Slider's Shortform 2019-08-14T14:01:35.789Z · score: 4 (1 votes)
How many researchers does a new paper reach? 2019-07-26T04:14:06.930Z · score: 4 (1 votes)
When does adding food make an organism reliably better? 2019-07-19T21:22:38.904Z · score: 9 (4 votes)
Infinity is an adjective like positive rather than an amount 2019-05-30T13:22:35.449Z · score: 1 (9 votes)
Emotional valence as cognition mutator (not a bug, but a feature) 2019-05-15T12:49:40.661Z · score: 10 (5 votes)
Friendliness in Natural Intelligences 2014-09-18T22:33:31.750Z · score: -4 (7 votes)


Comment by slider on The unexpected difficulty of comparing AlphaStar to humans · 2019-09-20T16:27:07.073Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I think the question is about making the compute requirements comparable. One of the critisims of early AI work is about how using simple math on abstract things can seem very powerful if the abstractions are provided for it. But real humans have to extract the essential abstractions from the messy world. Consider a soldier robot that has to assign friend or foe classification to a humanoid as part of a decision to maybe shoot at it. That is a real subtask that giving a magic "label" would unfairly circumvent. In nature even if camouflage is imperfect it can be valuable and even if the animal is correctly identified as prey delaying the detection event or having the hunter hesitate can be valuable.

Also a game like QWOP is surprisingly diffcult for humans and giving a computer "just control over legs" would make the whole game trivial.

A lot of the starcraft technique also mirrors the games restrctions. Part of the point of control groups is to bypass screen zoom limitations. For example in Supreme Commander some of the particular kinds of limitations do not exist because you can zoom out to have the whole map on the screen at once and because providing attention to different parts of the battlefield has been made more handy (or atleast different (there are new problems such as "dots fighting dots" making it hard to see micro considerations))

Comment by slider on What are some of your "Crazy Ideas" that you're currently thinking about? · 2019-09-20T14:41:15.388Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

One of the models how such weeding might happen is that you want some precentage of the students to fail. If you apply pressure the breaking point is reached faster. Making a change that helps everybody makes it so that you have to compare higher performance levels which is often harder than comparing low performance levels.

Comment by slider on Category Qualifications (w/ exercises) · 2019-09-18T14:25:12.715Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

While the policy suggestion is indeed outside the scope of the discussion I feel it woud be important to process it differently. "Groups that threaten violence for political reasons are terrorist" and "We should punish terrorists". Calling someone a terrorist is not itself a punishment (unless again the label triggers unstated mechanisms that are beyond deliberate, concious or official control). In the topic area it is not unheard of to be issues where "terrorist" is a special position that warrants different procedure. There the issues would be "punish as criminals" or "punish as terrorists" (or POW or combatant etc). If we connect the long definition straight to treatment reference to a one word concept is unneccesary.

I was refrring to the threat portion becuase that is the difference that is sometimes included and sometimes not included. "Only threathens" doesn't really occur.

Exhange that is likely to happen or happens frequently is:

A: "This is a group of terrorists."
B: "You lied to me. I did research and group has not killed anyone"

Sure if you give long form this kind of misunderstading doesn't happen that much.But consider this:

A: "This murderer will be held in prison for life"
B: "You lied to me. This guy only killed criminals, that is not murder"

You could avoid this by going

A:"This person committed a lot of murder on criminals but didn't kill any innocents. He will spend his life in prison.

Now what is or is not murder might be beside the point of the communication. But accomodating such a weird conception of the crime is not exactly neutral. In choosing such a phrasing one could be normalising that criminals have a weakened right to life.

I guess the differences are slight as I don't really advocate to only use the definitions or conceptions of words you have but I think there is a risk of being too conceptual network pandering and persons should have some share of having some sensibility in their concepts. In particular I think in this instance "definition of murder" would get a population majority behind it yet people would in similar representative way fail to apply the label to these circumstances. Thus the "meaning of words" is more strongly established / can be emphasised more rather than the ad hoc associations.

In terrorist there is a pattern that when evaluating I/me the threat component tends to be weak but when applying to others it tends to be strong. The issue is whether it establishes a principle or whether it is a summation or overview of the attitudial landscape.

Comment by slider on Category Qualifications (w/ exercises) · 2019-09-18T13:42:43.879Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

What if the audiences expectations are based on faulty beliefs? In particular some given topic might have a bunch of entrenched assumptions so that there are positions that can't be expressed without violating expectations. In the very limit if the communication doesn't violate expectations then it can't convey information, the Shannon entropy is zero. There are probably multiple kinds of surprise here. The "easy" kind would be if nobody expected anybody to say "the sky is red". The "hard" kind would be if one means the lowest wavelength kind of light with "the sky is blue". Exhausting the easy kind can be done relatively effectively and straighforwardly. But when there are conceptual problems then the hard kind of thing is the main source of progress. If you encounter evidence that can't be handled with your current conceptual palette you must come up with new concepts in order to accomodate reality. Those updates tend to be laboursome but they tend to be the valuable ones.

Comment by slider on Category Qualifications (w/ exercises) · 2019-09-16T20:06:05.109Z · score: 6 (2 votes) · LW · GW

In abuse it is very important to be aware which qualifications are in fact used and they in fact differ and their differences are important. However declaring one set of qualifications as "correct" goes into actual opinion rather than just clearing definitions.

I most disagree with 4) instead fo assuming that a mischaracterization is taking place it would be more apporiate to think the person actually cares about threats. In a real life example when I am playing overwatch and somebody says "pick reinhart or I throw" I might pick reinhart but I will file a report for "inactivity". The threat of throwing not carried out is on the same severity level as actually throwing. I get there might be genuine difference in opinion whether it is as bad but to me it is.

Heinouness of benefitting from violence without comitting it. Consider workplace sexual harassment. If you in a position to fire a person and ask for a sexual favour you don't need to make an explicit ultimatum for a person to be genuinely concerned that they will be fired if they refuse. "It was just talk" isn't going to fly. Further more illegal threats. If you credibly say you are going to beat somebody that is an offence even if you do not lay a finger on them. It has to be credible thought. If it is absurd then it can be counted as just talk. In the same way if a polician starts to talk about how somebody should be hurt that can credibly be construed to be a suggestion/order to commit violence. Hence "incitement against a group of people" being something you can be quilty of. And if you call in a bomb threat with no actual bomb there is a chance it will not be written off as a joke.

There is a genuine discussion how to respond to and whether to utilise credible threats. Assuming what the correct stance should be is avoiding that discussion instead of having it.

With fruit salads I don't know whether I meanigfully disagree. Like if somebody assumes my gender wrong and I don't correct them have I mislead them? And I think there is room that a opinionated cook could try to sell that cucumber is now a fruit. In fashion if you are low status and don't do as the fashion says you are violating the norms but if you are high status and do something original you are a trend setter and define what the fashion is. Thus "those shoes do not go with those pants" is a similar kind of claim to "cucumber doesn't go into fruit salad". If I stylise someone and their close ones decry them as ugly have I lied that I stylised them? If the restuarant list "champagne" as one of drink options but it is not produced in the correct area, it that misrepresentation or does the saving grace that average customer gets the idea what kind of drink it is effectively save it from being blameworthy?

