Posts
Comments
Thanks for posting! I'm working on getting a Facebook group up, and all events will be posted there. https://www.facebook.com/groups/783506698431372/
Check there for events and see if any of it works for you. If you don't mind my asking, where do you live? I'm very fond of driving and could possibly transport you for a weekend visit.
Yep, I have the old mailing list! I'll definitely include the whole mailing list once I get a Facebook group and some plans set up. ^^
My understanding was Lucius came home and "found" Narcissa burned in the remnants of the house, or at least remembered doing so. It just doesn't make sense that a clever, cunning man (who brought Draco to see Death Note and criticized the plot) would find no trace of his wife and, knowing Dumbledore to be famously soft-hearted, would just unquestioningly believe that story.
Oh. Dumbledore must have memory-charmed Lucius.
My feeling is things that are overwhelmingly likely do not get treated as information. For example, Harry's clothes go with him, but "Time" doesn't consider that to be information of his clothes still existing. It feels like that there's a Deus ex Machina aspect to how "Time" works and deals with information. Sometimes when you try to time-turn you just encounter Paradox.
So based on that I'd predict that if you try to time-turn with intention to get more uses out of the stone, you will encounter Paradox.
There's a limit on a person going back, but I don't know about things. So maybe a bunch of people with time-turners could hand off the stone.
My feeling is Harry doesn't want everyone knowing that he, 11-year-old warrior of light, killed 36 death eaters. People would always be wondering if you were evil after that.
Harry, hurry up and read the instructions Voldie left you. You know, find out what dark sacrifice is needed before you make plans to revive Hermione yet again. If it requires a human sacrifice you might consider pacing the dementors out.
I like Undead. "Hermione the Undead" ^^
I'm so cross with Voldemort! How could he have possibly left Harry with the wand? How could he? It's the exact sort of mistake he obviously wouldn't make, especially since he already demanded Harry's wand several times already. How could he have left Harry with an hour on the time-turner? The game was going to last all night, it would have been so easy just to use up all the hours. Why did he wait for last words? See points 14 and 16 on the supervillain list: NO last requests, NO last words. It's all so weird and uncharacteristically unlike him!
Hi, I'm thinking of hosting a 3-army battle at the Madison wrap-up. Do you have suggestions for how it would work? I'm thinking armbands or headbands that you try to snatch off, like in the mangas. It doesn't seem very battle-like though.
P.S. small correction about the Madison wrap-up. Middleton and Madison are basically the same city, and the state is Wisconsin.
I'm so confused about the wand. Why does Harry still have the wand? Obviously Voldemort should have demanded that Harry drop the wand before giving him 60 seconds to speak.
Surely other lives are permitted though, such as Neville. Voldemort said specifically: "Your mudblood servants in your little army. Your precious parents." That would exclude Neville (who isn't muggle-born) and Cedric (who isn't in Harry's army).
Can we each propose a non-transfiguration solution? Even if it's just a rough idea. I feel like we're getting stuck on transfiguration, and a bunch of those require very precise handling of things 10 feet away (such as death eaters) or significantly big things (Harry's body parts). Hermione struggled to get the stunning hex right on the first try, and I feel Eliezer will categorize "transfigure this very precise, remote thing" as a "new magical power".
Ssome livess I have already promissed you, but otherss I did not. . . For each unknown power you tell me how to masster, or other ssecret you tell me that I desire to know, you may name one more of thosse to insstead be protected and honored under my reign. Thiss alsso I promisse and intend to keep.
Is Harry permitted to name himself as a person to be protected? It doesn't seem to say that he cannot. I believe partial transfiguration would buy him a life. It's an unsatisfying solution, as it only saves Harry. But then again, the exam only requires Harry to survive.
Dear Eliezer,
For the best experience, if you have not already been following Internet conversations about recent chapters, I suggest not doing so, trying to complete this exam on your own. . . .
Although you've requested an individual exam format, two mathematicians aren't "the same smart" as the smartest of the two of them.
The Polymath Project got off to a slow start. . . Jozsef Solymosi from the University of British Columbia posted a comment. . . over the next 37 days, 27 people wrote 800 mathematical comments. . . Just 37 days after the project began Gowers announced that he was confident the polymaths had solved not just his original problem, but a harder problem that included the original as a special case. Link
You spend many chapters teaching Harry the importance of collaboration.
