching teaches you better keywords.

  2. The percentage of queries that can be answered by a single sentence is substantial, but might be smaller than you think. People also use search engines to navigate around, to find long articles of interest, and to carry out tasks (e.g. shopping).

  3. The strictly informational queries probably aren't that important to Google's revenue. The best queries to be serving are the ones where the user wants to buy something, because that's where people will pay for advertising. If a competitor takes away the informational searches but can't serve the commerce searches too, I doubt Google will be sweating much.

Comment author: falenas108 24 February 2011 10:27:47AM 0 points [-]

True. When I said that, I was thinking of a service that does what Watson does and gives Google-style answers.

So, if the query "What is the capital of the United States" was made, at the top it would say Washington D.C. and after that it would show search results, similar to how Google shows answers to unit conversion searches.

Comment author: syllogism 24 February 2011 03:39:02AM 1 point [-]

I'd say that the challenge depends on the business model. Making it efficient enough to be profitable as a free web service will be quite tough, so your estimates are probably appropriate. On the other hand, if they can charge $200/month for it, then those estimates are very conservative...

Comment author: falenas108 24 February 2011 03:46:02AM *  -1 points [-]

This is the next step for Google to take. If another company manages get this service out for free first, they will be the new search engine everyone goes to. This alone could be highly profitable if they aren't as reluctant to use ads as Google is.

Comment author: Student_UK 20 February 2011 10:58:26AM 1 point [-]

Of course. Most of it will be in the wrong direction, that's the point. It might not be best for you, but maybe it will be the best thing for the group.

Comment author: falenas108 20 February 2011 01:46:10PM 1 point [-]

Sorry, should have been clearer. There are examples where scientists have had incorrect theories that science has accepted, which has set back scientific progress for decades.

This may not be due to running with it, maybe they did give their ideas a great deal of thought before writing about them, so your point may still be valid.

In response to Do biases matter?
Comment author: falenas108 20 February 2011 04:46:43AM -1 points [-]

Having lots of people making leaps in different directions might also make science progress faster overall.

Yes, but some of this might be in the wrong direction. We have plenty of examples where scientists have gone with incorrect theories...

In response to comment by sketerpot on Ability to react
Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 19 February 2011 03:50:48AM 0 points [-]

Hard to distinguish from shock/adrenaline, but cool.

Comment author: falenas108 19 February 2011 04:13:54AM 2 points [-]

I have a relevant story. I was once hiking down a mountain, and near the top I slipped and fell on a rock, cutting my knee to the bone. When I saw it, I calmly called out to the person I was hiking with to get gauze pads, without any panicking or shouting. He helped, and I was able to make it down on my own.

The way I did it was by looking at the situation and seeing what had to be done, then figuring out the best way to do it. I'm not sure if this was normal, but it was an immediate reaction for me.

Moral: Search for goals than find an optimal path to achieve them, even in stressful situations. The way to do this is by drilling a procedure in your head until you can do it by instinct. Not specifics, as you can't plan for things like nails in your shoes. But you can plan general emergencies procedures, like remove the puncture, clean the wound, and apply pressure.

Comment author: falenas108 18 February 2011 07:55:42PM 0 points [-]

Another place Pascal's wager fails on is the cost one has to pay for believing (such as attending services, time/money for religious holidays, ect.). In Cryonics case, it is a literal price, the cost of keeping you frozen.

So, what this boils down to is calculating the utilities for the probability of being able to live in the future vs. the value of the money that you and your family could have used for something else.

Comment author: falenas108 17 February 2011 03:13:02AM 2 points [-]

I just thought the Less Wrong community should know that a few minute ago, I was having trouble remembering the name of this fallacy, but I vaugely remembered the content of this post. So, I decided to use the search engine on this site to find this. I typed in "sexy," and this is the first thing that came up.

Comment author: falenas108 13 February 2011 03:45:02PM 1 point [-]

I associate exercising with an enjoyable activity, listening to music. Not only does this help me exercise longer than I normally would be able to, but the idea of being able to blast music makes me want to work out more.

Comment author: BenLowell 01 February 2011 07:21:32AM *  21 points [-]

I have been thinking about a Seattle meet up for a while, as I think I have seen a few others here from the area. I recall seeing another poster say that they were from the University of Washington. (I'm an undergrad there)

I had a few questions: First off, I don't have enough karma to create a top-level post. Is the discussion board appropriate or can we figure out something for a top-level?

I might recall an old thread on "how to run a Lesswrong meetup" but I can't find it---did this exist?

What have been your favorite low-preparation activities and discussions?

