Posts
Comments
When will Harry tell Hermione the truth? I feel like he should insist she learn occlumency first.
Harry can just claim to have already used it that day for an innocuous purpose, like studying or something. Sure, McGonagall could accuse him of stupidity because that leaves him unprepared for an emergency, but pleading guilty to stupidity is easy. (Well, easier, anyway.)
Don't be too hasty, whatever you end up deciding! It's only been a day. A lot of people put a lot of thought into solving this problem, and it makes sense that their attitudes about whether the problem was too easy, or too hard, or whether they solved guessed the author's solution, or whether it's unrealistic, would be emotionally enhanced by the effort they spent.
Take a week, take a month, talk to people you trust.
I'm a postdoc in differential geometry, working in pure math (not applied). The word "engineering" in a title of a forum would turn me away and lead me to suspect that the contents were far from my area of expertise. I suspect (low confidence) that many other mathematicians (in non-applied fields) would feel the same way.
There's also the problem of actually building such a thing.
edit: I should add, the problem of building this particular thing is above and beyond the already difficult problem of building any AGI, let alone a friendly one: how do you make a thing's utility function correspond to the world and not to its perceptions? All it has immediately available to it is perception.
Let me try to strengthen my objection.
Xia: But the 0, 0, 0, ... is enough! You've now conceded a case where an endless null output seems very likely, from the perspective of a Solomonoff inductor. Surely at least some cases of death can be treated the same way, as more complicated series that zero in on a null output and then yield a null output.
Rob: There's no reason to expect AIXI's whole series of experiences, up to the moment it jumps off a cliff, to look anything like 12, 10, 8, 6, 4. By the time AIXI gets to the cliff, its past observations and rewards will be a hugely complicated mesh of memories. In the past, observed sequences of 0s have always eventually given way to a 1. In the past, punishments have always eventually ceased. It's exceedingly unlikely that the simplest Turing machine predicting all those intricate ups and downs will then happen to predict eternal, irrevocable 0 after the cliff jump.
Put multiple AIXItI's in a room together, and give them some sort of input jack to observe each other's observation/reward sequences. Similarly equip them with cameras and mirrors so that they can see themselves. Maybe it'll take years, but it seems plausible to me that after enough time, one of them could develop a world-model that contains it as an embodied agent.
I.e. it's plausible to me that an AIXItI under those circumstances would think: "the turing machines with smallest complexity which generate BOTH my observations of those things over there that walk like me and talk like me AND my own observations and rewards, are the ones that compute me in the same way that they compute those things over there".
After which point, drop an anvil on one of the machines, let the others plug into it and read a garbage observation/reward sequence. AIXItI thinks, "If I'm computed in the same way that those other machines are computed, and an anvil causes garbage observation and reward, I'd better stay away from anvils".
It's really great to see all of these objections addressed in one place. I would have loved to be able to read something like this right after learning about AIXI for the first time.
I'm convinced by most of the answers to Xia's objections. A quick question:
Yes... but I also think I'm like those other brains. AIXI doesn't. In fact, since the whole agent AIXI isn't in AIXI's hypothesis space — and the whole agent AIXItl isn't in AIXItl's hypothesis space — even if two physically identical AIXI-type agents ran into each other, they could never fully understand each other. And neither one could ever draw direct inferences from its twin's computations to its own computations.
Why couldn't two identical AIXI-type agents recognize one another to some extent? Stick a camera on the agents, put them in front of mirrors and have them wiggle their actuators, make a smiley face light up whenever they get rewarded. Then put them in a room with each other.
Lots of humans believe themselves to be Cartesian, after all, and manage to generalize from others without too much trouble. "Other humans" isn't in a typical human's hypothesis space either — at least not until after a few years of experience.
Agreed about Eliezer thinking similar thoughts. At least, he's thinking thoughts which seem to me to be similar to those in this post. See Building Phenomenological Bridges (article by Robby based on Eliezer's facebook discussion).
That article discusses (among other things) how an AI should form hypotheses about the world it inhabits, given its sense perceptions. The idea "consider all and only those worlds which are consistent with an observer having such-and-such perceptions, and then choose among those based on other considerations" is, I think, common to both these posts.
(I haven't seen the LW co-working chat)
If you want to tell people off for being sexist, your speech is just as free as theirs. People are free to be dicks, and you're free to call them out on it and shame them for it if you want.
I think you should absolutely call it out, negative reactions be damned, but I also agree with NancyLebovitz that you may get more traction out of "what you said is sexist" as opposed to "you are sexist".
To say nothing is just as much an active choice as to say something. Decide what kind of environment you want to help create.
