All of anon895's Comments + Replies

I don't see how any of those questions relate to my post.

(For transparency:

I initially read your post as saying that, because RationalWiki isn't "really" rational, their opinion on LW is automatically wrong and stupid; that therefore, anyone who shares or has absorbed that opinion (since the RW link was just a conveniently available illustration) is also wrong and stupid; and that therefore, their potential opinion of me as part of it is either inconsequential or totally outside my control. Or maybe you meant that people you know don't take RW se... (read more)

This post (edit: fixed link) reminded me of this thread. 2.5 years later, I'm still not sure I understand your point or why it has a +5 score. How does what LW (which I guess I'm not part of) "wants"^W "wishes" relate to my concerns?

Almost nobody has heard of Less Wrong or Eliezer. There's a mean article on RationalWiki (though honestly it doesn't look that mean anymore), there's a hostile thread on DarkLordPotter, but almost nobody has heard of those, either. This was even more true two years ago. I'm not wedrifid. But I suspect his point is that, outside of a few incredibly narrow sub-sub-cultures, nobody knows anything about Less Wrong and no one who knows you personally will judge you by your connection to it, no matter how public or overt.

I agree that there are some important methodological issues with the paper, and it is far from the last word. What the criticisms you link don't address well, however, is that fact that (a) the paper is strengthened by the fact that it has a strong, validated theory of underlying behavior...

- "AnonySocialScientist", Reddit

Could you post a screenshot or archived version of your Facebook link?

Thanks for the link, but that's one weak headline. Next time try something like "Pro-deathers have been trying to make sure MIRI doesn't get Reddit's donation. Vote for MIRI so they are better able to help life!"

Edit: Well, I thought it was funny.

What do you think public perception would be of two teenage girls who played with the genitals of an unconscious drunk guy?

Tangentially, it might be similar to public perception of this writer. From the top-displayed comments:

This is rape. Period. You're one sick fuck.


Yes, because when a man is aroused it's totally not rape is it...Fucking hell you're stupid...

Edit: It might be a poor example of a gender-symmetrical act, since one actually can "play with" male genitals non-sexually; I do it whenever I use the bathroom, and have it... (read more)

Two comments don't exactly constitute public perception. Incidentally, some women also touch themselves when they use the restroom (incidence rate is who the fuck knows) for approximately the same reasons, and, uh, you've never heard complaints about speculums? Ford, Liwag-McLamb, and Foley, 1998 (among other studies, such as "What is a typical rape? Effects of victim and participant gender in female and male rape perception" by Irina Anderson in the British Journal of Social Psychology) suggest that people are less likely to label a given incident rape if the victim is a male, more likely to regard a male victim as complicit in or partially responsible for the rape, and more likely to regard male victims of rape negatively (the term used in the literature is generally "homophobic response"). Incidentally, as for the legal status of the two girls - it wouldn't be rape. It wouldn't even be sexual assault. It's generally classified as sexual battery, and is a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions.

I like how everyone who links this talks about the immortality tangent and ignores the first two panels and "suicide is not legitimate". You don't want to live? Too bad, it's your job! You're not happy? You're not trying hard enough! This mythological figure was happy, so you should be too! Depression is a choice!

That's because they are mostly just restating Camus' view, I think. As for myself I still find difficoult to discuss the topic: I've been through some mild (diagnosed) depression, but never to the point to seriously lean toward suicide. I've no clue if it's because I was able to force myself to be sufficiently happy, or I just wasn't feeling bad enough.
I didn't get the first two panels. Can you explain them?

I imagine because it was an implied insult and the intended friendly tone didn't come through or wasn't considered appropriate. Seems to be back to neutral, though.

Don't worry; I'm sure there are plenty of ways you can still contribute.

Edit: Well, I thought it was funny.

Why is this being downvoted?

Recently stumbled into this. It's probably incomplete, but it's something.

I (and any other casual visitor) now have only indirect evidence regarding whether eridu's comments were really bad or were well-meaning attempts to share feminist insights into the subject, followed by understandable frustration as everything she^Whe said was quoted out of context (if not misquoted outright) and interpreted in the worst possible way.

Agreed. I would prefer that a negative contributor be prospectively banned (that is, "prevented from posting further") rather than retrospectively expunged (that is, "all their comments deleted from the record"), so as to avoid mutilating the record of past discussions.