Comment by slider on The Power to Understand "God" · 2019-09-16T18:44:54.538Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

You usually justify the existence of a concept althought it can often take the form that some particular species appears in the ontology. There are real cases when you want to justify entities for example whether a particular state should exist or not. Then you are not just arguing whether it should be understood in the terms of a state or some other organizational principle but what actually happens in the world.

Comment by slider on The Power to Understand "God" · 2019-09-16T18:41:09.612Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Well that is a good contrast on what kind of difference is seeked.

I thought not being grounded was about having only theory that has no implications for anything.

If I claim "I am sad" that is not empty just becuase it refers to my mind. I could be wrong about that and sadness is grounded.

In a similar way "that axe is sharp" could be construed to mean about intentions to use the axe. In an extreme interpretation it doesn't specify any physical properties about the axe because the same axe could appear dull to another person. It could mean something "I am about to use that axe to chop down some wood" which would be solely about psychological stances towards the future. So this would be an argument line to say that "that axe is sharp" is not grounded. While the absurdity is strong with "sharp" consider "hotness" as in sexyness. Trying to ground it out into particular biological or physical features isn't a trivial thing at all.

If an axe can groundedly be good for cutting then an environment can be suitable for living and saying that the universe is suitable for prospering expresses a similar kind of "fit for use" property.

Comment by slider on The Power to Understand "God" · 2019-09-16T09:36:10.055Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

The difference is not obvious to me. How they are relevantly different? You just seem to favour lore from one magisterium.

Comment by slider on The Power to Understand "God" · 2019-09-16T02:51:05.104Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

How can groundings be correct or incorrect? If it walks like a duck, eats like a duck, swims like a duck and I call it God it's a duck by different name. It might be that Bobs god is placebo. To the extent opened in the example dialogue it is synonymous. Any additonal facets are assumed and when the point of the exchance was to disambiguate what we mean great weight must be placed on what was actually said. If someone is not believing but only beliefs in belief as an external person it would be an inaccurate belief to think they belief.

It would seem in the text that the given definition of god would lay out enough information that the existence of impact on healing factors could be checked for and the text claims such a check would show no impact. Now if you believe that pacebo is a thing you would probably think that a setup where some patients are visited by their doctors vs one where they ar not visited by their doctor would show impact. If the test for healing was to have the prayer by their medside it would seem mostly analogous to the doctor visit and should have comparable impact. Such a test would show impact. In arguing why the impact result is wrong one needs to argue how the test setup did not test for the correct hypothesis. What bob gave us wasn't exactly rocket science "I pray - they heal" (I think I assumed that a "pray campaign" would involve visiting but it was not infact mentioned). If the procedure involved artificial hiding or no contact prayer that could be significantly different how it would happen "in the wild". An a prayer might geniunely be a practise that differ which would perform differently. Depression medication is warranted enough for having impact comparable to placebo, then deploying a prayer campaign to a patient that would not get placebo benefits otherwise would be medically warranted.

I have trouble evaluating what giving such a definition would look like. Most definitions i can find care to get the mathematics represented. And while it doesn't have an explicit medium reference it's unclear whether the mathematical device connected with physical theory avoids forming a medium at all. That you avoid physics at the mathematics level is not surprising at all. And just like a duck can't avoid being a duck for beign called God that the theory doesn't have an explicit part called "medium" doesn't mean it doesn't sport one. I would probably benefit from actually receiving such a definition and going over the question for reals. But in any case it refers back to more entrenched beliefs were things rely on other things and simple point changes to the theories are unlikely.

Stephanie: No, having a higher purpose makes me have more spring in my step in my daily life. Having a higher purpose is not just empty words.

It might not be the most insightful thing but it could be a thing that is associable even if the theory is hazy and might be typical of how such belief systems funciton within a psychology. It would still be very vague and would warrant closer inspection.

I get that you are trying to target folks that are very neglient in their belief details. But I think it risk falsely processing a lot of different kinds of folks as that type. If you start talking to a person and they have some grasp of their concepts or they do have meaning in their words it would be prudent to catch on that even if the beliefs were strange, wrong or vaguely expressed. It might also be that the sanity waterline is geniunely different in different environments. In my experience faith-healers are looked down upon by religious people and they try to mitigate it. That is it's not the faith that is seen as the problem but that they are unironically trying to use magic.

That discussion strategy for many-worlds would try to dodge having to be specific. The start-up idea did not receive an out for trying to sharply direct the discussion but was counted as being not specific.

Comment by slider on Looking for answers about quantum immortality. · 2019-09-16T01:12:53.888Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

The survivors are living in an area that shatters the illusion of classical reality. The survivor probabilities favour classical probabilities so you should be able to expect for things to get classical. In a non-classical universe it might be possible to get a very rapid regeneration that might bounce you far from the torment zone for a long time. Even if you do not get a particuarly stellar regeneration you will constantly be tunneling out of the torment zone too. At some point the tunneling to torment and tunneling to relief should balance out where you have 50% chance of being in a bad scenario and 50% chance of being in a good scenario. That is if you are sustained longer in a scenario that classically would be considered bad the less faith you can have that the mechanics of the scenario continue to work. It will either resolve to a classical situation different from current or it is such a jumbled mess that "being stuck in a bad place" is not representative.

In general the jumbling might also target your personality and then the question of how much of your alteration really counts as you starts to get relevant. If you escape with a cunning deduction you made because you tought you were Sherlock Holmes because cosmic rays fabricated your memories for it does that count as Sherlock Holmes or you waking up or both? One might need classical mechanics to maintain a sense of identity stability (that is the you on the next second has very similar personality) and when that is taken away it is not sure the concept applies with the same strength. Sure somebody concious will get to expererience a bunch of stuff and it will be structurally reminicient of you. But will it really be you?

Comment by slider on Looking for answers about quantum immortality. · 2019-09-16T00:02:55.149Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Asking for exact complete error report might be a bit taunting in challenging error states. I am sure also partial hints would be appriciated.

Comment by slider on Looking for answers about quantum immortality. · 2019-09-15T23:25:57.539Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

If you think something is bad you are likely to oppose it or suffer experiencing it.

If you have opposed it for quite a while then there is inductive proof that opposing it is not effective. Those resources are then not producing anything. You are better of moving resources from opposition to other tasks.

If you experience it often without opposition thinking that it should not happen to you might make you suffer more. There you can cut your losses by making the adverse event hurt you as little as possible.

Magic baseball bats are ambigious how easy it would be to oppose them. Smallpox clearly does admit effective opposing.

Comment by slider on Category Qualifications (w/ exercises) · 2019-09-15T23:07:40.626Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Well "Proving too much" form: We don't want to hit all slave owners so it would be more handy if the term "abuser" only referred to a small group of people. A related point of view could be that someone that tortures their slaves is a abuser but someone that beats their slaves to bruises in keeping of discipline is just correct normal everyday housekeeping.

I don't mean we should start forming defintions with instrumental goals in mind. The term "abuse" is loaded with attitudes and the text was close to reading "abuse would imply I should oppose it and I do not oppose this behaviour therefore it is not abuse". The default mode of operations comes with a lot of unpercieved instrumentality baked in. If you notice it you can decontruct it and do a more deliberate/explicit decision. It is very different to say "That is not abuse, that is microagression" than "That is not abuse, that is okay".

