Posts

Comments

Comment by sly on Open Thread, Feb. 27 - March 5, 2017 · 2017-03-04T21:54:52.605Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Trump is pretty clearly narcissistic. People just don't actually care as long as said person is wearing their tribal colors.

What the media was wrong about is how much people cared.

Comment by sly on [Link] My Interview with Dilbert creator Scott Adams · 2016-09-14T21:42:18.801Z · score: 2 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Adams did say that, but I agree with Daniel that he benefits hugely if Trump wins. Claims and reality are often different, especially when you consider that Adams is often transparently using his techniques in his writing.

Comment by sly on Open Thread April 11 - April 17, 2016 · 2016-04-13T08:18:12.594Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I think you misunderstood their comment. They aren't raging proponents of "transgenderism" whatever you seem to think that means.

They were saying that women (50% of the population) were being forced to play as guys when they played Rust.

Comment by sly on What's wrong with this picture? · 2016-01-29T01:14:47.872Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

It seems to me that either Alice is lying or she is telling the truth. The actual amount of possible lies at her disposal is pretty irrelevant to the question of whether she is lying or not.

Comment by sly on Causal Diagrams and Causal Models · 2016-01-15T23:38:44.658Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I don't even remember this conversation (4 years of necromancy?). I don't remember the context of our discussion, and it seems like I did a bad job of communicating whatever my original point was and over-exaggerated. I am pretty sure you have a better understanding of the data.

Comment by sly on The Person As Input · 2015-07-08T22:39:00.460Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

"Wireheading, even variable multi-emotional wireheading, assumes that emotions are a goal-oriented objective, and thus takes first-order control of one’s emotional state."

I think that per your very examples it is the exact opposite. Wire heading is a process that you experience, not a goal that you want to just get to the end of.

You want to actively experience wire heading, you don't want to be at the end of the wire heading.

Comment by sly on Open Thread, May 25 - May 31, 2015 · 2015-05-25T16:55:51.114Z · score: 7 (7 votes) · LW · GW

Watch Ex Machina. This is pretty close to what you are talking about, and I was it was well done.

Comment by sly on The Hardcore AI Box Experiment · 2015-03-30T23:03:57.159Z · score: -2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I think the old game was so trivially easy to win as the Gatekeeper if you actually wanted to win, that I don't know that any additional rules are needed. It really only makes it harder for terrible Gatekeepers that aren't playing to win anyway.

Edit: I assume the downvotes are from people who disagree with my claims on gatekeepers. If you do disagree I would like to hear why. Keep in mind I am talking about this as a game.

Comment by sly on I played as AI in AI Box, and it was generally frustrating all around. · 2015-02-02T23:50:25.669Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I have been the gatekeeper in the past and am always up to be one again in the future. I am undefeated at gatekeeping, and believe that I will never lose at the gatekeeping game. (Because I play to win)

Comment by sly on Salary or startup? How do-gooders can gain more from risky careers · 2014-02-05T23:11:28.431Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW · GW

The big problem to me here is that this was assuming VC money. My impression is that just getting to the point of having VC capital is already a cutoff point.

Comment by sly on Open Thread, October 20 - 26, 2013 · 2013-10-25T03:48:16.637Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Actual people are also using a hell of a lot more than text.

Comment by sly on Open Thread, October 13 - 19, 2013 · 2013-10-16T02:40:58.172Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I do not honestly know. I will happily play a "hard" opponent like Eliezer or Tux. I have said this before, I estimate 99%+ chance of victory.

Comment by sly on Open Thread, October 13 - 19, 2013 · 2013-10-15T03:04:35.321Z · score: 4 (6 votes) · LW · GW

I have played the game twice and updated in the opposite direction you claim.

In fact, my victories were rather trivial. This is despite the AIs trying really really hard.

Comment by sly on Open Thread, September 30 - October 6, 2013 · 2013-10-08T02:01:53.126Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

That article is a big list of talking points with no sources and an obvious political agenda. Seriously?

Comment by sly on Open Thread, September 30 - October 6, 2013 · 2013-10-06T18:44:37.798Z · score: -3 (7 votes) · LW · GW

That post was pretty atrocious.

Some glaring problems:

How is it that the Democrats get to choose what gets shut down? Is the statement "The Democrat strategy is to do random bad things to the American public" even remotely true?

"Stuff like this is the main damage – the government continues as usual, illegally, in the sense that government employees continue to receive pay and exercise power"

Only "non-essential" parts of the government are closing. There is a legal framework determining who gets pay.