For precedent, consider Wikipedia: if a contributor is found to be too much trouble (starting flamewars, edit-warring, etc.) they are banned, but their "talk page" discussion comments are not expunged. However, specific comments that are merely flaming, or which constitute harassment or the like, can be deleted.

As a low-status male, right now I'm less worried about being excluded from a meetup than I am about being publicly associated with LW at all. It already has a reputation (and not just for the things mentioned there); now it's a place where a comment like Jade's here isn't just downvoted, but downvoted to a level that labels it a troll comment not worth replying to.

It already has a reputation

lesswrong wishes it had a reputation!


Related to: List of public drafts on LessWrong

The Problem With Rational Wiki

It already has a reputation

Since you cite it as source you should be aware Rational Wiki has a certain reputation here as well. I'm not talking about the object level disagreements such as cryonics, existential risk, many-worlds interpretation and artificial intelligence because we have some reasonable disagreement on those here as well. Even its cheeky tone while not helping its stated goals can be amusing. I'm somewhat less forgiving about their casual approach to epistemolo... (read more)

You mean conspicuously not displaying the emotion that should fit the facts sends a signal that it's not present and that you possibly don't think it should be, a position that isn't exactly unheard of in the present world?

Huh. Worked fine for me using files from a previously existing setup of Kindle for PC under Windows XP.

People know Kindle DRM can currently be broken, right?

Tried it, didn't work for me. :(

The comments on Reddit are worth reading:

Cognitive science is an oxymoron and who ever said the humanity is rational?


you know, not everything has to be reduced to effieciency and end results. humans and human society is still special even if some shut in bean counter thinks otherwise.

Karma to whoever finds the best visual analog for the inferential distances implied by these comments.

"Forbidden comparison fallacy", maybe. Googling "forbidden comparison" turns up at least one example of it. It was called "Comparing Apples and Oranges" in this comment, but that seems less descriptive.

Somehow I doubt that "regardless of circumstance or outward sign" is their wording and not yours.

(Edit) Also, the converse of "not everything that is not expressly forbidden by a law is good" is "not everything that causes the slightest incidental harm is unforgivable babyeating evil".

i've never heard of a carnivore who thought meat eating was morally better.

I suspect that you either haven't looked very hard or very long.

If you have, perhaps you can give me a pointer.

(I wrote this before seeing timtyler's post.)

If there is a rule that says 'optimize X for X seconds' why would an AGI make a difference between 'optimize X' and 'for X seconds'?

I does seem like you misinterpreted the argument, but one possible failure there is if the most effective way to maximize paperclips within the time period is to build paperclip-making Von Neumann machines. If it designs the machines from scratch, it won't build a time limit into them because that won't increase the production of paperclips within the period of time it cares about.

Which conversation ends in a fight? Which conversation ends in both people actually feeling more at ease?

They don't sound meaningfully different to me; you're saying the same thing, just less emotively and more casually.

I saw someone recently suggest saying (in a sympathetic tone) "What are you planning to do?". (Possibly preceded by something like "Yeah, I can understand why you would be".) I wouldn't expect good results from it in real life, but I like it anyway (and it might be better than some alternatives).

They're not the same substance. The first way says "Trust me -- I'm upset that you don't take my word for an answer." (And the reaction will be "You want me to just smile and nod to everything you say? What gives you the authority?") The second way says "Ok, let's see if your fears are justified by checking some objective source." (And, ideally, the reaction will be "Oh, ok, I didn't know that. Guess I shouldn't have worried." Of course, that depends on the worried partner being fairly rational too; a less rational person might just perceive a status grab and not notice the new information.)

Inherent flaws of moral codes based on non-deterministic ideas of free will aside, I don't think I've ever seen a version of that argument where the two sides admitted that they were using different definitions of "be homosexual".

I have. I've was a member of a Bible club at work for a year. I wasn't Christian, but I chose to participate in the club. Some folks in that club said they had no problem at all with the person who is attracted to the same sex. The problem lay in the conceit that the homosexual's purpose and burden in life was to either overcome their sexual proclivities or to forgo sex altogether, giving their life to God in some other way than marriage and procreation. So, the anti-gay stance was that it's a sin to act homosexually. To be inside a homosexual brain is to feel trapped and even somewhat absent from reality until one acts on, or at least admits and attempts to embrace, this cognitive process that values the sexes in a way fundamentally different from the norm for one's gender. I admit that "being homosexual" is, for me, a facet of my mind that I can't change, and those fundamentalists I talked to admitted to understanding that state of mind, but that the sin lies only in seducing another man (being seduced by another man is seducing him, just to clear that up), and that is what makes a person homosexual.

