User Profile

star21
description15
message1140

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

[Link] Terry Pratchett begins formal process to end his life

7y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
21

Open Thread, April 2011

7y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
111

Life hacks from the dark side

7y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
7

[Video] AI Box Experiment on BBC's "Look Around You"

7y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
6

Study shows placebos can work even if you know it's a placebo

7y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
16

Link: "A Bayesian Take on Julian Assange"

7y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
13

(Some) Singularity Summit 2010 videos now up

7y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
12

Are we more akratic than average?

8y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
5

If a tree falls on Sleeping Beauty...

8y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
27

Is cryonics evil because it's cold?

8y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
26

Recent Comments

Yes, me[2010-05] did not think of that :) I agree now

> It's like how in a dream, you can see someone and know who they're supposed to be, even though they may look and act nothing like that person they supposedly are. Or how you can be in both the first and third person perspective at the same time.

Heh, I've recently had a few weird half-lucid dream...(read more)

The largest number is about 45,000,000,000, although mathematicians suspect that there may be even larger numbers. (45,000,000,001?)

Yay, it is you!

(I've followed your blog and your various other deeds on-and-off since 2002-2003ish and have always been a fan; good to have you here.)

> Shut Up and Multiply (SUM)

Unfortunately that's not even a very good phrase to begin with, let alone as a name for an organization. People hearing it for the first time without context mostly seem to assume that refers to reproduction, presumably by comparison to the phrase "be fruitful and multi...(read more)

Would a "perfect implementation of Bayes", in the sense you meant here, be a [Solomonoff inductor](http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Solomonoff_induction) (or similar, perhaps modified to work better with anthropic problems), or something perfect at following Bayesian probability theory but with no pri...(read more)

I thought the same and wondered if it might have been intentional and meant ironically (since IIRC that is not meant to be the actual eventual name of the organization anyway). Either way, not the best association.

Last year I formatted the TDT paper in LaTeX to teach myself LaTeX. (It's done, aside from a diagram that was missing from the original and possibly a citation or two that were underspecified.) Would this be useful to you, if I reformatted it for the new template?

It's a Google Group, sending any email to that address will indeed subscribe you to the list.

Or you've been neglecting to treat your Spontaneous Duplication.