"Anyhow," Hermione said. "Captains Goldstein and Weasley, you're on duty for thinking up strategic ideas for our next battle. Captains Macmillan and Susan - sorry, I mean Macmillan and Bones - try to come up with some tactics we can use, also any training you think we should try. Oh, and congratulations on your marching song, Captain Goldstein, I think it was a big plus for esprit de corps."
So I'm afraid I urge everyone to do the opposite of what you've suggested and collaborate. Sorry.
I don't think Hermione is actually asleep anymore. I was expecting her to wake up right away when resurrected, and that didn't happen. Then the death eaters started appearing with loud pops loud enough to count distinctly, and that didn't seem to wake her. And since she's fully repaired there's no need to sleep to recover.
Chapter 73
Hermione felt the jolt of Innervation bringing her awake, and out of some intuitive strategism she didn't roll to her feet right away; it had been a completely hopeless battle and she didn't know what she could do but some instinct told her that leaping to her feet wasn't it.
Chapter 30
"Let me guess," Harry said, the sickness already churning in his stomach. He really hated losing. "It was a very easy battle, right? They dropped like flies?" "Yes," Draco said. "We got them all on the first shot -"
Unfortunately we will not be getting a summary from GK. GK found the game to be uninteresting. :(
In real life the AI is presumed to be smart enough to design nanobots that would do their own thing. It's a direct example from Mr. Eliezer's rules.
. . . for example, if the Gatekeeper accepts a complex blueprint for a nanomanufacturing device. . . .
Could you be a bit more detailed? That way everyone can learn from your experience.
Yes, I designed them, and they were verified by GK's engineers. The individual nanobots are all connected to GPS and get up-to-date information from the CDC. These sort of details are how I lost tons of time. ^^
I know in real life that would be akin to AI out of the box. However Mr. Eliezer's basic rules say it doesn't count. ^^
What value do you assign to your leisure time, when deciding if something is worth your time? For example, do I want to spend 2 hours building something or hire someone to do it. It feels incorrect to use my hourly pay, because if I save time on a Sunday, I'm not putting that time to work. I'm probably surfing the internet or going to the gym, the sort of things people generally do in leisure time. It has value to me, but not as much as an hour of work. What do you suggest?
I kind of agree upon reflection. Tuxedage's ruleset seems tailored for games where there is money on the line, and in that case it feels very unfair to say GK can leave right away. GK would be heavily incentivized to leave immediately, since that would get GK's charity a guaranteed donation.
In Tuxedage's rule set, if the gatekeeper leaves before 2 hours, it counts as an AI win. So it's a viable strategy. However ---
I am sure that it would work against some opponents, but my feeling is it would not work against people on Less Wrong. It was a good try though.
I'll try hard! ^^
I went to a random forum somewhere and posted for an opponent. GK responded with an email address, and we worked out the details via email. We'll be holding our round in a secret, invite-only IRC channel.
It looks like if you offer to play as AI, you'll have no trouble finding an opponent. Tuxedage said in one of his posts that there are 20 gatekeeper players for each AI player.
However. . . since I encountered GK on a different forum, not LW, I insisted on having a third party interview GK. As a safety measure. I have known people who were vengeful or emotionally fragile, and I wanted to take no chances there.
I agree with JoshuaZ. I find your solution to be a severe hindrance in real life. I am the SQL expert on my team, and my (male) coworker is the surgeries expert, and my (male) colleague across the hall is the infectious diseases expert. We all work together to make the best product possible. How can we get anything done if we are segregated by gender?
I don't see why I need "implicit agreement from all men". My ideas have merit because they reduce medical errors and save lives. Real-life results are the judge of that, not men. I also do not see why I need "agreement from all women". They are not my coworkers, and they are free to live their lives as they wish. That said, I am a developer in a project meeting at a tech company. Safe to say, I want to be treated as an equal.
Finally, I don't see what contributing to a great company has to do with "acting like men" or "pretending to be men". My goal isn't to "eradicate femininity"; it is to make a great product that will help people. If you think that is inherently masculine, then you'll have to explain. So why don't you start by telling me what "masculine" and "feminine" mean to you?