Umm........ but caffeine is also addictive. This seems like a flaw in the plan.
Are you saying you believe this theory? (What's the evidence?) Or merely that I'm disbelieving it too quickly?
There's just no reason for it, story-wise. If EY had wanted the distance to Pioneer 11 to relate to Quirrell's zombie-ness in this way, he would have written the story so that the hard time-travel limit was 4.84 hours, so that it would coincide with the last day of classes. That makes a good story.
But the dates don't line up, and so there's no reason to believe that this is anything other than a fun theory.
Very clever idea! But it doesn't pan out, sadly. I just checked on Wolfram-Alpha. The distance from the earth to Pioneer 11 on the Ides of May, 1992, Quirrell's presumed last day of class, is actually 4.84 light hours, not 6.
Some experimenting on W-A shows that Pioneer 11 passes 6 light hours around August 25, 1995.
He also spent a long time with the sorting hat.
"Goyle, Gregory!" There was a long, tense moment of silence under the Hat. Almost a minute.
Chapter 9
Hm, that's a very good point. If Harry is aware of his own ignorance, then he might be willing to accept that there are ways of knowing things like "which spell did the dark lord cast", without actually knowing himself what those ways are.
In that case — i.e. in the case where Harry is aware of his own ignorance and is aware in that moment — then I have no idea what else the note of confusion could be.
I like the new changes to chapter 7 (I'm not sure how long they've been up). The conversation between Harry and Draco flows better, makes more sense for the characters, and the force of the original text is still present.
Two thumbs up!
Yeah, that makes sense. Good call.
I only just realized that Harry must have purchased that Spoon +4 in Diagon Alley, since he's not capable of wandless magic and we never hear of him using a wand when his spoon is stirring his cereal for him.
Interestingly, I also thought that the green goggles mentioned in the same sentence were a Wizard of Oz shoutout -- but they turned out to have an in-story use as well. When will we see bounce boots, knives +3, and forks +2?
Caution, possible spoilers, in the form of comments about the guessability (or lack thereof) of the plot. First quote and second quote.
I always assumed that the note of confusion was, "How could anyone possibly know what spells the dark lord cast, and what the effects were, if there were no survivors besides a baby".
Ng gigebcrf, rl fnlf, "V gubhtug crbcyr jrer tbvat gb trg "gur cybg" sebz Pu. 1-3, cbffvoyl Pu. 1, naq guvf jnf gur Vyyhfvba bs Genafcnerapl", naq yngre "Ru, lbh'yy frr jung V'z gnyxvat nobhg nsgre lbh ernq gur svany nep naq gura ernq Puncgre 1 ntnva."
What would a hypothesis about the end of the story look like which uses only information from chapter 1?
Claim: Harry's war with Voldemort will destroy the world. Support: In Chapter 1, Petunia says about Lily's reasons for not making her pretty, "And Lily would tell me no, and make up the most ridiculous excuses, like the world would end if she were nice to her sister, or a centaur told her not to ..." Suppose Lily really did say those things, and believed them, and that there was the force of a prophecy behind them. If Lily hadn't made Petunia pretty, Petunia would not have married Michael Verres, and Harry would not have grown up with science and math and sci-fi (and the attendant humanism) and rationality. A much weaker Harry would have attended Hogwarts, and fought Voldemort, and presumably would have lost. The world would survive, albeit under Voldemort's thumb.
As a result of Petunia being made pretty, Harry grew up around books that made him strong, strong enough to pose a credible challenge to Voldemort. If they're evenly matched, and fight to the death, then they take the world down with them.
This feels consistent with the events in the story so far, but it doesn't really seem that the story is driving towards this conclusion. Except most recently, with the ominous feelings from the various seers following (caused by? who knows) Harry's ominous resolution in chapter 85.
But it's all I've got for a prediction that's consistent with the events thus far and is foreshadowed in chapter 1.
If I were Quirrell, and I wanted Hermione out of Hogwarts, and Dumbledore has warded her against magic, and I failed to convince her to leave, what would I try next?
I would identify those people who have the most influence over her, and attempt to convince them to convince her to leave. Who have we seen to have influence over her? By "influence", I mean that she respects them or might for some reason listen to them. Harry, Dumbledore, McGonagall, Flitwick, Mandy, her parents.
Quirrell likely won't be able to (or won't attempt to) talk Dumbledore, McGonagall, or Flitwick into persuading Hermione to leave. He can put pressure on Harry. Putting pressure on Mandy (either with mind magic or just psychology) might also be effective. Some interrogation techniques involve prolonged deprivation followed by small kindnesses. If everyone hates Hermione, a single friendly face could persuade her to do what she otherwise might not.