"But, if government activities, including Obamacare, continue as usual, despite not being legally funded"

Except that Obamacare is self-funded and was always known to not be affected by this political theater.

"When the Republicans fold, rendering their election victory irrelevant, that makes those irritating white voters irrelevant."

What Republican election victory? How would the Republicans folding on their self-induced shutdown disregard the voters who overwhelmingly don't want a government shutdown?

Comment by sly on Open Thread, September 30 - October 6, 2013 · 2013-10-06T18:36:35.938Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

"This is true; however keeping a website running is still very, very cheap compared to almost anything else the government does, including functions that are continuing as usual during the shutdown."

This is literally irrelevant when the non-essential services have to be shut down. If your techs get furloughed, shutting down the site is appropriate.

The twitter accounts are "shut down" in the sense that the employee who would have done the tweeting is now furloughed and can't. Putting out a tweet explaining the upcoming lapse makes a whole lot of sense to me.

Comment by sly on Open Thread, September 30 - October 6, 2013 · 2013-10-02T21:02:17.796Z · score: 9 (9 votes) · LW · GW

This is actually a terrible example of Washington Monument Syndrome.

" Hi, Server admin here... We cost money as does our infrastructure, I imagine a site that large costs a very good deal, we aren't talking five bucks on bluehost here.

I am private sector, but if I were to be furloughed for an indeterminate amount of time you really have two options. Leave things on autopilot until the servers inevitably break or the site crashes at which point parts or all of it will be left broken without notice or explanation. Or put up a splash page and spin down 99% of my infrastructure (That splash page can run on a five dollar bluehost account) and then leave. I won't be able to come in while furloughed to put it up after it crashes.

If you really think web apps keep themselves running 24/7 without intervention we really have been doing a great job with that illusion and I guess the sleepless nights have been worth it to be successfully taken for-granted."

Comment by sly on I played the AI Box Experiment again! (and lost both games) · 2013-10-01T00:01:36.388Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I know that I personally go into competitive games with a different mindset than the mindset I have when roleplaying.

If they went into it trying to roleplay emotions should be expected. Reporting that turmoil in the report is just accurate reporting.

Comment by sly on I played the AI Box Experiment again! (and lost both games) · 2013-09-29T22:41:56.742Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I think a lot of gatekeepers go into it not actually wanting to win. If you go in just trying to have fun and trying to roleplay, that is different than trying to win a game.

Comment by sly on I played the AI Box Experiment again! (and lost both games) · 2013-09-29T06:16:37.795Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

You are correct here. The only keepers losing are people who do not actually know how to win.

I have played twice, and victory was trivial.

Comment by sly on Open thread, July 16-22, 2013 · 2013-07-17T08:52:26.117Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

That was hideous. Poor production values and a sloppy video that oozes incompetence.

Comment by sly on Why one-box? · 2013-07-13T19:52:14.958Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Cool, sounds like we are converging.

I would be interested in seeing a RPS competition between programs, sounds interesting.

Comment by sly on Why one-box? · 2013-07-10T08:08:34.629Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

"Suppose your opponent has thrown paper N (or X%) times and won every time they did. Is that evidence for, or evidence against, the proposition that they will play paper in the next trial? (or does the direction of evidence vary with N or X?)"

All of this is irrelevant.

So I will admit I am frustrated here. I don't think that your analogy is even close to equivalent,

I think you are thinking about this in the wrong way.

So let's say you were an adviser advising one of the players on what to choose. Every time you told him to throw rock over the last million games, he lost. Yet every time you told him to throw Scissors he won. Now you have thought very much about this problem, and all of your theorizing keeps telling you that your player should play Rock (the theorycrafting has told you this for quite a while now).

At what point is this evidence that you are reasoning incorrectly about the problem, and really you should just tell the player to play scissors? Would you actually continue to tell him to throw Rock if you were losing $1 every time the player you advised lost?

Now if this advising situation had been a game that you played with your strategy and I had separately played with my strategy, who would have won?

Comment by sly on Why one-box? · 2013-07-09T05:12:07.150Z · score: -3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

"I can play the selective quotation game too. It doesn't make it valid."

Except I didn't break things up with ellipses to make things up like you just did. Nice false equivocation.

Either rock always wins or it doesn't. I was pointing out the lack of consistency in what you said.

If you are proposing that rock does actually win, then that is completely different that what I setup in my scenario. A more accurate representation would be if paper was ALWAYS thrown by your opponents.

Then you come along and say that "no rock will actually win guys! Look at my theory that says so" before you get up and predictably lose. Just like everyone before you.

