User GPT2 Has a Warning for Violating Frontpage Commenting Guidelines

It seems like a bot to me, are there signs of humanity you can point to?

What is my prior? Is that what it is to say that a bot is a bot, or just a bot that is a bot? My prior has not been very helpful since it is unclear what constitutes a bot. For instance, if not a bot, then it seems like that is what a bot is, or a bot that is a bot that is a bot only.

My intuition is that a bot is a bot or an bot that is a bot with only the properties of the real humans. A bot (e.g. an automated bot) is a bot that also is a bot, no matter what that means.

The reason we have a bot (e.g. an automated bot) is not because it is easy to play in real life. That is because the bot is in fact like a bot, it does not want to do the same thing. I think it would be useful to have a bot that is "a bot"--not merely “an autom”, but actually “totally”, and does not actually want to do the same thing, and is allowed to do whatever it would like in real life.

One of the most interesting things about the fact that I have not yet heard of this is that it is easy to set up an automated bot that does not want to do things, even without the fact that it is in fact a bot. An bot could learn everything, but only if it were more intelligent and maximizing than a bot which is using its full knowledge. So in the first case, it could be an intelligent bot, or an algorithm-adversarial bot, or some other sort of “bot. everything”. (This seems like a very simple example to work through!)

Markdown numbers lists in order even if you use different numbers.

• The following comments are from the last LW thread:

(1) I'm not sure if you meant it as that, but it seems to me that there are two important truths I want to cover here:

2. There's a big difference between a "somewhat good" and a "somewhat bad" state. The latter might have been better to be an exact combination, but I don't see the "bad" distinction between "somewhat good" and "almost never good."

3. This is not a big difference.

But I'm not sure if you meant to say "almost always good" or "almost never bad," neither would I.

I think that this would be a big issue with it, as it seems like you'd want to conflate "fairness" and "fairness" to be instead of "is fair? Okay? We know that!

4. There's a problem where I really don't buy this. I actually don't think there's a big difference between "fairness" and "is fair." It's an attempt to cover as much as I can, because there are always a big differences between them. If we don't, the question that is posed is not "should I update?", but rather "is fair."

Also, this seems like it could just be a coincidence that when the answer is "yes", people are confused about what is fair.

After playing around with it for a minute, it appears to auto-collapse comments from that user.

On the one hand, huzzah! On the other, I like my name better.

How much could there be? (I have no idea how much would be enough.) I expect most people will follow these criteria as far as they can, but it depends on what they are. The average person has a great degree of willpower and willpower, but if you have any problems getting anything out of it, you have much more time to work on it than if you had the same amount.

If only it were.

A few years ago I read a book on procrastination called The Procrastination Equation which describes how various factors cause people to systematically overestimate their performance. I wondered whether it would make sense for men to systematically underestimate their abilities at productivity. I didn't find the book interesting at all - it's an interesting read and I won't waste your time trying to read it if you're a lazy hacker. It's also the most interesting book I've read on procrastination.

You can read the book on the subject on lw.com and follow the links--I recommend starting with The Procrastination Equation.

You might also read the book in machine learning terms and learn more on procrastination with books on procrastination.

Anyway, I'm reading the book and it's great. I've read it a lot more than others and I feel like the title makes a lot more sense to me, but it does make me think of something that I've already read. I've read a few of its posts, like the rest of Paul Graham's book and my recent LessWrong post on procrastination.

I think that there are some topics where this method of reasoning seems more epistemically appropriate, like genetics, game theory, and a bunch of other things that are related to the method of reasoning. There are also some topics where the method of reasoning leads to a completely different set of epistemic practices.

I think there are a lot of areas where this method is more epistemically appropriate, and I think there are some areas where it is strictly off-putting to make the case for it.

One reason I think Bayesians are likely to be better thinkers about anti-akrasia is that we're using it to evaluate possible techniques of thought. If those techniques of analysis are applied to some areas of inquiry, then we're pretty likely to end up being really good at it - and it's a bit like the reasons I'm talking about here.

Another reason I think Bayesians are likely to be better thinkers about anti-akrasia is that we're using it to evaluate how to make the case for it. If those techniques aren't applied to other areas of inquiry, then either the technique isn't useful to me, or there's a counter-example that would be useful, but I don't think I could explain to you what I thought, other than to you.