Edit: Ok, I'm going to check up on booking a classroom at the UW, unless somebody has an appropriate restaurant they would recommend. Once I get everything figured out I'll make a post, but I'm thinking Saturday or Sunday afternoon before Valentine's day.

Comment author: falenas108 01 February 2011 12:18:06PM 0 points [-]

Upvoted to help you get to that karma level.

Comment author: falenas108 23 January 2011 08:32:57PM 0 points [-]

Agreed that there is no secret to learning. Still, I think that the best models for computer learning will be very different than human learning, eliminating many of the biases humans have.

One thing to consider on the topic: Humans use this type of learning not only because it is a good method, but also because humans have limited memory space. Soon computer memory will exceed human memory, and this may not be as much of an issue.

Comment author: Jack 20 January 2011 02:25:22PM *  1 point [-]

The proposal is a karma requirement for making new discussion section posts not commenting on them.

Comment author: falenas108 20 January 2011 05:46:21PM -1 points [-]

Sorry, misread the post. I should probably stop reading LW at 6 A.M. and wait until I'm more awake.

Comment author: falenas108 20 January 2011 11:13:00AM -1 points [-]

I'm in favor of the lower limit. There's no reason that a spammer would be able to get even 1 vote, so that should take care of the problem by itself. Getting 5 karma in the discussion section is easier than the main page, as there are more posts that a newbie can contribute to. Plus, we don't want to drive away people who are frustrated that they aren't able to comment on discussion posts.

Comment author: falenas108 12 January 2011 01:04:52PM -1 points [-]

I will be summarizing some of my favorite university textbooks into 50-page blog posts.

I'm not sure, but isn't taking the ideas of an author and giving it away for free in this way illegal?

Comment author: falenas108 23 December 2010 12:15:11AM 2 points [-]

It seems that most of the arguments as to why having a period is good came around after it became possible to avoid it (Birth control).

Is it also true that the arguments for why death is good started appearing around the time when science starting theorizing the possibility of eternal life?

In response to Christmas
Comment author: Sniffnoy 19 December 2010 10:39:19PM 5 points [-]

Since nobody else has said it yet: Chinese food. (OK, so that's because my family is Jewish...)

In response to comment by Sniffnoy on Christmas
Comment author: falenas108 21 December 2010 10:58:37AM -1 points [-]

You can't forget going to the movie theater afterwards

Comment author: lucidfox 02 December 2010 11:17:24AM 2 points [-]

It could be that those who are transgendered tend to have more of the hormone associated with the opposite sex, so adding more of that hormone would not do as much.

The question is about the percentage of transpeople with originally raised hormone levels - otherwise it's a hasty generalization. Surely if this was really the case, they'd display physical differences from their biological sex all along - for example, transwomen would look more feminine then cis men even before any hormone therapy?

Comment author: falenas108 02 December 2010 10:01:08PM *  0 points [-]

I think you're right, that probably would be the case. I'm not sure about looking more feminine, but there would definitely be other characteristics that would be different.

This has already been shown in other areas, such as the digit ratio and gay men performing closer to females on certain physical and mental tests.

However, I don't know if there are any studies like this done for transgendered people.

Comment author: lucidfox 01 December 2010 06:21:13PM *  1 point [-]

Actually, that brings to mind a question I've been wanting to ask someone I don't know IRL: if you have begun taking hormones, how much have you found them to affect your thinking?

I sought answers to that question before and I heard conflicting accounts, from zero changes to significant, but it's important here to account for a causation bias. HRT often coincides with publicly coming out, which in many people can cause a rush of euphoria and a feeling of freedom while some inhibitions evaporate. In other words, many of the changing mental modes may have nothing to do with hormones at all; I've never taken hormones so far and yet I feel like a very different person from lucidfox[2008] thanks to my shifted system of values.

The way I see it, given that puberty didn't manage to shake my core identity and shape me into someone who isn't me, then it's highly unlikely that hormones will.

Comment author: falenas108 02 December 2010 11:09:12AM 0 points [-]

I sought answers to that question before and I heard conflicting accounts

I think I can explain why that might be the case. Testosterone is the "male" hormone; estrogen is the "female" hormone. However, both guys and girls have some amount both hormones. It could be that those who are transgendered tend to have more of the hormone associated with the opposite sex, so adding more of that hormone would not do as much.

Comment author: falenas108 20 November 2010 01:09:40PM 4 points [-]

One could argue that it would result in a net happiness, as children tend to help their parents when they get older. My parents helped grandfather's medical needs, and probably extended his life by about 5 years.

Comment author: falenas108 10 November 2010 11:27:47AM -1 points [-]

The idea of something becoming "critical" seems to sum up this entire book this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Tipping-Point-Little-Things-Difference/dp/0316346624