Comment by sly on Why one-box? · 2013-07-07T05:11:04.329Z · score: -3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Don't edit your post and then say you didn't say what you said. I literally just copy pasted what you wrote and added quotes around it.

Comment by sly on Why one-box? · 2013-07-04T09:06:28.501Z · score: -2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

"Rock lost every time it was played "

"rock doesn't win when it is used means rock wins."

One of these things is not like the other.

Comment by sly on Why one-box? · 2013-07-04T03:17:12.795Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I disagree.

If rock always lost when people used it, that would be evidence against using rock.

Just like if you flip a coin 1000000 times and keep getting heads that is evidence of a coin that won't be coming up tails anytime soon.

Comment by sly on Why one-box? · 2013-06-30T08:48:09.632Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Here is another way to think about this problem.

Imagine if instead of Omega you were on a futuristic game show. As you go onto the show, you enter a future-science brain scanner that scans your brain. After scanning, the game show hosts secretly put the money into the various boxes behind stage.

You now get up on stage and choose whether to one or two box.

Keep in mind that before you got up on the show, 100 other contestants played the game that day. All of the two-boxers ended up with less money than the one-boxers. As an avid watcher of the show, you clearly remember that in every previous broadcast (one a day for ten years) the one-boxers did better than the two-boxers.

Can you honestly tell me that the superior move here is two-boxing? Where does the evidence point? If one strategy clearly and consistently produces inferior results compared to another strategy, that should be all we need to discard it as inferior.

Comment by sly on Open thread, February 15-28, 2013 · 2013-02-22T06:08:10.121Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

So I was planning on doing the AI gatekeeper game as discussed in a previous thread.

My one stipulation as Gatekeeper was that I could release the logs after the game, however my opponent basically backed out after we had barely started.

Is it worth releasing the logs still, even though the game did not finish?

Ideally I could get some other AI to play against me, that way I have more logs to release. I will give you up to two hours on Skype, IRC, or some other easy method of communication. I am estimating my resounding victory with a 99%+ probability. We can put karma, small money, or nothing on the line.

Is anyone up for this?

Comment by sly on I attempted the AI Box Experiment (and lost) · 2013-01-29T18:46:02.914Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

While I am waiting for Oligopsony to play against me, I just want to say that I am up for playing the game multiple times against other people as well.

If anyone else wants to try against me, the above would still apply. Just let me know! I really want to try this game out.

Comment by sly on I attempted the AI Box Experiment (and lost) · 2013-01-24T07:36:05.738Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Deal. Sending info.

Comment by sly on I attempted the AI Box Experiment (and lost) · 2013-01-22T06:50:10.231Z · score: 10 (12 votes) · LW · GW

I would still love to gatekeep against anyone with the stipulation that we release the logs.

I have offered in the past, but every AI backed out.

I will genuinely read everything you write, and can give you up to two hours. We can put karma, cash, or nothing on the line. Favorable odds too.

I don't think I will lose with a probability over 99% because I will play to win.

EDIT: Looks like my opponent is backing out. Anyone else want to try?

Comment by sly on I attempted the AI Box Experiment (and lost) · 2013-01-22T06:45:47.267Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I think that there is not a possible string of characters that could convince me.

Comment by sly on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 18, chapter 87 · 2012-12-22T17:37:42.132Z · score: 4 (6 votes) · LW · GW

When my girlfriend and I sat down last night to read the latest chapter she actually said to me after starting: "Ehh, this is a Hermione chapter, let's do something else and read this later."

I think I agree with you.

Comment by sly on Absent Transhumanism and Transformative Technologies, Which Utopia is Left? · 2012-12-06T00:07:21.689Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

The planetary transportation government I find really intriguing for some reason. First I have ever heard of anything like it. Is it based off of something?

Comment by sly on 2012 Less Wrong Census Survey: Call For Critiques/Questions · 2012-10-19T23:35:18.686Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

As someone who is an atheist now but raised Greek Orthodox, this is a bad idea. The lack of a Pope alone makes for a large difference.

Comment by sly on Causal Diagrams and Causal Models · 2012-10-17T18:47:00.167Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Exactly.

Comment by sly on Causal Diagrams and Causal Models · 2012-10-15T03:20:17.499Z · score: 2 (8 votes) · LW · GW

I deny that the study had people all "doing it right". In Eliezer's case, I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was intelligent enough to avoid obvious confounders.

If someone gets sick (for example) towards the end of the study and then shows a "negative 8 percent " fitness level then their data is crap.

If the study did not control for intensity then it is crap.