Literal meaning is downplayed by the post. Instead of answering "what is a fruit salad?" we just bypass by referring that a expectation would be violated in a certain circumstance. With different definitions one could argue either a)"Just because you have a salad made of fruit doesn't make it a fruit salad" or b) "Fruit salad is a salad made of fruit". Some persons might worry that accepting A introduces an inconsistency. For example applying the word "terrorist" to someone that uses threat of violence for poliical ends could definitionally apply to well liked groups. Using the standard "well I would not have expected for terrorist to mean that person" to reject such labelings would radicallly change what retoric like "we oppose terrorists" means (it starts to means something close to "we hate your enemies" instead of a principled stance against spesific tactics).

With the mathmatican example I was more going for the behaviour of "most". Someone that doesn't know it it can mean "if I think up a random real numbers very few of them are non-trancendental". However for a mathematician "most" can have the "almost all" meaning of "all but a set of measure 0" which makes for a claim that can be exactly proven. And the proof is not up to interpretation. For example "most real numbers are not between 5.4 and 5.5" would be false as read by a mathematician but probably interpreted to be true by a more lay person. A mathematician doesn't have the problem of making a judgement call what is or is not "most". The contrasting approach would be to have number grouping A and number grouping B. "A has numbers like 3, 5.46 and 7.222 and B has numbers like pi, e and e^pi. Is the overlap in members of A and B signifcant or insignificant?" This kind of framing doesn't allow for mathematics to have teeth. "well is 6.13 in A? I would probably expect it to be but it could fail to be in it". If you have a intension of "A is real numbers" then you can go "6.13 is real so it is in A". If you have to be suspicious whether the foundation of the word applies to this particular situation it's more like the grouping approach rather than the set approach.

Comment by slider on Category Qualifications (w/ exercises) · 2019-09-15T20:25:44.527Z · score: 5 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Sometimes there are genuinely progress otbe made changing those expectations. For example say that the "abuse" angle happened on a slave-owner context. If the situation is standard slave-owning with no neglects would the conclusion to be to not apply "abuse" to slavery? If that context can be wrong about the appropriateness of their norms how can we be sure that our relationship norms are optimal?

I happen to think that "manipulative" is not inherently bad and the girl used the word correctly. In general the perspective that words have literal meanings is really downplayed. At the limit where words are only their expectations "literally" starts to mean "figuratively". The kind of reasoning that goes "most real numbers are transendental numbers" works because words have intensions and not just a fuzzy cloud of associations.

I could see it very plausible that someone would say "Hey let's ran for two hours unlike the one hour we ran yesterday" and if he doesn't want to spesify the amount he might express it with "further" and not mean "farther". The reply is not an error correction but rather a needed disambiguation.

The viewpoint of connecting words to their qualifications seems powerful. I just think that it should direct the discussion to the qualifications rather than enforce some magically all agreed upon qualication standard.

Comment by slider on The Power to Understand "God" · 2019-09-13T21:12:42.444Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Placebo effects area a real thing. If one truly takes Bob's grounding then it is not obvious that it is factually incorrect. If "dark matter" means "whatever causes this expansion" then "whatever causes this healing" probably hits a whole bunch of aspects of reality.

It's problematic when a person is judged for having illdefined stances when their characterization comes from the interluctor. For example asking about going to church as if it had some relevance to believing in god steps outside of a narrowly tailored question or presupposes that these are connected.

Slider: Do you believe in aether?
Aaron: No, I don't.
Slider: So you don't think that light is a wave?
Aaron: No, light is a wave.
Slider: But waves happen in a medium. So by believing that light is a wave you believe in lights medium.
Aaron: No, light is special and can travel without a medium
Slider: Seems contradictory and crazy

If I have a fixed understanding that aether theoyr is better than it's precedessors and have a very fixed idea what a wave is I am likely to not listen what the stance of the other is. Aaron could be very well versed in relativity and conceptual work on what is a wave and what is simultaneuity might be essential to the discussion.

The Liron-Stephanie could also be read as Liron using vague concepts where Stephanie closely and narrowly desccribes what it means to her. If somebody asks a question like "What is bear divided by nine?" you might be asking "Do you think that bear is some kind of number or that nine is some kind of animal and is this division some sort of arithmetical or agricultural operation?" the discussion might go vague because we don't know what we are talking about. A question like "Do you believe in God?" is polymorphic in the sense that it has multiple sensible ways it can be posed. For example it could mean "Do you participate in utilising forces you do not understand for personal benefit?", "Are you an active participant in a congeration?", "Do you find the universe meaningful and are not in a state of nihilism?"

The patience of discussion-liron runs out pretty fast and is likely because of preconceptions that "higher purpose" is likely to be empty. Wondering if it is not empty what it could look like I was imagining a scenario where a person with "higher purpose" is more likely to forgo the use of lethal force in a struggle for survival or critical resources (giving "benefit of the doubt" that the local situation can be lost but life/existence overall still won). That kind of scenario is really unwiedly to tell as an example and requires connecting many systems to have the cause and effect relationship. It would be way more natural to connect concepts on adjacent abstraction layers. And connecting god with "higher purpose" is one step down on that abstraction ladder. A more healthy discussion would encourage that and recursively step down until requested concreteness level was reached.

Think about the discussion of "what would be different in my daily life if many worlds interpretation was correct over copenhagen interpretation that isn't just socialising about physics memes". It would be a really challenging discussion and probably not that enlightening about physics. One could also say that because the quantum physics stays the same regardless of interpretation the distinction is in danger of being empty. But if the "content" is found over which direction is better for physics research then "research direction truths" would be even more indirect. So while I think it is important that the different systems and layers are relevant to each other doing all of them in a single bound is seldomly a good move. And deducing that if you can't do such connections in a single jump then your concepts must be empty is throwing plenty of baby out with the water.

Comment by slider on The Power to Make Scientific Breakthroughs · 2019-09-08T17:30:53.255Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I have a very different impression how the einstein thought-process worked. There is the issue of how thought experiments can be used to illustrate the findingds and then there is the issue how they were used to generate the findings. To my understanding he thought about all sorts of weird and edge scenarios to explore the rules and then when he found that the theory could not say what happens or that it would say contradictory things that there was reason to suspect it was wrong. He was not suspicous that the theories are wrong and set out to find where but drove them to their limits or even somewhat beyond in order to discover that another theory needs to hold in order to say about the inapplicable territority. And I was of the impression that most of the explorings of the old theory found the old theory to be adequate, although such trips might have served as fuel how to set up a even crazier trip.

For example in the scenario about pulling a rope vs falling I thought that the initial thought process expected that there would be a difference that would point it out. Having diffculty formulating what it would be, would lead to trying to imagine what would be the needed properties. The conceptual analysis leads to suspecting that maybe there is no fact of the matter which situation is which. This all involves a lot of different cognitive processes which is very different from simple "observing" (or is analogous how anything that is analytically provable is "trivial")

The bit about ridicolousness and thought experiment also has funny connotation to it. Thought experiments are not offensive tools to aim at things you want to destroy. Sure they can wreck theories. But general relativity is a perfectly valid thing to thought experiment with. And in fact because black holes form singularities GR has been "wrecked" by them. GR accepts closed timelike curves examples of which can be thought as thought experiments. And we know that in their current state quantum theories are irreconciable even if they are valid in their own domains. Set up a sitatuation where both have a relevant thing to say and it becomes dicey to say what if anything our current understanding says should happen. Note that shördinger's cat was supposed to show quantum theory as absurd. Things like aether are not conceptually that inconsistent it's more that actual experiment speak against them. We knew how to test for the existence of aether pretty staighforwardly and not finding it made us think of crazy alternatives. I t was not the case that aether was found to be conceptually inelegant or silly and I woudl htink it was actually the occam razor favourite. Again demonstarting that a position is faulty is a very different thing from discovering that it is. And the tool is not resricted to tearing down string thoery tries "constructive thought experiment". If you can tell a story that has basic ontology of strings but which contains the appearance of matter then that could give clues how to setup experiments that would yield otherwise unexpected results.

