Posts
Comments
I don't get what point you're making here.
What seems optimized for smoothness/persuasion?
Of all the people I have ever met that to my knowledge, have abused intimate partners or strongly crossed consent boundaries in sex/romance - all three are women.
If women are as dangerous as men or more, why do you feel the lack of fear towards you devalues your sexualness or cleverness or agency or something? I mean I can construct the reason given what you say, but it looks like a big confusing tower of gettier case indirection.
The information they are using is that I am a woman, and therefore I am harmless because women are harmless.
I think Ben's point is that you don't know that.
But insofar as this is what is going on, I suspect that one dynamic is roughly something like this: for their safety(?), women(?) don't just want to directly evade threats, they also want to be seen as able to police threats. This is how someo receiving sexual info about you, or having certain sexual thoughts about you, are constructed as violations of you, as opposed to risk factors for future violations. For that, Schelling gender is what matters, which is why as your Schelling gender changes, you observe people acting differently towards you in a seemingly irrational way.
(Note that I'm being coy about something here)
I'm not convinced that clothes are an unambiguous signal, and just saying so might be clearer. That said, once you send this signal to cis girls, do they change their behavior? If not, I doubt this is important info that they were actually lacking.
What do you think they might be tracking that Sinclair isn't?
(Also, Sinclair made the comparison between staying with her and walking alone at night for half an hour. Her friend could just have been the friend being wrong about the risk of the latter. Do you think that's what happened? Also, maybe the risk of walking alone might not have been the real reason, maybe the friend just wanted more time with Sinclair. Sinclair, do you think that's what happened?)
- sure, I guess a lot of my personality traits are more man-like. ambition, high libido. idk why cis girls are comfortable around me, I think they are wrong.
That's interesting, I'd like to understand what you mean by them being wrong. Have you tried to give cis girls the information you think they're lacking, or to talk about this explicitly with them? How do they react?
If they're wrong to be comfortable around you and do it anyways, what kinds of harms are they incurring?
Hi! In the past few months I've been participating in Leverage Research/EA discourse on Twitter. Now there is one Twitter thread discussing your involvement as throwaway/anonymoose: https://twitter.com/KerryLVaughan/status/1585319237018681344 (with a subthread starting at https://twitter.com/ohabryka/status/1586084766020820992 discussing anti-doxxing norms and linking back to EA Forum comments).
One piece of information that's missing is why you used two throwaway accounts instead of one (and in particular, why you used one to reply to the other one, as alleged by Kerry Vaughan in https://twitter.com/KerryLVaughan/status/1585319243985424384 ). Can you tell me about your reasoning behind that decision?
(If that matters, I am not affiliated with any Leverage-adjacent org and I am not a throwaway account for a different EA Forum user.)
Sorry, I'm having difficulty parsing the second paragraph here. Who's "he", and who's "we"?
Oof sorry for the delay!
Yes it looks like that's it. I didn't realize that once you hardcoded all the odd bits as some list L, the hypothesis "all even bits are 0 and the odd bits are L and then all 1s" isn't actually much simpler than the hypothesis "the even bits are length(L) 0s and then all 1s, the odd bits are L and then all 1s".
With this confusion out of the way, I'll try to dig deeper into the sequences and then report back what infra-Bayesianism does about this...
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "fails" here, but I'm pretty sure the Solomonoff prior should be fine at predicting the even bits (in the sense that once you reveal a large number of bits of the sequence, it is overwhelmingly likely that that the Solomonoff prior will assign a very high probability that the next even bit is a zero).
Am I simply wrong about how the Solomonoff prior works, or do I just have a lower standard for "success" or "failure" here?
Confusion about what Solomonoff priors can’t do:
- “Even bits are all zero, odd bits are random”: The Turing machine that writes zero to all even bits and writes some hardcoded string to all odd bits is simpler than the Turing machine that writes one long hardcoded string, so it seems to me that the Solomonoff prior should learn that the even bits are all zero
- The discussion there seemed to bleed into "what if the string of odd bits is uncomputable", which I think of as a separate field of confusion, so I'm still confused what intuition this example is supposed to be pumping exactly.
- “Uncomputable priors”: The simplest uncomputable prior I can think of would be “the nth bit is 1 iff the nth Turing machine halts”. But the Turing machine that tries to runs the nth Turing machine for 10^10 steps and writes 1 if it halts, and otherwise writes 0 unless n is in some hardcoded list is reasonably simple, so it seems to me that the Solomonoff prior should learn this kind of thing to a reasonable degree
- This works finitely long but eventually the Solomonoff prior won't be able to be confident in what the next bit is. But to me it's not obvious how we could do better than that, given that this is inherently computationally expensive
- Priors like “Omega predicts my action”: I have no idea what a solomonoff prior does, but I also have no idea what infra-Bayesianism does. Specifically, I'm not sure if there's some specific way that infra-Bayesianism learns this hypothesis (and whether it can infer it from observations or whether you have to listen to Omega telling you that they predict your action)