I find that kind of interesting, since my mom's similar behavior comes off as extremely arrogant to me. Electronics and computer software of any kind are the Domain of Men, and any problems she has with them are our responsibility to solve, no matter how many thousands of hours she's been using a particular system and no matter how unfamiliar it is to us. If you try to guide her toward figuring something out herself, she'll eventually grin and throw up her hands and say "Confusing! Confusing!" and repeat the request just do it for her.

On further ... (read more)

I rather suspect my mother (or anyone else that wasn't paying me a lot of money) would soon find that behaviour of that kind would rapidly lead to my disinclination to provide assistance. They can either show some respect and courtesy or follow the flowchart [] themselves. Mind you I am willing to adjust my teaching to suit individual learning styles. Some people just really do suck at understanding how steps work. Meanwhile I am extremely poor at following instructions without understanding how they work - scarily so at times.

Followup to previous comment: I feel like this link from Reddit may apply.

But he might benefit from having her think she's blackmailing him.

No such luck -- I've already e-mailed her this thread.

Not wanting to open a possibly long article: is that the same thing as dissociation? Is dissociation the symptom and depersonalization a cluster of symptoms that includes it?

Depersonalization is a type of dissociation disorder, yes. It's in the same class of disorder as multiple personalities - or Dissociative Identity Disorder. And I think the discussions between Richard, Eliezer, and Robin, among others, are worth reading. Richard argues, in a nutshell, that the mind is more than just the brain, that there is something else that creates the mind. Eliezer and Robin argue that he his making the same mistakes that he has been describing in the Mysterious Answers to Mysterious Questions sequence. That's what the "zombie world" is all about - if a world consists of humans who are in every way exactly the same as ours minus whatever ephemeral thing it is that Richard says completes "consciousness", Richard argues these zombies will not be conscious, and Eliezer argues that they will be, because they are made of all the same things that we are.

...which won't happen if the computronium is the most important thing and uploading existing minds would slow it down. The AI might upload some humans to get their cooperation during the early stages of takeoff, but it wouldn't necessarily keep those uploads running once it no longer depended on humans, if the same resources could be used more efficiently for itself.

To get my cooperation, at least, it would have to credibly precommit that it wouldn't just turn my simulation off after it no longer needs me. (Of course, the meaning of the word "credibly" shifts somewhat when we're talking about a superintelligence trying to "prove" something to a human.)
  • No, we'll split it.

From what I've read, being able to credibly offer a free meal is a critical tool in some men's dating arsenal. Changing it to "well, if you want I'll pay, but I'd be really grateful if you'd chip in too" could leave him substantially weakened. Her making decisions on his behalf and talking about them as a couple after one date also seems like a bad sign.

  • Hey, none of that, Neanderthal! (With a smile and or fake arm slap to indicate lightheartedness. Equivalent to assertiveness with humor.)

"Ha, ha! It's funny because ... (read more)

Wow. All those could technically be valid interpretations. That's where things like body language and confidence come in. There is something to be said for interpreting everything in the best possible light. Occasionally (dependent highly on context) even when you know they intended it to be critical. (Although in this case they didn't).

  • Hey, none of that, Neanderthal! (With a smile and or fake arm slap to indicate lightheartedness. Equivalent to assertiveness with humor.)

"Ha, ha! It's funny because she insulted me and dismissed my sex's relevan

... (read more)

I got a little angry reading that (didn't follow the original link), but I'm feeling too lazy to discard the post I wrote, so:

  • Never ever talk about previous [girlfriends], particularly their prowess in the bedroom. Your ex-[girlfriends] are your business only.

Thereby signalling to her (if she were rational) that she'll be equally a nonentity to you in a year, and/or (if you actively avoid the subject) that you handled your past relationships badly and are likely to do the same for your next.