Comment by slider on The Power to Judge Startup Ideas · 2019-09-08T16:35:53.250Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

While it is easier to posit a scenario where the stars align for you, I do not think that the overall diffuculty level is that easy. "Better than available options" means the person can turn to anybody for an alternative meaning you have to be better than everybody else. Being the worlds best at something sure sounds like atleast moderately challenging.

Consider that they make somewhat plausible story where they beat a lot of options. Now if you come up with an already existing option that does the job better that turns it into a failure but that kind of failure would not be so catastrophically bad as not being able to form a coherent position. The height of the bar is warranted, even if you succesfully make the product as claimed the better option would be in a position to market-dominate. However replies that fail in this way do not fail for not being able to be spesific.

It's probably part of the background paradigm but it seems to me that if you posit a particular way of doing you can argue whether that would be good/desirable or not and if you posit a particular goal to shoot for you can argue whether it's reachable. Either way there isi significant risk tha the other side of that coin is voefully underspesified. There is also the issue that even if the end user experience is clear the way of having a production chain that can deliver that can be murky. So it isn't obvious which of these spesificities are especially critical/valuable. It's one thing to answer too ambigiously to a question but it is another thing to know that a question should be answered or that you are answering that particular question.

Comment by slider on An Educational Singularity · 2019-09-08T05:19:32.655Z · score: 5 (4 votes) · LW · GW

The model is very simple and the conclusion pretty far-reaching althought interesting. Rather than assume that the conclusion is true I would hunt for what modelling details were glossed over.

Say both painting and stand-up comedy teach self-expression. If magic utilises that then it doesn't double benefit from that. That is learning a field lowers how much other fields support learning of new fields.

I could also see how learning a field sements a mindset that makes it harder than completely naive person to learn something. Say a lawer benefits from a a mechanistic blind interpretation of rules and painting supports a impulsive reinterpretion and forfeiting rule use. The two experts teachings would actively resist the other kind of adatation. Now it might be it's own skill to not make them conflict that much or find the context barriers were one approach is applicable over the other. But this is still work over someone to whom the area is the only truth. That is while there might be "synergistic" pairs the probablility that you have "antisynergistic" pairs increases as you pick up fields.

Even if the simple analysis isn't ironglad ti is likely that the value of being a polymath is undervalued and the exact circumstances where it makes sense to adopt a polymath strategy rather than an expert strategy is not that widely discussed. Further complication to that is that a group of experts that have different areas of expertise is somewhat comparable to a group of homogenous polymaths. So even if moving to a more polymath strategy would make a single person more competent it's likely that being more starkly expert would increase the groups effectiveness if others can employ enough trust to get dominated by the opinions of the experts. This might also have it's own singularity conditions. That is at some point there is enough trust that any area you can train a single person to be a expert on, the group can be made to effectively have by adding a person to it.

Comment by slider on How Specificity Works · 2019-09-04T04:18:34.223Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I was not familiar with a book by that name but I guess the geist is in similar vein.

I think the issue is more orthagonal. I think there might be a deep and vast difference in opinion what the relevant mechanics are which falls out of the scope fof the post. Even what the hypothetical world were people did not have access to words like "lecture" would be like is pretty ambigious. But I think losing the cover of doing evil in the name of good would be (partially) counterbalanced by evilseekers being forced to pay tribute to an image of goodness which does some amount of actual good.

Comment by slider on How Specificity Works · 2019-09-04T02:18:34.934Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Making lecture specific seems to dissolve it only because here we are thinking that univertiy is a place were people try to learn. However if we are more specific about where lectures occur it might make more sense to characterise it as indoctrination, shared cultural experience or management of expectations.

If we did employ each individual learned being able to take on material in individualised order and pace then it would be harder to verify who knows what. Part of education is that employers can take on trust that newly arriving employees are work-compatible or atleast work-trainable. That compatibility might include technical capacity or knowledge posession but it might also include things like suggestibility, willigness to endure boredom or willigness and capability to adjust to externally imposed schedules

Any claim with "only because" is very bold and almost certainly wrong. The main thrust here is that it's not knowledge efficient at all. But another kind of deduction would say that because it is not knowledge efficient it MUST have another reason keeping it alive. Just having the word seems like an incredibly weak reason and it being the only availbe reason doesn't mean that unavailable reasons are outruled. I think the phenomenon would survive even if the word was not forced. But I do think that dispencing with the word makes it handy to look at the "ugly" reasons that are causing the phenomenon. Saying something abstract like "We are using education as a means to stabilize our society so that young people do not express themselfs in too novel ways" seems ridicolous but the concrete things that take place are less suspectible to being denied.

Comment by slider on The Power to Demolish Bad Arguments · 2019-09-03T00:30:53.675Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Well I am more familiar with settings where I have a duty to understand the world rather than the world having the duty to explain itself to me. I also hold that having unfamiliar things hit higher standards creates epistemic xenophobia. I would hold it important that one doesn't assign falsehood to a claim they don't understand. Althought it is also true that assigning truth to a claim one doesn't understand is dangerous to relatively same caliber.

My go-to assumption would be that Steve understands something different with the word and might be running some sort of moon logic in his head. Rather than declare the "moon proof" to be invalid it's more important that the translation between moon logic and my planet logic interfaces without confusion. Instead of using a word/concept I do know wrong he is using a word or concept I do not know.

"Coherent" usually points to a concept where a sentence is judged on it's home logics terms. But as used here it's clearly in the eye of the beholder. So it's less "makes objective sense" and more a "makes sense to whom?". The shared reality you create in a discussion or debate would be the arbiter but if the argument realies too much on those mechanics it doesn't generalise to contextes outside of that.

Comment by slider on The Power to Demolish Bad Arguments · 2019-09-02T22:51:13.246Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I feel like the same scrutinity standard is not being applied. Guy with health insurance doesn't check their health more often catching diseases earlier? Uncertainty doesn't cause stress and workload on circulatory system? Why are these not holes that prevent it from being coherent? Why can't Steve claim he has a friend that can be called that can exempilify exploitation?

If the bar is infact low Steve passed it upon positing McDonalds as relevant alternative and the argument went on to actually argue the argument. Or alternatively it requires opinion to have that Robin specification to be coherent and a reasonable arguer could try to hold it to be incoherent.

I feel like this is a case where epistemic status breaks symmetry. A white coat doctor and a witch doctor making the same claims requires the witch doctor to show more evidence to reach the same credibility levels. If argument truly screens off authority the problems needs to be in the argument. Steve is required to have the specification ready on hand during debate.

Comment by slider on The Power to Demolish Bad Arguments · 2019-09-02T20:26:08.177Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Relying that your opponent does a mistake is not a super reliable strategy. If someone reads your story and uses it as inspiration to start an argument they might end up in a situation where the actual person doesn' t make that mistake. That could feel a lot more like "shooting yourself in the face in an argument" rather than "demolishing an argument".