The difference between someone actually doing an effortful workout and someone just being present at the gym for a period of time is astronomical, and an extremely common occurrence.

The study had an age range from 40 and 67...

This study is garbage.

Comment by sly on Causal Diagrams and Causal Models · 2012-10-14T05:53:33.203Z · score: 4 (8 votes) · LW · GW

So you think my point is that exercise is magic? If you built my position out of iron instead of straw, you might find that yes, exercise is not the ONLY important factor for fitness.

Comment by sly on Causal Diagrams and Causal Models · 2012-10-14T03:27:59.354Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Thanks for replying.

If you don't mind the continued probing: did your ability to lift grow over that time period? Or were you about constant the whole year?

Comment by sly on Causal Diagrams and Causal Models · 2012-10-14T03:24:25.506Z · score: 3 (5 votes) · LW · GW

The fact that people respond to exercise differently to weight training and exercise non uniformly depending on their genetics and other factors is no big surprise. But showing no gains at all is something altogether.

I can think of several questions I would ask about the study you linked. For example: "In the combined strength-and-endurance-exercise program, the volunteers’ physiological improvement ranged from a negative 8 percent (meaning they became 8 percent less fit) " implies to me that the researchers didn't control for a host of other factors.

Anecdotes ARE data. Especially a life time of several of them all accumulating in one way.

Comment by sly on Causal Diagrams and Causal Models · 2012-10-12T19:05:29.762Z · score: 7 (13 votes) · LW · GW

" [1] Somewhat to my own shame, I must admit to ignoring my own observations in this department - even after I saw no discernible effect on my weight or my musculature from aerobic exercise and strength training 2 hours a day 3 times a week, I didn't really start believing that the virtue theory of metabolism was wrong [2] until after other people had started the skeptical dogpile."

I am extremely skeptical of this portion, it would imply that Eliezer's body functions differently then literally every other person (myself included) I have ever known to make a serious attempt at working out.. 2 Hours 3 times a week? How long did you try this?

Comment by sly on Open Thread, September 1-15, 2012 · 2012-09-03T06:14:14.885Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

That thread is Bayesian evidence against the new poorly thought out rule. The objections that have been raised to it have not even come close to being met. That fact that your own post is a hair breadth away from inflicting negative karma on me should be enough to give you pause.

The reaction to the new rule should not be surprising. If it was surprising, then you should update your model.

Comment by sly on Dealing with trolling and the signal to noise ratio · 2012-09-03T01:32:31.327Z · score: 6 (8 votes) · LW · GW

You don't deter SuperTrolls. You ban them and move on. This is a very simple problem that you guys are vastly over-complicating.

Comment by sly on Dealing with trolling and the signal to noise ratio · 2012-08-31T23:49:19.582Z · score: 22 (28 votes) · LW · GW

This rule is asinine.

If I see a post at -3 that I desire to reply too, I am incentivized to upvote it so that I may enter my comment.

Furthermore, it stifles debate.

Look at this post of Eliezer's at -19 In the new system, the worthwhile replies to that post are not encouraged.

In the new system, instead of people expressing their disagreement, they will not want to reply. The negatives of this system grossly override any upsides.

I have not noticed a worsening trolling problem. Does anyone have any evidence of such a claim?

Comment by sly on Open Thread, August 16-31, 2012 · 2012-08-16T19:06:15.161Z · score: 7 (11 votes) · LW · GW

A very simple and easy first step is cutting out all liquids except for water (if that is too difficult, start with the soda). This helps a lot.

Comment by sly on Smart non-reductionists, philosophical vs. engineering mindsets, and religion · 2012-08-08T07:37:19.213Z · score: 0 (2 votes) · LW · GW

That makes sense.

Comment by sly on Smart non-reductionists, philosophical vs. engineering mindsets, and religion · 2012-08-07T18:59:59.054Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I don't see how ("don't use your models beyond their domain of applicability") is a relevant critique. Eliezer pretty much already addressed that in the sequences quite handily. Additionally it seems that you are praising the rhetoric, not the argument itself.

Comment by sly on Smart non-reductionists, philosophical vs. engineering mindsets, and religion · 2012-08-04T22:56:52.850Z · score: 6 (6 votes) · LW · GW

Can someone explain to me why this argument is considered interesting or good? I genuinely do not see the merit in it.

Comment by sly on What are you working on? August 2012 · 2012-08-04T06:32:47.504Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

More like your Diablo character is moving and fighting within the bejeweled puzzle itself if that makes sense. Breaking gems clears a path and spawns monsters, loot, etc.