All of EniScien's Comments + Replies

I saw that a lot of people are confused by "what does Yudkowsky mean by this difference between deep causes and surface analogies?". I didn't have this problem, with no delay I had interpretation what he means.

I thought that it's difference between deep and surface regarding to black box metaphor. Difference between searching correlation between similar inputs and outputs and building a structure of hidden nodes and checking the predictions with rewarding correct ones and dividing that all by complexity of internal structure.

Difference between making step ... (read more)

I noticed that some names here have really bad connotations (although I am not saying that I know which don't, or even that any hasn't).

"LessWrong" looks like "be wrong more rare" and one of obvious ways to it is to avoid difficult things, "be less wrong" is not a way to reach any difficult goal. (Even if different people have different goals)

"Rationality: from A to Z" even worse, it looks like "complete professional guide about rationality" instead of "incomplete basic notes about a small piece of rationality weakly understood by one autodidact" which it actually is.

Ehn.  Not sure what you expect, or where you think does it better.     i would recommend that you reframe “x has really bad connotations” to “I have these specific associations with X, which I think are negative”.

There are no common words upvote/downvote in Russian, so I just said like/dislike. And it was really a mistake, these are two really different types of positive/negative marks, agree/disagree is third type and there may be any amount of other types. But I named it like/dislike, so I so thought about it like it means your power of liking it in form of outcome to author, not just adjusting the sorting like "do I want to see more posts like that higher in suggestions".

And actually it looks for me like a more general tendency in my behaviour to avoid finding s... (read more)

Word use, especially short phrases with a LOT of contextual content, is fascinating.  I often think the ambiguity is strategic, a sort of motte-and-bailey to smuggle in implications without actually saying them. "like" vs "upvote" is a great example.  The ambiguity is whether you like that the post/comment was made, vs whether you like the thing that the post/comment references.  Either word could be ambiguous in that way, but "upvote" is a little clearer that you think the post is "good enough to win (something)", vs "like" is just a personal opinion about your interests.

Does the LessWrong site use a password strength check like the one Yudkowsky talks about (I don't remember that one)? And if not, why not? It doesn't seem particularly difficult to hook this up to a dictionary or something. Or is it not considered worth implementing because there's Google registration?

Hmm. Judging from the brief view, it feels like I'm the only one who included reactions in my brief forms. I wonder why?

It occurred to me that on LessWrong there doesn't seem to be a division of posts in evaluations into those that you want to promote as relevant right now, and those that you think will be useful over the years. If there was such an evaluation... Or such a response, then you could take a list not of karma posts, which would include those that were only needed sometime in a particular moment, but a list of those that people find useful beyond time.

That is, a short-term post might be well-written, really required for discussion at the time, rather than just r... (read more)

A. I saw a post that reactions were added. I was just thinking that this would be very helpful and might solve my problem. Included them for my short forms. I hope people don't just vote no more without asking why through reactions.

On the one hand, I really like that on LessWrong, unlike other platforms, everything unproductive is downgraded in the rating. But on the other hand, when you try to publish something yourself, it looks like a hell of a black box, which gives out positive and negative reinforcements for no reason at all.

This completely chaotic reward system seems to be bad for my tendency to post anything at all on LessWrong, just in the last few weeks that I've been using EverNote, it has counted 400 posts, and by a quick count, I have about 1500 posts lying in Google Ke... (read more)

A. I saw a post that reactions were added. I was just thinking that this would be very helpful and might solve my problem. Included them for my short forms. I hope people don't just vote no more without asking why through reactions.

I must say, I wonder why I did not see here speed reading and visual thinking as one of the most important tips for practical rationality, that is, a visual image is 2 + 1 d, and an auditory image is 0 + 1 d, plus auditory images use sequential thinking, in which people are very bad, and visual thinking is parallel. And according to Wikipedia, the transition from voice to visual reading should speed you up 5 (!) times, and in the same way, visual thinking should be 5 times faster compared to voice, and if you can read and think 5 times in a lifetime mor... (read more)

Yudkowsky says that public morality should be derived from personal morality, and that personal morality is paramount. But I don't think this is the right way to put it, in my view morality is the social relationships that game theory talks about, how not to play games with a negative sum, how to achieve the maximum sum for all participants.

