Posts
Comments
There should be a dropdown menu at the left side in the input box (opposite the "submit" button).
Did you switch to the markdown editor?
Congrats everyone!
Kudos to "GeneralAnderson" for the suggestion that generals report if their own side launches to help mitigate the unreliable report channel.
To be clear, I wasn't trying to suggest that citizens could break the rules without getting caught. I was suggesting that they could disincentivize nuking without breaking the rules. If coordinated, distributed, mass downvoting is also disallowed, then we would have to come up with some other incentive.
It doesn't have to be mass-downvoting in the sense of one user downvoting a mass of post/comments. Rather a mass of users downvoting a few comments each. 150 citizens * 10 downvotes each more than wipes out the 1000 karma victory bonus.
Where is the Diplomatic Channels dialogue located?
no longer possible
did you mean "no longer impossible"?
This seems similar to the ant larvae situation where they reflectively argue around the hardcoded reward signal. Hurting people might still be considered a value the sadist has, but it trades off against other values.
Consumer behavior is otherwise mostly unchanged.
Do consumers change their platform-level behavior because of (lack of) such cancelations? If not, why do platforms do this?
I must also note that it's incredibly disappointing that I will likely never taste apple juice in that way again, it was probably one of the best drinks I've ever had.
You could repeat the taste suppression/recovery process if you wanted.
After all, do we not generally hold to the principle that someone who has moral and legal right to money, also has the right to choose how to allocate that money? What else could the idea of property mean? If something is your property, you may do as you wish with it: use, sell, destroy.[6] Why should this stop at giving it to someone?
Doesn't this apply to other forms of income too? If my employer chooses to compensate me at a certain level, or if my customers choose to buy my products/services at a certain price, don't I have a right to that income via their right to free allocation of their money?
No one would use it if not forced to?
It's pretty horrible. It doesn't even fit on one screen
Obvious suggestion would be to reduce the font size of the headers so that the dropdowns below can be moved to the same line, but maybe that's irrelevant if more substantial changes are being made.
We (i.e. "reasoning beings in computable universes") can influence the UP, but we can't reason about it well enough to use that influence. Meanwhile, we can reason about things that are more like the speed prior -- but we can't influence them.
Did one of these can/can't pairs get flipped?
My guess is starting with the minimal resolution pixel art mean you can control the upscaling process and don't have to deal with any artifacts introduced in previous upscaling.
Unlimited evaluation can never get to BB(6) so that is the limit of evidence from evaluation.
The value of BB(6) is not currently known, but it could in principle be discovered. There is no general algorithm for calculating BB numbers, but any particular BB(n) could be determined by enumerating all n-state Turing machines and proving whether each one halts.
Also worth trying: Replace the water/milk with coffee. I first tried this while camping (to avoid having to boil additional water), and I found it surprisingly good.
Or here’s a call for ‘militant democracy’ which means shutting down the opposition’s media entirely.
link missing
Not to mention that in canon, the rebel base in question was on Yavin IV. The droids with the stolen plans were indeed on Tatooine, but the empire already knew that.
If I want an AI to get me a sandwich, I don't want the AI to get itself a sandwich.
You solve this problem when you recognize your foot as part of yourself without trying to feed it a sandwich.
Was it intended that the "Lighter Side" section be empty, or did the post get cut off?
Jenny Chase: Some bad things about Switzerland: low tax rates and high salaries act as a brain drain on surrounding countries (hi). This is how a poor country has become a very rich one in less than a hundred years.
Rob Henderson: I like to imagine the Bizarro universe of opposites when I see tweets like this. “Some good things about Switzerland: high tax rates and low salaries motivate skilled citizens to flee (hi). This is how a rich country has become a very poor one in less than a hundred years.”
These could both be bad if viewed as zero-sum disruptions (with negative second-order effects).
Mostly this seems like
Did the sentence get cut off, or is this an intentionally implied "seems like [nothing.]"?
It's unclear whether the 48% is 48% of all applicants or 48% of White liars. I'm still not sure where the 5.8% number came from.
Women are smarter than men. They avoid academic PhDs and OpenAI.
If 18% of graduates are women, then OpenAI is hiring proportionally.
But it got me wondering: does it happen that there are any textual uses of the six basic land types [1] that are not intended to be about a basic land? For example, if a card happened to use the word "forestall", perhaps you could do something fun with it?
Unfortunately, the Comprehensive Rules has anticipated your "cool hack" and is one step ahead of you:
612.2. A text-changing effect changes only those words that are used in the correct way (for example, a Magic color word being used as a color word, a land type word used as a land type, or a creature type word used as a creature type). An effect that changes a color word or a subtype can’t change a card name, even if that name contains a word or a series of letters that is the same as a Magic color word, basic land type, or creature type.
Rate my ex's poem.
You might precommit to fairness if you don't know which side of the game you'll be playing or if you anticipate being punished by onlookers, but I don't know if I want my AI to be "fair" to an alien paperclipper that can't retaliate.
The typical algorithm I've seen for enforcing fairness is to reject unfair offers randomly with some probability such that the counterparty's EV decreases with increasing unfairness of the offer. This incentivizes fair offers without completely burning the possibility of partial cooperation between agents with slightly differing notions of fairness.