Argument methods that work because of misdirection arguably don't serve truth very well or work very indirectly (being deceptive makes it rewarding for the other to be keen).

Most people have reasons for their stances. Their point might be louzy or unimportant but usually one exists. If he truly doesn' t have a point then there is no specific story to tell. As author you have the options of him having a story or not meaning anything with his words but not both.

Comment by slider on The Power to Demolish Bad Arguments · 2019-09-02T16:09:52.507Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Relies very heavily that in adversial context a free pick should be an optimal pick. The other arguer demonstrated that he didn't even realise that he can pick so its is reasonable to assume he doesn't know the pick should be optimal.

Doing re-dos without preannouncing them is giving free mulligans for yourself. I think would have been in the safe in saying that he did not make new claims, denying the mulligan. There could have been 10 facets of the exploitation in the scenario and fixing one of them would still leave 9 open. You can't say that a forest doesn't exist if it is not any of the individual trees.

The new claim is also not contradictory with the old story. It could also be taken as further spesification of it.

Comment by slider on Arguing Absolute Velocities · 2019-09-01T05:58:10.344Z · score: 1 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I think the concepts used in the absolute velocity case already code relative information. Map directions refer to map frame and not any arbitrary frame with directions. If you are put in a empty 3d/3+1d space you could not tell which direction is "west". If you are put on a spinning featureless sphere you could tell which direction is west. Having a point and a state of motion of 0 m/s west uniquely describes a motion which is unambigious even if described in a different reference frame (3+1 non-rotating would see it as helical).

Now the way the question was I quess supposedly constructed is that you are sitting on a table consider yourself to be 0 m/s and start running to a direction 5 miles / hour faster than before. "West" would be pointing in the same direction but you are not moving 5 miles / hour west. You are actually moving 5 miles /hour astern.

If you actually listen to the frame that the question is using the first guy is correct. Now in some situations it might be important to guess that the person doesn't know what he is talking about and answering the corrected question what he should have been asking might be more on point. But this question "repairing" might go incorrect and it might lead one to assume things one could ask for. If the guys gps phone said he was moving 5 m/s west it's a totally different story.

The example with lifeworth different definitions can give different ordering in addition to placing on different heights. For example I sometimes consider that maybe someone was wrong to keep themself alive or wrong to kill themselfs. Keeping yourself alive only tells about values used to enact actions. I could example see that some one was wrongly denied an euthanasia or that a first world citizen doing a suicide on self-expression angst would benefit from being prevented. Or someone emphasising freedom of expression would say that america has things better but someone emphasing accesbility of healthcare could say that europe has it better. If two people mean different things with good they are going to rank things differently.

Comment by slider on Slider's Shortform · 2019-08-31T20:07:54.954Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

One of the issues is that you will struggle to be meaningful if more attractive webpages manage to be attractive because they allow for self-expression or because so many other users are using or viewing them. Part of tyhe problem can be that if you read a news paper you get nicely editorialised content but if you get your news on reddit you can have fun fights in the comments so people will pass on "boring" newspaper because they can't fullfill their expectation of engagement.

Comment by slider on Slider's Shortform · 2019-08-31T20:03:37.254Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

The problem of specifying tags might not have received that much attention.

I had an expereince with ovewatch in that it is filled with all kinds of nasty behaviours. There were about 6 categories to report bad behaviour. Then you could also have free form text box to provide additonal details. Now free-form text you can't automatically process that easily.

The reporting felt important so it pushed me to fight some of the inconvenience of speeding paperwork time on other's behavoiural crimes. However the effort coming up stuff to fill on the textbox was kind of offputting. I ended up figuring out a way of "what is really objectionable about my experience?". This made it so that in next bad experiences I could identify similar bad experiences with less thoughtwork.

Thus it became routine to write things like "Diagnosing others with mental issues (moron)" and "Diagnosing others with mental issues (autism)". (And it leads to thinking whether "Diagnosing others with mental issues (idiot)" is a good thing to complain about (it isn't it's not diagnosing)). Abstractring them down to the objectionable part made me lose sight of the details which made them more directly comparable with each other. So the reports became really tag like and thinking about what the tags were made me think were the line of objectionability lies. If someone loses and is angry about it that is not objectionable. If someone bashes others and calls them bad names the motivation can be understandble but it is objectionable.

The system might have been designed more that it more relies on just adding up counts on the 6 fixed categories. And I seen a streamer file report where the textbox was just "fuck you" which speaks to players knowing the textboxes matter very little and that reporting is often done to express or play out anger. The lack of detail lost on the altar of automation has a significant cost. You could improve automation that it can handle more complex signals. Or you could evaluate that the social harm is great enough that more manual components are required. If such interactions were done face to face displaying any behavoiur that would be analogous would be very child like ot the range of 6 to 8 year olds and people would be directed to be more expressive and more constrcutive about conflict resolution. But online we are building places where that kind of culture is incentives or supported. Imagine what woud be the effects if in face to face communiation there was only 1 hostile communication available (no angry faces, or thumbs down or threatening voice or middle finger, just boiling it down to a a middle finger)

Comment by slider on Slider's Shortform · 2019-08-31T15:31:57.035Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Sometime the solutions are bad enough that it's not worth having the problem in the first place. If there is no way to input user generated content then you can't spam. However websites are kind of expected to have these sorts of functions even when their core mission doesn't revolve around it.

There is also the issue that some of the costs for solutions are private costs beared by the website but having social slant and pressures on the content has a downside that is more beared by the public for a possible eroding of discussion or culture quality. And if every individual website is incentivies to be open to mobs instead of closed to them that enpowers mobs and can make cross-site movements. At some point cross-site culture will be stronger than site spesifc one where even if you try to establish a particular website to be for certain types of users / needs they will be swamped by a bigger existing community that will forfcefully install their norms.

The example voting system whether Greens eliminate Blues depends on the voting mechanisms. But I guess it is a general feature that some content will be hidden/downplayed. The arguments mechanics are plausible if it is a majority first-past-the-post. I think there are power balancing mechanism that get a lot more close to proportionality. The mechanic also requires that the sides are interested in destroying content associated with other parties. You could have a system where there is only finite influence power that is shared among promotion and supression. If all players suppress all content generated by others then they could not promote their own stuff but if everybody promoted their own stuff they would use lower amount of the resource the point would be to make it dominant to promote your stuff rather than attack others. Then on the balance losing factions are not erased even if they have "unfairly low" visiblity. The thing would be that spam would be supressed unilaterally. Even if you don't make the emphasis power finite treating unilaterally promoted stuff comparatelivy same than content that is promoted by some groups and supressed by others could reach a different balance. That is if you have 10 moderators and you need 3 to vote "supress" and no-one vote "promote" to have it not visible then any "controversial" content would probably get throguh.

And even if we keep voting around the users are unlikely to carefully scrutines the voting mechanics. That is even if they are clearly biased that biased would survival for a very long time until anybody would try to balance that bias.

Comment by slider on Slider's Shortform · 2019-08-30T22:36:09.113Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

How about when the incentives of the populus are as misaligned as would-be-moderators?

Comment by slider on Matt Goldenberg's Short Form Feed · 2019-08-30T14:57:34.780Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

If you make it explicit like "X is important" vs "X is not important" I have hard time to use the word "disagree" on it. Like if A and B emphasis and have signaling as similarly central in their worldviews saying "we agree on signaling" sounds wrong. Also saying stuff like "I disagree with racism" sounds like a funky way to get that point across.