And morality is independent of values, or rather, each value system has its own morality, or even more accurately, morality can work even if you have different value systems. Morality is primarily about questions of jus... (read more)

There is convergently useful knowledge, and parameters of preference that could be anything, in a new mind. You don't need to align the former. There are no compelling arguments about the latter.

In HPMOR, Draco Malfoy thinks that either Harry Potter was lucky enough to be able to come up with a bunch of great ideas in a short period of time, or he, for some unimaginable reason, has already spent a bunch of time thinking about how to do it. The real answer to this false dilemma is that Harry just read a book as a kid where its author came up with all these for the book's needs.

In How to Seem (and Be) Deep Thought, Eliezer Yudkowsky says that the Japanese often portray Christians as bearers of incredible wisdom, while the opposite is true of the "ea... (read more)

I've read, including on lesswrong (, that often listening to those who failed is more useful than those who succeeded, but I somehow missed if there was an explanation somewhere as to why? And the fact is that there are 1000 ways to be wrong and only 1 way to do something right, so if you listen to a story about success, it should be 1000 times longer than a story about failure, because for the latter it is enough to make one fatal mistake, while for the former you have to not make th... (read more)

fwiw I don't think I've heard this particular heuristic from LessWrong. Do you have a link for a place this seemed implied? I think there's a particular warning flag about "selection effects from successes" (i.e. sometimes a person who succeeded just did so through luck). So, like, watch out for that. But I remember hearing a generalized thing about learning more from failure than from success.
In truth, listen to everybody. But recognize that different stories have different filters and distortions. Neither success nor failure storytellers actually understand the complexity of why things worked or didn’t - they will each have a biased and limited view.

I haven't encountered this technique anywhere else, so I started using it based on how associations work in the brain:

If I can't remember a word, instead of just continuing to tell myself "think, think, think," I start going through the letters alphabetically and make an effort over each one "what are the words for that letter, is that word by any chance?" And that almost always helps.

I've noticed that in everyday life, when you're testing some habit choices to see if they're working for you, it's better to leave a habit that doesn't seem to be working for you, to make it easier to determine that, because otherwise you won't be sure later if it turned out to work otherwise, habit one or habit two or habit three.

This reminds me of how I used to do mod compilations, it might seem like a good idea to add all the desired ones at once, but then if some mod is missing or some extra, you won't be able to figure out which one. So they should on... (read more)

Yudkowsky says in one of his posts that since 0 and 1 for probabilities mean -∞ and +∞, you can't just add up all the hypotheses to get one. However, I don't see why this should necessarily follow. After all, to select one hypothesis from the hypothesis space, we must get the number of bits of evidence corresponding to the program complexity of that hypothesis.

And accordingly we don't need to have an infinite number of proofs to choose, as many as the number of bits in the longest hypothesis is sufficient, since any longer hypotheses will compete with shor... (read more)

For some reason until recently, nowhere I heard about programming did it explain that object-oriented programming is essentially a reverse projection of the human brain, everywhere I heard about programming before it said something like, at best, that procedural programming is ugh and object-oriented is cool, it did not explain that procedural programming is much closer to the language that reality thinks in, and inventing "objects" is just a crutch for the imperfect monkey brain

All this came to my mind when I noticed that people tend to think of drugs as ... (read more)

Or, if I haven't written it down anywhere else, it occurred to me that since we live inside the Tegmark mathematical universe, in which case the universe is just a giant formula and the process of solving it step by step, each next part after the equal sign is the next moment in time, and the value of the expression itself, what is stored between the equal signs, is energy. The superposition is the subtraction inside the parentheses, which with each step adds another multiplier to both parts of the difference, and the different Everett branches are the sam... (read more)

I was once very interested in the question of what "time" is and what "entropy" is. The thing is, I watched popular science videos on YouTube, and nowhere was there a normal answer, at best it was some kind of circular argumentation. Also, nowhere was there a normal explanation of what entropy was, only vaguely stating that it was a "measure of disorder in the system".