He could arrange for Hermione's parents to learn of the events. As McGonagall points out in ch 84, and as Hermione later thinks to herself during her chat with Quirrell, "Mum would want her to RUN AWAY and her father would have a heart attack if he even knew she was being faced with the question."
What other avenues does Quirrell have, besides persuasion? "Hostile magic" and a "spirit [touching]" her would be detected. Can he slip her a potion? Attack her physically? Use non-hostile magic, whatever that might be? Convince her to hex herself? Use hostile magic on someone else force them to attack her physically?
We, the readers, know directly about lots of evil things Quirrell has done (e.g. kill Skeeter, break Bellatrix out of prison). We have also used this knowledge to guess at nefarious motives in other, less obvious, cases: like guessing that he was trying to dement Harry, or guessing that he is Hat&Cloak, or guessing that he is constantly manipulating Harry for his own ends.
Dumbledore has access to none of this knowledge. To Dumbledore, Quirrell is an exceptional teacher of Battle Magic who has the interests of the students at heart. He does not appear to take part in politics, with the exception of his pro-unification speech after the battle in the lake.
Dumbledore thinks that Voldemort is "less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost." The ancient tales he found speak of "wizards possessed, doing mad deeds, claiming the names of Dark Lords thought defeated."
The two pictures don't fit together — Quirrell is not doing mad deeds nor claiming the name of the Dark Lord. It's true that Dumbledore knows Tom Riddle was exceptionally brilliant, but I don't think it's idiotic of him to not guess that maybe the old tales of past dark lords only told of the stupid ones, and that Riddle's style of possession would be different.
Lucius is a slytherin, and not stupid. What if he really does believe Hermione is a pawn? The question remains — whose pawn?
Lucius might believe Hermione is Dumbledore's pawn.
Lucius already believes D killed his wife, and so he would have no trouble believing Dumbledore is targeting his son. In fact, it would be to Dumbledore's advantage (so might think Lucius) to target Draco in such a way that D can avoid taking the blame. If D wanted to impose political costs on Lucius, one way he might do it is to have someone utterly beyond suspicion be found to have attacked Draco. Then Lucius would have to use up political capital to punish an innocent little girl.
If Lucius thinks this way, it would explain his willingness to punish Hermione to the extreme — she's Dumbledore's pawn, and so he's going to take her away in order to impose costs on Dumbledore. For Dumbledore to speak up for Hermione would reinforce the belief that she belongs to D.
What do we make of Harry Potter's comments, and Lucius's reaction to them, in this light (given that Lucius thinks Harry is the dark lord)? His "unheard sentences" would likely be along the lines of "No shit, sherlock!", followed by, "why is the dark lord pretending to be stupid."
The funny thing is, Quirrell's testimony of someone with a motive to harm Draco is spot on: Dumbledore attacks Draco in order to impose costs on Lucius.
... are we really so sure Dumbledore didn't set the whole thing up?
EDIT: I think Quirrell set it up— but I also think there's a good chance that Quirrell didn't just set it up to make it look like Hermione attacked Draco, but rather set it up to make it look like Dumbledore set it up to make it look like Hermione attacked Draco.
I also read a theory somewhere (can't remember where) that if, in canon, Voldemort had killed Harry in the graveyard as intended, he and his crew could use the portkey's return trip in order to wreak havoc upon Hogwarts; they can't just apparate in, and all the ministry officials would be trapped there for them to slaughter, without escape routes.
This part is never explicitly stated, but I assume they alert Rita to Quirrell and manufacture some silly rumors about him being a former Death Eater and training Harry to be the Next Dark Lord.
I agree — though it's hard to tell because chapter 25 is written out of order. But a week passes between when Harry asks the twins for a plot and the lunch with Quirrell when Harry reads the paper: Act 2 is stated as happening on Sunday; directly afterwards, in act 3, Harry talks with Draco and borrows 40 galleons, and sometime afterwards, probably directly after, in Act 4, Harry asks the twins for a plot, and the twins also discuss pranking Quirrell. In Act 5, the twins ask Flume for help, and show him an article in "yesterday's edition of the Daily Prophet", titled "THE NEXT DARK LORD?". In Act 6, Quirrell quotes that title when he confronts Skeeter; he also mentions he has no dark mark, which is one of the elements of the twins' discussion in act 4.
So at some point in the week between Act 4 (either Sunday or soon after) and Mary's room (Saturday), the twins convince Skeeter of certain things about Quirrell. The Prophet publishes the Quirrell article. At some point early the next morning, the twins ask Flume for help with Harry's article. At some point after that, and before Saturday, Quirrell confronts Skeeter on the street.