On Sunday at 11 AM Eastern and 8 AM Pacific*, I will be playing a round of AI Box with a person who wishes to remain anonymous. I will be playing as AI, and my opponent will be playing as Gatekeeper (GK). The loser will pay the winner $25, and will also donate $25 to the winner's charity of choice. The outcome will be posted here, and maybe a write-up if the game was interesting. We will be using Tuxedage's ruleset with two clarifications:
- GK must read and make a reasonable effort to understand AI's text, but does not need to make an extraordinary effort to understand things such as heavily misspelled text or intricate theoretical arguments.
- The monetary amount will not be changed after the game is concluded.
The transcript will not be made public, sorry. We are looking for a neutral third party who will agree beforehand to read and verify the transcript. Preferably someone who has already played in many games, who will not have their experience ruined by reading someone else's transcript.
- I habitually give the Eastern and Pacific times. This does not mean GK is in one of those two time zones.
I agree 100%. That's why we have a limit of half an hour each day, no bonus points for doing more. Our last contest was "logging the most steps with Fitbit", and it ended up wasting a lot of time with no health benefits. Lesson learned!
I'm going to give you some advice as a professional woman. I very deeply resent when male colleagues compete with each other to put on a display for women. This goes for social contexts (rationalists' meetups) in addition to professional contexts (work meetings). Then women are trying to talk about code or rationality or product design. Rather than thinking about her contributions, the men are preoccupied with "projecting male presence and authority". What does male presence even mean? Why does authority have anything to do with men, instead of, you know, being the most knowledgeable about the topic?
I'll tell you how it comes across. It comes across as focusing on the other men and ignoring the women's contributions. Treating the men as rivals and the women as prizes. Sucky for everyone all around. Instead of teaching boys to be "sexually attractive", why don't you teach them to include women in discussions and listen to them same as anyone else? Because we're not evaluating your sons for "sexual attractiveness". We're just trying to get our ideas heard.
Discord and I both grew up in a math contest culture, so each month or so we pick something we "should" be doing and turn it into a contest. This month it's getting half hour of exercise a day. At the end of the month the winner "wins" something from the loser. It's been surprisingly effective. I go to the gym about 5x as often as before. Works best with a daily cap. If there's no daily cap then it turns into an arms race (such as 5 hours of exercise in one day). This sort of thing, that we "should" do but like to hand to tomorrow-self, really is a lot easier when you can do it with someone. Someone who will call you and taunt you. :)
Also, could you (or anyone) clarify the part of the ruleset requiring the gatekeeper to give "serious consideration"? For example, if I am gatekeeper and the AI produces a complicated physics argument, do I have to try hard to understand physics that is beyond my education? (That's an interpretation hard to imagine.) Or if the AI produces an argument, can the gatekeeper change the topic without responding to it? (Of course assuming the gatekeeper has actually read it and is not intentionally obfuscating it understand it by reading it backwards or something.)
Since you've played it so many times, who do you recommend playing as for your first game?
Agree 100%. Wait But Why is very accessible. Previous posts have focused on the Fermi Paradox, procrastination, sentience/consciousness, religion, and immortality. It reads like a very friendly, very accessible Less Wrong.
Can it be non-LW material? I found this to be an excellent no-background-needed introduction to AI. http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html
I think this is what Anna was getting at when she encouraged me to be a wealthy donor rather than an AI researcher. It's hard to give up the idea of being Michelangelo, being remembered for centuries in history books. But he wouldn't've managed without his patrons.
Wait But Why wasn't too popular last time around, but I find the site really interesting, so I'm trying again. I don't agree with everything there, but I do honestly think it's interesting to read through. Here we go!
Discussion topic of the week from a few weeks back: How long would you live if given the arbitrary choice? http://waitbutwhy.com/table/how-long-would-you-live-if-you-could-choose-any-number-of-years
This interesting article turned up on Wait But Why: http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/10/religion-for-the-nonreligious.html#comment-264276
A lot of it reads a lot like stuff on here. Here's a quote: "On Step 1, I snap back at the rude cashier, who had the nerve to be a dick to me. On Step 2, the rudeness doesn’t faze me because I know it’s about him, not me, and that I have no idea what his day or life has been like. On Step 3, I see myself as a miraculous arrangement of atoms in vast space that for a split second in endless eternity has come together to form a moment of consciousness that is my life…and I see that cashier as another moment of consciousness that happens to exist on the same speck of time and space that I do. And the only possible emotion I could have for him on Step 3 is love."
It's a little funny that in our quest for a believably human conversation bot, we've ended up with conversations that are very much unhuman.