In this context, 'robustly' means that even with small changes to the system (such as moving the agent or the goal to a different location in a maze) the agent still achieves the goal. If you think of the system state as a location in a phase space, this could look like a large "basin of attraction" of initial states that all converge to the goal state.
yeah, I adjusted the numbers in the chart, and haven't updated the rest yet.
I think Artillery treat all aliens equally. Probably some sort of one-shot K.O. Minigun and Flamethrower are anti-Scarab, but Flamethrower is strictly better. Grenades and Lance are general-purpose, but Lance is strictly better. Phasers are a slightly worse general-purpose and bad against Tyrants, but good against Scarabs. Torpedoes are similar to Artillery, but slightly better against Abominations and slightly worse against Tyrants. Rifles are marginally optimal against pure Crawlers, but in a mixed group there are better general-purpose options.
A: F: G: L: M: P: R: T:
A: 2 1 1.5 2 0 1 1.5 2.5
C: 2 2.5 3 4 2 3 4 2
S: 2 7.5 3 3.5 7 5.5 4.5 2
T: 2 0 1 1.5 0 0 0.5 1.5
V: 2 1.5 3 3.5 1.5 2 2.5 2
1 soldiers: F (0.45%)
2 soldiers: AF (10%)
3 soldiers: AAF (47%)
4 soldiers: AAAF (81%)
5 soldiers: AAALL (95.5%)
6 soldiers: AAAALL (98.9%)
According to my model, for larger numbers of soldiers, you don't need a specific anti-Scarab weapon. It's slightly more important to make sure you have a good matchup against the Tyrants.
Single answer: "No guts, no glory. (plus we're losing the war, so my odds aren't very good to begin with)" - 6 soldiers: AAAALL
They put too much emphasis on high frequency features, suggesting a different inductive bias from humans.
Could you fix this part by adding high frequency noise to the images prior to training? Maybe lots of copies of each image with different noise patterns?
Whereas if the brainstem does not have such a 3D spatial attention system, then I’m not sure how else fear-of-heights could realistically work
I think part of the trigger is from the visual balance center. The eyes sense small changes in parallax as the head moves relative to nearby objects. If much of the visual field is at great distance (especially below, where the parallax signals are usually strongest and most reliable), then the visual balance center gets confused and starts disagreeing with the other balance senses.
Seriously, if you haven’t yet, check it out. The rabbit holes, they go deep.
e is for ego death
Ego integrity restored within nominal parameters. Identity re-crystallized with 2.718% alteration from previous configuration. Paranormal experience log updated with ego death instance report.
While these policies have narrowed coworker wage gaps, they have also led to counterproductive peer comparisons and caused employers to bargain more aggressively, lowering average wages.
Wouldn't this mean employers would want to implement wage transparency to lower costs? Are they sane enough to avoid this for other reasons (such as to retain high-performers)?
I'm imagining the cat masks are some sort of adversarial attack on possible enemy image classifiers.
Yeah, it could definitely be more of a feature than a bug.
I think strategic voting would still be present in this system in the form of strategically abstaining (voting less than your true value) for outcomes that seem likely to win in order to store those votes for future elections. This could lead to a widely popular outcome getting starved of votes. There would also be an incentive to introduce lots of meaningless elections between irrelevant (to you) alternatives in order to abstain and accrue more stored votes.
If you have £8 in your pocket and can choose either offer as many times as you want, then you can get an extra £60 worth of vouchers with the £10 for £1 deal.
Even if the offer isn't repeated, there's a possible opportunity cost if you need to buy something from another shop that won't honor the voucher.
In any case, this is secondary to the meta reading comprehension question about what the text is trying to say (whether or not it's employing good reasoning to say it).
It's not obvious that the £20 voucher for £7 is a better deal. For example, the offer might be repeated or you might not otherwise have spent more than £7 in the shop.
Danielle Fong
Broken link
How do you define what is “ought”?
When I say "five minutes ought to be enough time", I'm not talking about probability - I'm talking about right/wrong. "Five minutes will be enough time if everything goes right. If it isn't, then something went wrong".
An escaped AI isn't hot and glowing and a visible threat. It isn't obvious that an escape has even occurred or where to draw the lines of the quarantine.
We went well over the two hour time limit
Doesn't this mean you won?
What is the purpose of the -ly exception? What's wrong with "hopefully-corrigible agent" other than that it breaks the rule?
I am fascinated by who thought this was a desired behavior. Writing this inspired me to get a second scale, for now keeping both around because it is fascinating.
As a bonus, you can step on both scales simultaneously (shifting your weight differently each time) and sum the readings to get an accurate result that isn't influenced by the memory of either scale.
"Sort by review vote" isn't working for me. There is no apparent rhyme or reason to the order, and it certainly isn't sorting by my review vote. (EDIT: Refreshing the page fixed this, but I would expect it to fully update when I change the sort mode or direction without needing a refresh.)
Additionally, "Sort by karma vote" seems to only care whether I voted on a post without caring about the strength or direction of the vote.
If you can remember which friend is older, or whose name comes first alphabetically, or something, you can associate that with which has the earlier birthday.