Posts
Comments
I'd like to know: what are the main questions a rational person would ask? (Also what are some better ways to phrase what I have?)
I've been thinking something like
- What will happen in the future?
- What is my best course of action regardless of what all other people are doing? (Asked in moderation)
5. One General FES (from each side) is ChatGPT
6. There will be an hour when each General cannot say anything on any channel, regardless of all circumstances. (Everybody can talk for the first hour)
Ideas for next year:
- One General from each side is a defector. He wants the other side to win. If he is figured out, he will become a civilian.
- Possible additions:
- Once this happens, a random civilian will be chosen as the next general (if they agree).
- Once this happens, a random civilian will be chosen as next general (if they agree) AND a random general will be chosen as the next defector.
- Possible additions:
- One General from each side has to actively STOP nukes from getting launched (possible explanation: his overzealous men are pro-nuke, and he must send hourly (?) commands to NOT launch nukes, with the code 111111). This General must send this code in a five-minute radius of the xx:00 mark.
- Addition: the General cannot send nukes normally (with the 000000 code)
- The Generals/Petrovs must be people who have had an account on Less wrong for less than a year.
- The East and West Petrovs cannot read every other message on the Diplomatic Channel (until after the game)
Last year, I checked Less wrong on the 27th, and found a message that told me that nobody, in fact, had pressed the red button.
When I saw the red button today, it took me about five minutes to convince myself to press it. The "join the Petrov Game" message gave me confidence and after I pressed it, there was no bright red message with the words "you nuked it all"
So no, not a trap. At least not in that sense - it adds you to a bigger trap, because once pressed the button cannot be unpressed.
"Is me creating an opportunity for someone to commit a crime constitute my doing something bad to the commons or is it on the actual criminals?"
"It's on both"
These situations seem to be very extreme, but I have this less dark example: Say I go swimming in a place where the lifeguard can't see me. Is it my fault I drowned or the lifeguards? The lifeguard is supposed to watch everyone... but I put myself in that situation in the first place. (After typing this out I realized it's still pretty dark, oh well)
"Of course, you can argue "if they didn't want homeless people using them, they shouldn't provide them for free to homeless people". The consequence of this attitude, at large, is why we can't have nice things."
- (This was in the second-from-the-top comment in this chain)
Another extreme situation. Here's a similar but softer one which seems positive...
Airplane tickets to Las Vegas are often much cheaper than tickets to literally anywhere else. That's because Las Vegas bets that people will be attracted to the cheap tickets and go to Las Vegas, then proceed to spend tons of money at the casinos. My family doesn't go to these casinos, we just travel to Vegas because we have friends nearby. We're benefiting but not contributing.
My point is that I noticed that some of the situations Jiao Bu's been in can be rewritten to get the other person to react differently. Maybe that's just me, though.
What's the difference between a virus that preferentially infects cancer cells and a virus that kills infected cancer cells directly?
- Does "preferentially" mean that the virus also attacks non-cancer cells? Or does it mean that it just doesn't hit cancer cells as hard?
- "A virus that kills infected cancer cells": does this mean the virus kills cells infected with the virus mentioned in the first part of the question or is this just badly phrased?
Yes I clicked on this one partly because my brain saw the word cadaver, but I totally expected it be similar to "dissecting the [some dead civilization]"
I, too would like to know about this
Wow. I relate seriously to the first half of your story - the "read lots of books, learn about traps, don't fall in" part.
But instead of completely ignoring emotions, I had decided to find the source and fix it. But just like you said - a kid doesn't have much power to fix things outside of themselves. But I had another piece of advice from family - it's not the outside that affects your emotions, you affect your emotions. If you're bored, just make yourself feel less bored by doing something (singing, drawing, thinking about what you're going to eat for dinner, AKA making your brain do work instead of whining).
I guess the main idea I got from books was that whiny idiots are idiots and are highly annoying. I try not to complain too much, and now I'm this horribly excitable person because when you have to make everything interesting yourself [didn't have a phone, so I couldn't be the kid who just sits down in the middle of a museum to play video games or whatever], everything is NEW! and EXCITING! (even though you've seen this same exact building fifty times)
Lass Puppet: the glasses make you act stereotypically female
Pass Puppet: the glasses don't have any text
This post is really important as a lot of other materials on LessWrong (notably AI to Zombies) really berate the idea that trying out things that haven't been tested via the Scientific Method.
This post explains that some (especially health) conditions may go completely outside the scope of testable-via-scientific-method, and at some point turning to chance is a good idea, reminding us that intuition may be often wrong but it can work wonders when used as a last resort.
This is something to remember when trying to solve problems that don't seem to have one perfect mathematical solution (yet).
One of the disadvantages of arguing "but it could be dangerous" (which is what you seem to be arguing), is that every new invention is probably dangerous in some way or other. Cars, for example, are an invention that changed life around the world [just like the internet, or nuclear energy, and gunpowder] and have been misused, there have been thousands if not millions of accidents, and yet people view them in a very positive sense. It is true that richer people have cars with price tags over a million, and while cars are nothing in comparison to a human life, I believe that long-term-wise, eugenics is going to have a gigantic net positive effect on humanity.
As a side note, have you read Dr. Seuss' book "The Sneetches and Other Stories"?
Personally, I've enjoyed the novella. Not the best I've ever read, but I wanted to learn what comes next, which is a high bar these days.
The beginning isn't as interesting as it could be. It's not as "hook-y" as most books I find in the library are. But by, say, Chapter 10, I was interested in reading it.
(I can't believe I'm criticizing AI work. Wow.)
I'm surprised ChatGPT changed the plot of the story with the last DMF message. Is there anything I'm not seeing or did it actually delete the whole last part of the storyline from that one prompt?
What I can't figure out is why BLUE died. She's supposed to be immune to physical dangers? What did she die of?
Why does the fourth amendment make you feel LESS safe in your homes? Because of the possibility that criminals will not be found out because police can't search THEIR homes?
I'd like to hear your reasoning about "39. Obesity is contagious".
Is it the mental motivation of seeing someone obese to become obese yourself?
I can see what you mean by saying that 'identical to water but not water' is not true, but it's called the 'Twin' planet. Even twins have different fingerprints. Can't a substance act like water, look like water, and anything we do without looking at the molecular structure makes it seem identical to water, yet actually the creatures on that planet discovered a new molecule, that was just the same shape/form as a water molecule and have a different number of electrons?
I don't really understand atom structure, so is this scenario possible?
I have a solution for Harry.
Check the time, send any good occlumens with a time turner back for 6 hours, have them tell another good occlumens with a time turner to go back 6 hours, the time that it was when the first person went back in time, and have them ask yet another good occlumens...
Do that however many times you need to
Have someone actually film whatever happened, then wait until it is right after the time that the first person went back in time, show everyone the film.
That way:
a) An occlumens will not accidentally give away their secrets
b) Time will not be changed, since they waited
c) You know it's real, since it's on film.
I'm re-reading this chapter for the sixth time
And I just realized
Is the "Black robes falling" italics part a non-Harry point of view of the end of chapter 114?
The word being Harry's spell on Voldemort, and "Black robes, falling" is actually part of the text in that chapter, also in italics, and in parentheses.