In my head, however, the idea swirled around that it had something to do with the fact that there are more directions outward than inward in space. And I also twirled that it must be connecte... (read more)

Now I have a better understanding and now I can formulate that it does not take into account the possibility that the report of four victories may be false, that the lotteries could be dishonest, that the woman could simply hack the mechanism of pseudo-randomness, and also does not take into account a priori information in the form of that there are 8 billion people on Earth, and there have been many lotteries throughout history, so the probability that at least someone wins 4 lotteries is very different from the probability of winning a particular woman,... (read more)

Human language works primarily due to recognition in context, this works with individual words, but it can also work with whole phrases, the same word can be completely determined by its morphemes and only morphemes will have to be known from the context, but also a word can be and a single morpheme, and of course here you should also take into account words borrowed from other languages, which in the original language can be broken into morphemes, and in yours be known only from the context, and the same thing works not with whole words, but also with ph... (read more)

Wow, that's just a masterpiece metaphor! Saved this. I must also mention here, in addition to the Rapier and the Gun, one very famous razor, Occam's Razor (and even a seemingly more advanced version of it, Solomon's Lightsaber), from which it obviously follows that many philosophers also still cannot stand shaving (they themselves say that it's just a straight razor, it's too easy to cut yourself) and walk around with huge beards.

Previously, on first reading, this seemed quite plausible to me, but now, after some time of reflection, I have come to the conclusion that it is not, and Yudkowsky is right. If we continue in the same terms of shoggots and other things ... Then I would say that there is a shoggot there, it’s just a shoggot of the Chinese room, it’s not that he sits there, understands everything and just doesn’t want to talk to you, no, you and your words are as incomprehensible to him as he is to you, and he is fundamentally very stupid, only able to understand the tran... (read more)

One of my most significant problems is that I do not like to read, although it is generally believed that all "smart" people must adore it. And accordingly to overcome my dislike of reading, the book itself has to be very interesting for me, and such are rare and difficult to find them for me (I was thinking that it would be nice to have some kind of recommendation service on your previous evaluations, which there are for movies, but for books I do not know such).

And accordingly, another problem follows from this. I didn't read a collection of science fict... (read more)

LibraryThing has a great book recommendation feature.

I used to have conflicting thoughts about death. Does death nullify the value of life, because you yourself are destroyed? Or maybe, on the contrary, immortality, because you will ever achieve everything? The first is false, because a person has other values ​​besides the state of his own brain. The second has nothing to do with life, because really by immortality we mean "not dying of old age" and not "living infinity of years", so you only have a trillion years ahead of you, and this is a very limited time. And any other finite time too. Thus, one s... (read more)

I recently read Robin Hanson saying that small groups that hold counter-intuitive beliefs tend to come from very specific arguments, some even invent their own terminology, and outsiders who reject those beliefs often they don't even bother to learn the terminology and review the specific arguments because they reject these beliefs on purely general grounds. And this is what I myself noticed, however, only from within such a group, I was outraged and annoyed by the fact that usually the arguments of those who reject FOOM or the danger of AI / AGI in gener... (read more)

But does Yudkowsky mention the word "abstraction"? Because if not, then it is not clear why the levels. And if you mention it, then as in the case of scale, I don’t really understand why people would even think that different levels of abstraction exist in the territory.

Edited: I've searched in Reductionism 101 and Physicalism 201 and didn't find mention of "abstraction", so I save my opinion that using just word "level" doesn't create right picture in the head.

2the gears to ascension10mo
for one major way scale is in the territory, search for "more is different".
The main issue is that people often make mistakes that come out of treating maps like they have one level. Yudkowsky, doesn't go much into the details of levels but I don't think "scale" gives a better intuition. It doesn't help with noticing abstraction. Level might not help you fully but scale doesn't either.