Comment by slider on Matthew Barnett's Shortform · 2019-08-30T14:45:32.680Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Spouting nonsense is different from being wrong. If I say that there are no rectangles with 5 angles that can be processed pretty straght forwardly because the concept of a rectangle is unproblematic. But if you seek why that statement was made and the person points to a pentagon you will find 5 angles. Now there are polygons with 5 angles. If you give a short word for 5 angle rectangle" it's correct to say those don't exists. But if you give an ostensive definition of the shape then it does exist and it's more to the point to say that it's not a rectangle rather that it doesn't exist.

In the details when persons say "what it is like to see green" one could fail to get what they mean or point to. If someone says "look a unicorn" and one has proof that unicorns don't exist that doesn't mean that the unicorn reference is not referencing something or that the reference target does not exist. If you end up in a situation where you point at a horse and say "those things do not exist. Look no horn, doesn't exist" you are not being helpful. If somebody is pointing to a horse and says "look, a unicorn!" and you go "where? I see only horses" you are also not being helpful. Being "motivatedly uncooperative in ostension receiving" is not cool. Say that you made a deal to sell a gold bar in exchange for a unicorn. Then refusing to accept any object as an unicorn woud let you keep your gold bar and you migth be tempted to play dumb.

When people are saying "what it feels like to see green" they are trying to communicate something and failing their assertion by sabotaging their communication doesn't prove anything. Communication is hard yes but doing too much semantics substitution means you start talking past each other.

Comment by slider on Slider's Shortform · 2019-08-30T13:25:51.000Z · score: 5 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Internet point giving is pretty recent phenomenon (as is all of social media). I think there are important social differences to approving in person and giving internet upvotes. You are way more connected see the effects of your approving and can conveoy more subtle messages in the same go.

Giving voting too central a role in our websites might be analgous to having implemented a reinforcement AI as president/world leader without solving alignment. Voting might be institutionalized demagoguery that we are unlikely to catch in critiques.

Having a bad utlity function gets critiqued quite closely. Having a vote button with no guides how it could/should be used blackboxes the method actually used. There can be an issue where irresponcible voting is having adverse effects. It's like not locking your door to avoid getting a burglary, you can't break and enter if there is nothing to break.

Comment by slider on I think I came up with a good utility function for AI that seems too obvious. Can you people poke holes in it? · 2019-08-30T13:15:25.834Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

A hole big enough that it seems too obvoius to point out. "Climate is going to change", "well duh", human helped AI to convince human that climate change is going to happen, +1.

I would assume that the AI would be asking a "do you want me to bring this about?". The stopping might need to be relevant how it is perceived that the change happens. For example if thew AI convinced that human is making climate change happen they might object to climate change but might have psychological diffculty in resisting themselfs.

There is also the issue that if you are convinced that something is happening then resistance is futile. For sensible resistance to be manifest it needs to (seem that) not be too late to affect the thing. Which means the looming of the effect can't be near inevitability. If you are convinced that atom boms will fall into the ground in 5 minutes you think of cool last words not how to object to that (but the function would count this as a plus).

Say there is one person that a lot of other persons hate. If you were to gather everybody to vote whether to exile or murder that person people could vote one way. Now have everyone approve on the simulated future where he is dead. Aggregating the "uncaused" effects might lead to death verdict where a self-concious decision process would not give such a verdict.

Comment by slider on Torture and Dust Specks and Joy--Oh my! or: Non-Archimedean Utility Functions as Pseudograded Vector Spaces · 2019-08-29T18:30:33.801Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Reinforcement learning with rewards or punishments that can have an infinite magnitude would seem to make intuitive sense for me. The buck is then kicked to reasoning whether it's ever reasonable to give a sample a post-finite reward. Say that there are pictures label as either "woman", "girl","boy" or "man" and labeling a boy a man or a man a boy would get you a Small reward while labeling a man a man would get you a Large reward where Large is infinite respect with respect to Small. With a finite version some "boy" vs "girl" weight could overcome a "man" vs "girl" weight which might be undesirable behaviour (if you strictly care about gender discrimination with no tradeoff for age discrimination).

Comment by slider on Reversible changes: consider a bucket of water · 2019-08-28T22:44:50.320Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I think in a practical computer setting this would be resolved by making a design choice how the environment is modeled. That is there is an implicit assumtion that for any "reasonable" caringness it must be expressible in the vocabulary we set up for the system. If the system doesn't track salt levels then it's not a valid care target. One might think just doing ontology doesn't involve making preference choice but making some preferences impossible to articulate it is in fact a partial preference choice.

For actual human we build our world understanding from meaningful objects. Thus the feeling of "what is" accompanies "what is meanigful". If it kicks like a duck and sounds like a duck it is a duck and not a secret combination of possibly being a mix of bucket or duck. If the bucket was secretly radioactive and a human solved the problem by refilling the bucket one would blame ignorance and not knowing what was important (it's more reasonable for a human to taste a salt level differnce, it's more plausible to say "I couldn't know" about radioactivity).

Comment by slider on Matthew Barnett's Shortform · 2019-08-25T18:27:27.966Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Sure the difference between hearing about a tesseract and being able to visualise it is significant but I think the difference might not be an impossibility barrier but just skill level of imagination.

Having learned some echolocation my qualia involved in hearing have changed and it makes it seem possible to be able to make a similar transition from a trichromat visual space into a tetrachromat visual space. The weird thing about it is that my ear receives as much information that it did before but I just pay attention to it differently. Having deficient understanding in the sense of getting things wrong is easy line to draw. But it seems at some point the understanding becomes vivid instead of theorethical.

Comment by slider on Torture and Dust Specks and Joy--Oh my! or: Non-Archimedean Utility Functions as Pseudograded Vector Spaces · 2019-08-25T15:51:51.660Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Well small positive probabilities need not be finite if we have a non-archimedean utility framework.

Infinidesimal times an inifinite number might yield a finite number that would be on equal footing with familiar expected values that would trade sensibly.

And it might help that the infinidesimals might compare mostly against each other. You compare the danger of driving against the dangers of being in a kitchen. If you find that driving is twice as dangerous it means you need to spend half the time to drive to accomplish something rather than do it in a kitchen rather than categorically always doing things in a kitchen.

I guess the relevance of waste might be important. If you could choose 0 chance of death you would take that. But given that you are unable to choose that you choose among the death optimums. Sometimes further research is not possible.

Comment by slider on Torture and Dust Specks and Joy--Oh my! or: Non-Archimedean Utility Functions as Pseudograded Vector Spaces · 2019-08-25T14:48:57.256Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Surreals have multiples and are ordered, yet they contain multiple different archimedian fields. You can have for all r in reals and all s in surreals that r*s exists and that there is another surreal that is greater than all of r*s. Arbitrarily large finite is a different thing than an infinitely large value. You can't "inch" your way to infinity. If you have a single bad experience and "inch" around it you will only reach one archimedian field but how do you know that you have covered the whole space of bad experience?

Comment by slider on Matthew Barnett's Shortform · 2019-08-25T13:55:21.245Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

If you would copy my brain but make it twice as large that copy would be as "lonely" as I would be and this would remain after arbitrary doublings. Single individuals can be extended in space without communicating with other individuals.