  • Never assume anything about your date until you choose to kn
... (read more)
Just so long as you don't interpret it as avocation from me (except where explicitly indicated). It is, after all, a bunch of dating tips given to women and presented here because it may 'squick' guys. Mind you most of them did not squick me at all and even then it was just a "I wouldn't date her" reaction. But other people not getting offended at something is sometimes itself taken as offensive so I don't mind if you are angry at me too. :) I know you mentioned that you hope you never have to date. For those that do date an attractive trait tends to be the ability to accept the dating patterns of the desired demographic without discontent. The signalling reason for this is obvious. I wouldn't call that rational. A rational girl would assume that I don't have my entire history written down on my sleeve for all to see. I don't speak of all the important things in my life in all conversations. I would call that girl 'paranoid'. Not a bad approach at all. Not universally effective but the screening/signalling combo would work well for some combinations. :) In that vein the actual sentiment in the tip would translate to actively seeking out those other 'gorgeous', interesting/interested people too, rather than waiting passively. 'Applause light' is a little different from 'personal - don't insult'. No. Just no. Framing, like it or not, is incredibly important when dating. A particularly aggressive framing of "If I do then I am entitled to material resource>" is an indication that a certain kind of relationship will follow and to some extent the type of personality of the girl. Again, it is how it is framed that is important more so than who actually pays for stuff. It also depends what kind of relationship you want. Some people in some circumstances are looking for a more overtly transactional relationship than a partnership - rich middle aged men having affairs for example. Which is somewhat different to the provider/dominant-partner role that a less aggressive

The nice thing about Eliezer's stories is that they're much harder to accidentally take as fictional evidence. They come off as obviously ridiculous, so there isn't much danger that you'll accidentally interpret those worlds as instructive of our own. Easy to use correctly; hard to use incorrectly.''

It's an interesting thought, but I'm not sure I buy it as generally true; as long as the critical human-interaction parts work properly, I think I automatically believe moderately absurd fiction about as much as I do anything else. We believe plenty of things in the real world that are absurd by EEA standards.

I know the above post only had one downvote, but just to check: Didn't we already have a discussion on how signalling agreement with things is a normal part of healthy human interaction and cooperation, and that we don't really want to suppress it for some mechanical standard of "high content" or "signal/noise"?

An interesting point. I would like it if LW comments/ posts had a way to "agree" or "disagree" with them separate from Karma. The posts show how many people had a agreed/disagreed with the post and possibly who had done so. This would provide an outlet for the desire to express agreement or disagreement without being too cluttering. I experience this desire a lot, but usually hold back for fear of making clutter.
Ata appeared, rather, to be following the content of the opening post.

Partway through, I had the urge to look up a past comment saying something like "I've seen philosophers argue, in apparently total sincerity, whether a man in a desert seeing a mirage of a lake that coincidentally has a lake just beyond it "really" knows the lake is there".

Unfortunately I can't find it now; it probably either didn't use the exact word "mirage", used another metaphor entirely, or was actually on OB. Searching "mirage" brought up a similar metaphor in Righting a Wrong Question, but that's making a different point.

Ended up making the transfer over the phone.

...yep, didn't make it. I'll have to get to the bank early tomorrow and hope the mail is slow.

Ended up making the transfer over the phone.

In a possibly bad decision, I put a $1000 check in the mailbox with the intent of going out and transferring the money to my checking account later today. That puts them at $123,700 using Silas' count.

...yep, didn't make it. I'll have to get to the bank early tomorrow and hope the mail is slow.

Read first comic, said to self "This is terrible" halfway through, didn't read further. There may be room for improvement.

May be room for improvement? Well that's an understatement. ;)

Part of the problem is that any attempt at direct enforcement or pressure could deter people from commenting in the first place, knowing that if they did they'd be expected to see any disagreements through to the end. (That's been mentioned in previous threads, I think.)

Random thought: Would individuals trying to shift the norm by setting an example work any better? Like, one person going through their comment history (possibly using the link here), and making a list in their profile page of unresolved disagreements and their current status (possibly inclu... (read more)

That clarifies it for me. Possibly related: Beyond the Reach of God.

I was probably wrong in assuming I understood the discussion, in that case.

Your mistake may be in assuming that I understand.

An AI that was a satisficer would't be "the" AI; it'd be the first of many.

Odd. I would have thought that the first satisfied superhuman AI would be the last AI.

Other possibilities: (6) It was a non-breathing imitation of a pig. (7) It was inside an invisible box isolating it from the surrounding air.

A clever god applying its cleverness to the job of making itself invisible is going to succeed.

The point is not that the ability is "magical", but that it's real, that we do have an ability to read minds, in exactly the same sense as Dpar appealed to the impossibility of.
Load More