In summary, there's almost a week of lost time in chapter 25, which makes it a little difficult to see that the twins were behind Skeeter's article on Quirrell, but there are enough hints in there to make it a sure thing.
I read this as meaning that Dumbledore's order that Snape stop reading minds is just to mollify Harry. Dumbledore reads students' minds (I argue here that Dumbledore reads the Weasley twins' minds), and hence doesn't actually care whether Snape does the same.
Harry, of course, has no way of checking that Snape is following this order, so it's safe for Dumbledore to cross his fingers under the table, so to speak.
It wasn't Snape's choice to humiliate Hermione publicly — that was Dumbledore's decision, making use of Snape's "evil potions master" persona. Note that none of the other professors speak up, except for Quirrell, who is a temporary hire and need not follow Dumbledore's direction. Minerva doesn't even show up, presumably so that she doesn't have to sit and keep her mouth shut.
Dumbledore explains to Harry in chapter 77 that Hermione had to be seen to lose publicly in order to de-escalate the conflict with Slytherin. Dumbledore doesn't actually know that Snape was involved in escalating the conflict.
I'm still not sure why Snape wanted to escalate conflict between the bullies and SPHEW, but regardless, we can't look at his humiliation of Hermione as any evidence of his motives, because it's not actually his move.
Actually, I think the Slytherin students reasoned rationally yet happened not to get the right answer.
Slytherin thinks that Snape can get away with being horrible because he's blackmailing Dumbledore, that Harry found out how Snape is blackmailing D, and that D now has to try to please both of them.
In actuality, Snape is horrible at Dumbledore's direction, in order that everyone think Snape is blackmailing him, when actually Snape is really on Dumbledore's side (chapter 77). (Or at least D thinks so, based on love-for-Lily.) But Dumbledore really does have to keep Harry happy to some extent, so he directs Snape to be horrible to only half the students. Then D can maintain the fiction that Snape is blackmailing him, and can pretend that Harry is now blackmailing him too by finding out the same secret Snape has.
D plays along with Harry's guess that he wants an evil potions master, so that he doesn't have to tell Harry that Snape is secretly on his side.
Ch 76 - "I have had two mentors, over the course of my days. Both were extraordinarily perceptive, and neither one ever told me the things I wasn't seeing. It's clear enough why the first said nothing, but the second..." Snape's face tightened. "I suppose I would have to be naive, to ask why he stayed silent."
I've actually wondered which mentor is which, in Snape's telling: my guess is that the first one is Voldemort, and that Snape thinks it's "clear enough" that Voldemort didn't tell him Lily was shallow because he either didn't know or didn't care. The second one is Dumbledore, who didn't tell him Lily was shallow because Snape was only useful to him as long as he still loved her. And Snape would have to be naive to ask why Dumbledore stayed silent, when it's obvious that speaking up could only weaken Snape's loyalty.
Harry leaps to that conclusion before hearing from Dumbledore how difficult they are to create. Even if that was the method, there is still the question of how they managed to accomplish it.
My hypothesis — as of several chapters ago — is that Dumbledore assisted in the Rita prank. He certainly had the motive, since he's playing the game against Lucius and Rita was Lucius's pawn. He also had the means (being incredibly powerful). Why hadn't he acted against her earlier? Because he hadn't been clever enough to think up a good way to get at her without inviting retaliation.
So how did he ever get included in the twins' plan?
Easy: he's in the habit of routinely reading their mind. Evidence for this lies in chapter 63: "It wasn't that the Headmaster had popped up out of nowhere and was staring at them with a stern expression. Dumbledore was always doing that." There's also weak evidence in chapter 12, where Dumbledore knows Harry wants to reformulate Quidditch (he could know via F&G via Ron). And in chapter 79, where he knows about the map.
So: The twins are walking around thinking about how to implement their plan against Rita, Dumbledore pops up out of nowhere looking for some good gossip, sees their plans, seizes the opportunity. The exact implementation could either be a memory charm (maybe trap her when she shows up at Mary's room looking for gossip about Amelia Bones, Dumbledore's ally), or else Dumbledore could actually pull off the acts Quirrell calls impossible.
Just reread chapter 40.
"Which is why the Resurrection Stone is not the most valuable magical artifact in the world," said Harry.
"Precisely," said Professor Quirrell, "though I wouldn't say no to a chance to try it." There was a dry, thin smile on his lips; and something colder, more distant, in his eyes. "You spoke to Dumbledore of that as well, I take it."