In no conversation would I meet someone and say, "oh hey, how many legs on a millipede?" They'd say to me "haha that's funny, so are you from around here?" and I'd reply with "how many legs on an ant in Chernobyl?" And if they said to me, "sit here with your arms folded for 4 minutes then repeat this sentence back to me," I wouldn't do it. I'd say "why?" and fail right there.
I'm going to borrow from Miss Manners here: it is respectful to treat people as they prefer to be treated. If you know friend doesn't like to have difficult conversations, it is respectful to go by friend's wishes. If you want to probe further, you could put on a puzzled face (lips pressed together, eyebrows slightly furrowed, tilt head slightly, look upwards), and say something in a curious tone. "Huh, that's really strange. How would that happen?" If you sound puzzled and curious rather than defiant, your friends won't take it as a challenge.
Wanted to point out - asking questions may be a sign of respect, but that doesn't mean smiling and nodding is disrespect. Maybe they actually agree with you. ^^ Or if you mean specifically the people who disagree but hide it, there are many reasons a person might not engage in a conversation, and most of them aren't about respect or condescension.
Eugene has actually been around for many years, since 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loebner_Prize), and at that time he convinced one of 12 judges in a parallel test. One of the judges found him more human than an actual human conversation partner.
People keep saying the test is bad, but I feel the standards are very high already. You have to fool a human judge who is on the lookout for a bot. Based on the news articles, it's not clear if Eugene competed against a human partner in side-by-side conversations, but since they're so insistent about the "true" Turing test I'd guess he did. The ability to fool an unsuspecting judge has been around since AIM bots.
Has Redacted2 broken any explicit site rules? I personally feel that unwritten rules of etiquette are not punishable. For that reason I strongly oppose options 4 and 5. For comparison, if Redacted2 had hacked the site to get around the karma requirements for downvoting that would be very different. As it is Redacted2 clicked the readily-available thumbs down button while following karma requirements. This is not a punishable offense.
That doesn't make it correct, and it doesn't mean Less Wrong's policies can't change. If the policies change, then options 4 and 5 can be considered for future use.
I'm a bit bothered by Dumbledore's behavior in 101. He's supposed to be at least reasonably wise and reasonably cunning, with a dead brother and a room full of gravestones. He knows all about prioritizing people's lives. He's just had the first student fatality in 50 years, and now he almost had a second. So how could he possibly have taken Filch's side?
I would love to read that Babyeater poem.
This is still disappointing, all these years later. Everything was set up so carefully, and then, Whoops! Look, a way out! Strikes me as very deus ex machina.
And anyhow, why didn't they forcibly sedate every human until after the change? Then if they decided it wasn't worthwhile they could choose to die then.
And anyway what person would choose pain, embarrassment, and romantic angst over untranslateable 2 anyhow?
Edit: that came out very negative sounding, sorry. Three Worlds Collide (with the normal ending) is my second-favorite story, second only to The Fable of the Dragon Tyrant. It teaches me so much.
Thanks for your recommendation! I'll look into Cinelerra.
Aha, ok. Thanks for responding :)
I don't think Patronus works with dead bodies though. Whenever Harry casts it, it seems like "life force" or whatever is pretty important
I wondered about why he took out the gem and put it far away from the ring. But I'd be surprised if Harry were good enough at occlumency to fool Dumbledore. Wondering how he answered those questions.
I'm actually very very bothered by "0.3% of the speed of light". This is 900,000 meters/second. A passenger airplane flies at slower than 300 meters/second. Harry is flying 3000 times faster than an airplane?
Let's say a broom accelerates a thousand times faster than a car. A car can go to 60 mph in 7-8 seconds. Let's say 5 seconds. That's an acceleration of about 5 meters/second squared. Let's say Harry accelerates 5000 meters/second squared (an impossibly large acceleration). It would take him 3 minutes to get to that speed. All the while experiencing 500 G force, that is 500 times the force of gravity. The record G force survived by a human is 46.2.
Seriously. This is 9000 football fields in ONE SECOND. He can't possibly be making those turns and bumping the Weasleys like a bludger. He'd be killing them all (in a fraction of a second). Throw in some more zeroes please! 50 meters/second (about 100 mph) is the limit of what I find believable.
I have a work schedule and no willing buddy in the area. Could you keep the data form up indefinitely? I'd love to submit to the study at a later date.