The "extended wire" thought experiement doesn't specify enough how that physical communication line is used. It's plausible that there is no "verbalization" process like there is an step to write an email if one replaces sonic communication with ip-packet communication. With huge relative distance would come speed of light delays, if one twin was on earth and another on the moon there would be a round trip latency of seconds which probably would distort how the combined brain works. (And I guess with doublign in size would need to come with proportionate slowing to have same function).

I think there is a difference between a information system being spatially extended and having two information systems interface with each other. Say that you have 2 routers or 10 routers on the same length of line. It makes sense to make a distinction that each routers functions "independently" even if they have to be able to suggest each other enough that packets flow throught. To the first router the world "downline" seems very similar whether or not intermediate routers exist. I don't count information system internal processing as communicating thus I don't count "thinking" into communicating. Thus the 10 router version does more communicating than the 2 router version.

I think the "verbalization" step does mean that even highbandwidth connection doesn't automatically mean qualia sharing. I am thinking of plugings that allow programming languages to share code. Even if there is a perfect 1-to-1 compatibility between the abstractions of the languages I think still each language only ever manipulates their version of that representation. Cross-using without translation would make it illdefined what would be correct function but if you do translation then it loses the qualities of the originating programming language. A C sharp integer variable will never contain a haskel integer even if a C sharp integer is constructed to represent the haskel integer. (I guess it would be possible to make a super-language that has integer variables that can contain haskel-integers and C-sharp integers but that language would not be C sharp or haskel). By being a spesific kind of cognitive architechture you are locked into certain representation types which are unescaable outside of turning into another kind ot architechture.

Comment by slider on Matthew Barnett's Shortform · 2019-08-25T01:12:26.460Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

The Tatiana and krista experiment is quite interesting but stretches the concept of communication to it's limits. I am inclined to say that having a shared part of your conciousness is not communication in the same way that sharing a house is not traffic. It does strike me that communication involves directed construction of thoughts and it's easy to imagine that the scope of what this construction is capable would be vastly smaller than what goes on in the brain in other processes. Extending the construction to new types of thoughts might be a soft border rather than a hard one. With enough verbal sentences it should be in principle to be able to reconstruct an actual graphical image, but even with overtly descriptive prose this level is not really reached (I presume) but remains within the realm of sentence-like data structures.

In the example Tatiana directs the visual cortex and Krista can just recall the representation later. But in a single conciouness brain nothing can be made "ready" but it must be assembled by the brain itself from sensory inputs. That is cognitive space probably has small funnels and for signficant objects they can't travel them as themselfs but must be chopped off into pieces and reassembled after passing the tube.

Comment by slider on Matthew Barnett's Shortform · 2019-08-24T21:48:48.501Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I have a previous high impliciation uncertainty about this (that would be a crux?). " you can't accelerate enough to turn around " seems false to me. The mathematical rotation seems like it ought to exist. The prevoius reasons I thought such a mathematical rotation would be impossible I have signficantly less faith in. If I draw a unit sphere analog in spacetime having a visual observation from the space-time diagram drawn on euclid paper is not sufficient to conclude that the future cone is far from past cone. And thinking that a sphere is "all within r distance" it would seem it should be continuous and simply connected under most instances. I think there also should exist a transformation that when repeated enough times returns to the original configuration. And I find it surprising that a boost like transformation would fail to be like that if it is a rotation analog.

I have started to believe that the standrd reasoning why you can't go faster than light relies on a kind of faulty logic. With normal euclidean geometry it would go like: there is a maximum angle you can reach by increasing the y-coordinate and slope is just the ratio of x to y so at that maximum y maximum slope is reached so maximum angle that you can have is 90 degrees. So if you try to go at 100 degrees you have lesser y and are actually going slower. And in a way 90 degrees is kind of the maximum amount you can point in another direction. But normally degrees go up to 180 or 360 degrees.

In the relativity side c is the maximum ratio but that is for coordinate time. If somebodys proper time would start pointing in a direction that would project negatively on the coordinate time axis the comparison between x per coordinate time and x per proper time would become significant.

There is also a trajectory which seems to be timelike in all segments. A=(0,0,0,0),(2,1,0,0),B=(4,2,0,0),(2,3,0,0),C=(0,4,0,0),(2,5,0,0),D=(4,6,0,0). It would seem awfully a lot like the "corner" A B C would be of equal magnitude but opposite sign from B C D. Now I get why physcially such a trajectory would be challenging. But from a mathematical point of view it is hard to understand why it would be ill-defined. It would also be very strange if there is no boost you can make at B to go from direction AB to direction BC. I get why you can't rotate from AB to BD (can't rotate a timelike distance to spacelike distance if rotation preserves length).

I also kind of get why yo woudl need infninte energy make such "impossibly sharp" turns. But as energy is the conserved charge of time translation, the definition of time might depend on which time you choose to derive it from. If you were to gain energy from an external source it would have to be tachyon or going backwards in time (which are either impossible or hard to produce). But if you had a thruster with you with fuel the "proper time energy" might behave differently. That is if you are going at signficant C and the whole universe is frozen and whissing by you should still be able to fire your rockets according to your time (1 second of your engines might take the entire age of the universe to external observers but does that prevent things happening from your perspective?). If acceleration "turns your time direction" and not "increases displacement per spent second" at some finite amount of acceleration experienced you would come full circle or atleast long enough that you are now going to the negative direction that you started in.

Comment by slider on Time Travel, AI and Transparent Newcomb · 2019-08-23T21:20:28.242Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

As we lack the means to represent the different options we probably do not have a law that paradoxes will be avoided (partly because we do not have a technical analogoue for "paradox")

In the extended ontology what corresponds to old time would be an open question. That is if you have a multivalued state in the past and some of the values of that are effects of (partial) values in the future it's still pretty much "time travel".

I also thought that qunatum mechanics is pretty chill with superposition. Could not one extend the model by having a different imaginary unit and then have a superposition of amplitudes? And I thought getting a sure eigenvalue is a special case. Isn't the non-eigenvalue case already covering a simultanoues attribution of multiple real values? I case there are two cases 1) we do not represent that currently in our models or 2) Our representations used in our models can not represent that.

Comment by slider on Time Travel, AI and Transparent Newcomb · 2019-08-23T02:07:53.659Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Does Gödel metric say anything about prohibition of paradoxes?

I have found that assigment of 0 to a paradoxical configuration is an opinion or assumption and not a result or a theorem.

For example the electron wave function negative solutions were dismissed as unrealistic math artefacts at one point and later adopted as a valid way to reason about positrons. Would it have been correct to say that "obviously electrons have a negative charge?. In modern terms you can distinguish between claims of "leptons have negative charge" and "electrons have negative charge". But if the only lepton you know is an electron is "positive electron" a valid thing?

While things add up to normality unusual circusmstances can exhibit unsual phenomena.

Comment by slider on Time Travel, AI and Transparent Newcomb · 2019-08-23T01:16:40.267Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Having played Achron I have visited the thought space a lot before.

The thing that allows for time travel might break a lot of your other presumptions. If the moon was made of cheese were would all the milk would have come from?

I would like to point out that the assumtion that timelines are stable is a separate assumption from time travel. I think it needs argument and argument from lack of imagination is not a very convincing one.

