All of DiamondSolstice's Comments + Replies

Lass Puppet: the glasses make you act stereotypically female

Pass Puppet: the glasses don't have any text

This post is really important as a lot of other materials on LessWrong (notably AI to Zombies) really berate the idea that trying out things that haven't been tested via the Scientific Method. 
This post explains that some (especially health) conditions may go completely outside the scope of testable-via-scientific-method, and at some point turning to chance is a good idea, reminding us that intuition may be often wrong but it can work wonders when used as a last resort. 
This is something to remember when trying to solve problems that don't seem to have one perfect mathematical solution (yet).

This sounds to me like a deep misunderstanding of R:A-Z. The whole point of essays like Scientific Evidence, Legal Evidence, Rational Evidence is that there are tons of valid non-scientific forms of evidence. Posts like Einstein's Arrogance are explicitly about how you can come to high credence in propositions without much scientific evidence.  "berating the idea of trying out things that haven't been tested via the Scientific Method" really sounds like a hilarious strawman of LessWrong, and if anything the opposite of what the culture of this site usually endorses (including the writing in R:A-Z). 

One of the disadvantages of arguing "but it could be dangerous" (which is what you seem to be arguing), is that every new invention is probably dangerous in some way or other. Cars, for example, are an invention that changed life around the world [just like the internet, or nuclear energy, and gunpowder] and have been misused, there have been thousands if not millions of accidents, and yet people view them in a very positive sense. It is true that richer people have cars with price tags over a million, and while cars are nothing in comparison to a human li... (read more)

I agree that it will probably be a net benefit. (No I haven't read anything by Dr. Seuss.)

Personally, I've enjoyed the novella. Not the best I've ever read, but I wanted to learn what comes next, which is a high bar these days. 

The beginning isn't as interesting as it could be. It's not as "hook-y" as most books I find in the library are. But by, say, Chapter 10, I was interested in reading it. 

(I can't believe I'm criticizing AI work. Wow.)

I'm surprised ChatGPT changed the plot of the story with the last DMF message. Is there anything I'm not seeing or did it actually delete the whole last part of the storyline from that one prompt?

1Charlie Sanders1y
It's verbatim. I think it picked up on the concept of the unreliable narrator from the H.P. Lovecraft reference and incorporated it into the story where it could make it fit - but then, maybe I'm just reading into things. It's only guessing the next word, after all!

What I can't figure out is why BLUE died. She's supposed to be immune to physical dangers? What did she die of?

Most people wouldn't consider dying of old age to be a 'physical danger'. It's "physical danger" as in external physical threats, not total immunity from all possible issues external & internal yielding "immortality" or "indestructibility".

Why does the fourth amendment make you feel LESS safe in your homes? Because of the possibility that criminals will not be found out because police can't search THEIR homes?

I'd like to hear your reasoning about "39. Obesity is contagious".
Is it the mental motivation of seeing someone obese to become obese yourself?

I can see what you mean by saying that 'identical to water but not water' is not true, but it's called the 'Twin' planet. Even twins have different fingerprints. Can't a substance act like water, look like water, and anything we do without looking at the molecular structure makes it seem identical to water, yet actually the creatures on that planet discovered a new molecule, that was just the same shape/form as a water molecule and have a different number of electrons?

I don't really understand atom structure, so is this scenario possible?

3[DEACTIVATED] Duncan Sabien2y
According to my a-few-classes-of-college-level-chemistry-and-physics level knowledge, no.  There just aren't enough possibilities that are small enough to do that sort of thing that share enough of water's properties, with the notable exception being literal anti-water (water made of antihydrogen and antioxygen).

I have a solution for Harry.

Check the time, send any good occlumens with a time turner back for 6 hours, have them tell another good occlumens with a time turner to go back 6 hours, the time that it was when the first person went back in time, and have them ask yet another good occlumens... 

Do that however many times you need to

Have someone actually film whatever happened, then wait until it is right after the time that the first person went back in time, show everyone the film.

That way:

a) An occlumens will not accidentally give away their secrets
b) Time will not be changed, since they waited
c) You know it's real, since it's on film.

5Arun Johnson2y
I believe it was established earlier in the series that no chain of time turners can send information back more than 6 hours.

I'm re-reading this chapter for the sixth time

And I just realized

Is the "Black robes falling" italics part a non-Harry point of view of the end of chapter 114?

The word being Harry's spell on Voldemort, and "Black robes, falling" is actually part of the text in that chapter, also in italics, and in parentheses.