Sounds to me like Quirrell had never heard of the resurrection stone before this conversation. Later in the chapter, it becomes apparent that he has never heard of the deathly hallows symbol. After Harry shows him the symbol, he excuses himself and cuts short the outing. Perhaps he has seen the stone before and is running off to find it? His ignorance fits with canon, where he uses the Peverell ring (with the stone inset) to make a horcrux.
He talks to Quirrell later about not making the obvious suggestion in front of Dumbledore, and goes on to say:
"If you happen to see a stone with that symbol," said Harry, "and it does talk to the afterlife, do let me know. I have a few questions for Merlin or anyone who was around in Atlantis." (Ch. 40)
He could ask Salazar Slytherin where the chamber of secrets was, perhaps.
Unless H&C needs to figure out (through legilimancy) who else Zabini might have told about his existence, so that he can go and obliviate them too.
Nice. I like your explanation much better than mine. Keeping in mind that Lucius knows very little at this point about what Harry is like — and that Harry is only eleven! — I guess it's reasonable for Lucius to assume that such an observation by a fellow student of Draco's would require some adult tutelage.
I don't understand Draco's exchange with Lucius at the end of Chapter 7. Anyone know what's going on?
Here are my thoughts, which of course may easily be completely wrong.
Facts: 1) Harry states, "So during the Incident at the Potions Shop, while Professor McGonagall was busy talking to the shopkeeper and trying to get everything under control, I grabbed one of the customers and asked them about Lucius."
2) Harry states, "So you really are his one weak point. Huh."
3) Draco's letter to his father asks about Harry's "weak point" comment, Lucius's reply reads, "I would say that you had been so fortunate as to meet someone who enjoys the intimate confidence of our friend and valuable ally, Severus Snape."
--
Conclusions:
The wording of Harry's statement in fact 2 suggests that Harry's source put him on to the "weak point" assertion. The "so you really are" bit sounds like a hypothesis that has just been confirmed.
A bit of a reach: Harry's source in the potions shop was Severus Snape, and Snape is allied with Lucius. If the first conclusion is true, then this would explain the speed of Lucius's response to Draco. That is, Snape tells Harry about Lucius, including that Draco is his only weak point, and then reports the conversation to Lucius; when Draco reports the "weak point" comment, Lucius understands that Harry has spoken to Draco.
Snape is the potions teacher and hence might reasonably be found in the potions store.
--
This is not very satisfying to me because Harry doesn't later recognize Snape as being someone he has seen before, and his appearance is quite distinctive to Harry. Polyjuice seems like a stretch.
I hope that doesn't turn out to be the reason for the conversation to have happened — it's a little unsatisfying. I guess another reason for H&C to need to talk to Zabini could be in order to use legilimancy on him. Presumably, in this case, to discover whether Zabini told anyone else besides his mother about H&C.
Edit: On reflection, this seems quite likely to me. H&C turns the conversation to betrayal, and if the plan is to use legilimancy on Zabini, then Zabini would need to be thinking about betrayals (and whether he has betrayed H&C) in order for the legilimancy to be useful.
I discovered this community through HP:MoR; I joined the discussion because there was a comment about the work which I wished to make. I've started reading the articles as well and am enjoying doing so.
Looking forward to all the shiny ideas!
Re Chp 35
I searched all the threads, and didn't find any mention of this. There's a hint in the conversation between Hat&Cloak and Zabini: namely, the fact that there is a conversation at all. Why does H&C need to talk to Zabini if he's just going to obliviate him anyway? Here's one possible answer: he needs some information from Zabini.
I don't think he needs Zabini's report on the conversation — partly because he keeps talking afterwards, and partly because there are independent reasons to think that H&C is either Quirrel or an agent of Quirrel's. (For instance, the "keyed into the wards" comment, as well as the fact that H&C exactly predicts Quirrel's reaction to Zabini's statement, and the fact that this statement ended up benefiting Quirrel.)
So what information does H&C need? Note that he tells Zabini, "The reward I promised you is already on its way to your mother, by owl." In other words, Zabini was clever enough to insist that his reward go to a third party, leaving someone around to remember that he's owed an award in case he's obliviated. H&C seems to me to be turning the conversation at every step towards Zabini's mother. Eventually, he receives the information that Zabini doesn't know how his mother persuaded her last suitor to marry her.
It's unclear why this information would satisfy H&C, but it does seem that he needs to take care of Zabini's mother in some way (obliviate her, probably), and that he's trying to figure out how difficult this will be. This seems reminiscent of Quirrel's later behavior towards Auror Bahry — he tries to figure out exactly what Bahry knows and what the other aurors expect so that he can appropriately memory-charm him.
Any thoughts on the matter?