User Profile

star9
description10
message1480

Recent Posts

Curated Posts
starCurated - Recent, high quality posts selected by the LessWrong moderation team.
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Frontpage Posts
Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines: • interesting, insightful, useful • aim to explain, not to persuade • avoid meta discussion • relevant to people whether or not they are involved with the LessWrong community.
(includes curated content and frontpage posts)
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
All Posts
personIncludes personal and meta blogposts (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

Random LW-parodying Statement Generator

6y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
222

"The True Rejection Challenge" - Thread 2

7y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
14

Specific Fiction Discusion (April 2011)

7y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
162

Problem noticed in aspect of LW comunity bonding?

7y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
37

Some altruism anecdotes [link]

7y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
3

Comprehensible Improvments: Things you Could Do.

7y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
31

Recent Comments

The solution here might be that it *does* mainly tell you they have constructed a coherent story in their mind, but that having constructed a coherent story in their mind is still usefull evidence for being true depending on what else you know abaut the person, and thus worth telling. If the tone of...(read more)

That assumes the scenario is iterated, I'm talking it'd precomit to do so even in a one-of scenario. The resxzt of you argument was my point, that the same reasoning goes for anger.

Wow, people are still finding this occasionally. It fills me with Determination.

Um no. The specif sequence of muscle contractions is the action, and the thing they try to achieve is beautiful patterns of motion with certain kinds of rhythm and elegance, and/or/typically the perception of such in an observer.

This thing is still alive?! :D I really should get working on that updated version sometime.

Didn't think of it like that, but sort of I guess.

It has near maximal computational capacity, but that capacity isn't being "used" for anything in particular that is easy to determine.

This is actually a very powerful criteria, in terms of number of false positive and negatives. Sadly, the false positives it DOES have still far outweigh the genuin...(read more)

Well, that's quite obvious. Just imagine the blackmailer is a really stupid human with a big gun that'd fall for blackmail in a variety of awful ways, and has a bad case of typical mind fallacy, and if anything goes other than their expectations they get angry and just shot them before thinking thro...(read more)

Another trick it could use is using chatbots most of the time, but swaping them out for real people only for the moments you are actually talking about deep stuff. Maybe you have deep emotional conversations with your family a few hours a week. Maybe once per year, you have a 10 hour intense discuss...(read more)

Hmm, maybe I need to reveal my epistemology another step towards the bottom. Two things seem relevant here.

I think you you SHOULD take your best model literally if you live in a human brain, since it can never get completely stuck requiring infinite evidence due to it's architecture, but does hav...(read more)