However even if you go outside of this assumtion were similar things still happen. In another attempt one could argue that if a grandafther paradox has 2 viable states then both of those states should sum in probablity to a state that is "stable". So you assign less probability to things that can grandfather paradox. If a thing can attempt to paradox in multiple ways you have keep splitting the "measure". The end result is that a thing that can constantly paradox will be vanishingly unlikely to hang around. This is different than "mysteriously prevented" but for these purposes serves a similar function.

After all if quantum superpositions are not prevented why would "timeline superpositions" be incompatible?

It is noteworthy that invention of timetravel technology is an event that probably has causes. Anything that utilises such technology would be causally dependent on that event. But that even is causally dependent on other events. Thus it might be counterproductive to have any timetravel technology effect any cause of time travel technology. This would effectively mean that all of pre-timetravel history would be "natural reserve" on the pain of death of all timetravel history.

The is a reverse effect where is a time machine can help with its construction it might be tempted to do so provided it doesn't undo it more than do it. Even the slightest chance of a working time travel method would be blown to optimally early time travel (within the constraints).

That is fiction has plenty of timetravel reasoning to throw around. Specifying your poison would go for a long way. For example rpg game continuum has slipshanking. Having a sudden fight? Grab a pistol from nearest container. Then after fight go to a shop buy gun, go to past and put gun into said container. Timeline is stable, but it feels weird taht realising that you could try do somethign makes it possibel for you to do so (this kind of reasoning has limitations, if you have openend the box and seen it empty you obviosly can't slipshank a pistol out of it. But being strategically ignorant in order to maximise slipshanking possiblities is interesting). The ultimate slipshank would be to do it before time travel is invented with the intention to invent time travel to pull it off

Comment by slider on Matthew Barnett's Shortform · 2019-08-20T22:17:18.897Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I find it important in philosophy to be on the clear what you mean. It is one thing to explain and another to define what you mean. You might point to a yellow object and say yellow and somebody that misunderstood might think that you mean "roundness" by yellow. The accuracy is most important when the views are radical and talk in very different worlds. And "disproving" yellow by not being able to pick it out from ostensive differentation is not an argumentative victory but a communicative failure.

Even if we use some other term I think that meaning is important to have. "Plogiston" might sneak in claims but that is just the more reason to have terms that have as little room for smuggling as possible. And we still need good terms to talk about burning. "oxygen" literally means "black maker" but we nowadays understand it as a term to refer to a element which has definitionally very little to do with the color black.

I think the starting point that generated the word refers to a genuine problem. Having qualia in category three would mean that you claim that I do not have experiences. And if qualia is a bad loaded word to refer to the thing to be explained it would be good to make up a new term that refers to that. But to me qualia was just that word. I word like "dark matter" might experience similar "highjack pressure" by having wild claims thrown around about it. And there having things like "warm dark matter", "wimpy dark matter" makes the classification more fine making the conceptual analysis proceed. But requirements of clear thinking are different from tradition preservance. If you say that "warm dark matter" can't be the answer the question of dark matter still stands. Even if you succesfully argue that "qualia" can't be a attractive concept the issue of me not being a p-zombie still remains and it would be expected that some theorethical bending over backwards would happen.

Comment by slider on Matthew Barnett's Shortform · 2019-08-20T20:42:35.431Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

We do not telepathically receive experiemnt results when they are performed. In reality you need ot intake the measumrent results from your first-person point of view (use eyes to read led screen or use ears to hear about stories of experiments performed). It seems to be taht experiments are intersubjective in that other observers will report having experiences that resemble my first-hand experiences. For most purposes shorthanding this to "public" is adequate enough. But your point of view is "unpublisable" in that even if you really tried there is no way to provide you private expereience to the public knowledge pool ("directly"). "I now how you feel" is a fiction it doesn't actually happen.

Skeptisim about the experiencing of others is easier but being skeptical about your own experiences would seem to be ludicrous.

Comment by slider on Matthew Barnett's Shortform · 2019-08-20T20:31:01.203Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

A physicist might discover that you can make computers out of matter. You can make such computers produce sounds. In processing sounds "homonym" is a perfectly legimate and useful concept. Even if two words are stored in far away hardware locations knowing that they will "sound detection clash" is important information. Even if you slice it a little differently and use different kinds of computer architechtures it woudl still be a real phenomenon.

In technical terms there might be the issue whether its meaningful to differntiate between founded concepts and hypothesis. If hypotheses are required then you could have a physicist that didn't ever talk about temperature.

Comment by slider on Matthew Barnett's Shortform · 2019-08-20T20:18:22.819Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

You seem to have similar characteristic in your beliefs I encountered on less wrong before.

There is the phenomenon of qualia and then there is the ontological extension. The word does not refer to the ontological extension.

It would be like explaining lightning with lightning. Sure when we dig down there are non-lightning parts. But lightning still zaps people.

Or it would be a category error like saying that if you can explain physics without coordinates by only positing that energy exists you should drop coordinates from your concepts. But coordinates are not a thing to believe in, it's a conceptual tool to specify claims not a hypothesis in itself. When physists believe in a particular field theory they are not agreeing with the greek philosphers that think that the world is made of a type of number.

Comment by slider on Slider's Shortform · 2019-08-20T19:27:46.180Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

More on green errors, I think they do exists. There is a difference between an invasive species and a predator. Green probably allows for predators easier than white or black that would call them murderes. But being disruptive to the harmony is an actual violation green registers.

Imagine you have a snake problem in your houses yard. You could get angry and kill every snake you see (haphazard, random and laboursome the red way to address it). You could poison your yard (but then your flowers might die or your food supply gets fouled, the black way). For wheel completeness sake, wall (white way) or scarecrow (blue way). Or you could introduce a predator species that eats snakes (the green way). Even if the effect is to diminish a component you address it by constructing more components (add species). And likely when the problem is "solved" the predator and prey are in balance and in a way the snakes existence functions as a foundation for the foodchain for the predator.

The hard thing about green as it is the anti-color of the agent color black it doesn't engage in problem solving. Nature by itself is a defenceless victim. People who care about nature and are naturalistic are a bit different thing. In making a choice what "harmony" you are defending you are probably injecting somewhat of a agentic subjective choice.

Comment by slider on Unstriving · 2019-08-20T19:13:48.819Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · LW · GW

This reads to me about magic the gathering terms how it's useful to be green over being black, althought it mostly uses black terminology.

The violin parenting situation is a good example how black is about certain costs for uncertain benefits and green is about foregoing certain advantages to avoid uncertain disadvantages.

Black is very local, me, this game, this battle and green is very global, ecosystem, species, bordering beyond the unknown.

The linked article had more focus on laziness where it was more anti-black where blue and green attitudes are somewhat mixed up. It is very uncharastic of blue ot have "??????" steps in the plan and in general less blue shades. I do think the word "medicority" is a very black/blue way of characterising the proprerty as would be expected when the word is derived to be an antonym for their core concepts. I think actually the part where you get to the middle is more active, green wants you to "grow up" and "go be you" but it doesn't like going over carrying capacity or attempt things not in your nature. In away blue doesn't bother to the same extent as illusion and visions are adequate and when black cuts something out it cuts it out to 0 if not negative.

I could for example think that green calls "corruption" what black would call "excellence" or "expertise" and "minimal" what blue calls "optimal". It would be interesting what would be the green concept for the green ideal but my intuition seems to be weaker, maybe "vibrant" (seems to capture diversity well but is not so directly a counterpart to mediocrity)?