Again, I'm not sure if I already wrote, but when it comes to quantum mechanics, Born probabilities and why a square, then it's spinning in my head that if you square and take the root in the form of an equation back, then you will have from one square branching into two possible answers, positive and negative, in other words, with this operation you erase exactly one bit of information, the sign bit. And in turn, if you took a number to the first power, then you could directly compare each point of the past with each point of the future and then there wou... (read more)

I thought about the phenomenon when the monuments of all the great people are taken down, because they were slave owners. And I formulated why I do not like this trend. The fact is that the past will look extremely terrible from the point of view of the future anyway. That is, virtually anyone in the past has done at least one absolutely terrible thing by today's standards. If you continue this trend, it is very likely that in the future you will already be considered a monster, for some strange reasons from the point of view of today, such as the fact ... (read more)

I have never heard of this before, either here or elsewhere, but I myself notice that usually even the most unreasonable thing like religion has its grain of truth. Or rather, a lot of grains of truth. That is, knowledge, even in human society, almost never has a purely negative utility, a person who knows a certain cultural cluster will almost always have an advantage over a purely ignorant one. However, an important nuance, while a more knowledgeable one may turn out to be worse when they are both taught the correct rational methods, a pure mind will a... (read more)

I must say, I made the mistake of thinking that it was enough to make a habit to get a result. At that time, I was interested, so I did not notice that interest was required here. But now I realize that only some part of the crystallized intellect, and not dynamic, can be made into a habit, learning anything, including languages, is not the activation of already learned neural connections, but the creation of new ones, this requires straining the intellect and this cannot be to do purely out of habit, some kind of emotional motivation is needed, for exa... (read more)

I expressed myself inaccurately. Firstly, of course, simple knowledge will not make water cold for you, you also need to move your finger very accurately and quickly in order to avoid hotter molecules, I just considered this insignificant, since you initially physically cannot fit into your brain weighing 1.5 kg information about 0.25 kg of water molecules. Secondly, to put it with my current best understanding, these systems are similar in that it is generally believed that the glass just has high entropy, so you can't help but get burned, so it is gen... (read more)

It seems that you didn’t understand that my main problem is that every time in my thoughts I rest on the fact that within the framework of a better understanding of the world, it becomes clear that the justifications why competitions are good do not make any sense. It is as if you have lived well all your life because you were afraid of hell, and now the previous justifications why it is worth living well do not make sense, because you have learned that hell does not exist, now it is not clear what is the point of behaving well and whether in general, is... (read more)

More specifically, what I mean is that I find it extremely pointless to make something a moral value such as duty rather than a preference value such as taste if that attitude varies by region of birth. Which can probably be expressed as something like "I think it's a mistake to list anything other than the direct conclusions of game theory in the list of moral values ​​of duty." Well, or else you can say that I believe that interpersonal relationships should not be regulated by someone's personal preferences, only by ways of finding a strategy for the g... (read more)

This phrase can also be called something like a projection of the concept of inadequate equilibria in civilization on a particular person or decision-making process. In other words, the process of attempting a better self-modification runs into self-reference, trying to test each of its elements with each of its elements, for an external object you can test it without prejudice, but you cannot test yourself, because prejudices can hide themselves.

I seem to have a better understanding of timeless physics since then, and if we talk more clearly about the regularity that I had in mind, then ... point in time of the book or all at once, for there is no answer to the question "what day is it in Middle-earth?", but all because our timeline has nothing to do with that one. And when we look at any mathematical object, its timeline, like the book's timeline, is also not connected to ours, which is why they look outside of time. That is, because the timeline is not the same for the entire universe, there ... (read more)

An interesting consequence of combining the logical space of hypotheses, Bayes' theorem, and taking priors from Kolmogorov complexity is that any hypothesis of a certain level of complexity will have at least two opposite child hypotheses, which are obtained by adding one more bit of complexity to the parent hypothesis in one of two possible states.

And, conversely, you can remove one bit from the hypothesis, make it ambiguous with respect to which child hypothesis will fit your world, but then you will need fewer bits of evidence to accept it a priori.

And ... (read more)

I thought for a long time about what "contradictions" mean at all and how they can not exist in any world, if here they are, they can be written down on paper. And in the end, I came to the conclusion that this is exactly the case when it is especially important to look at the difference between the map and the territory. Thus an inconsistent map is a map that does not correspond to any territory. In other words, you usually see the area and then you make a map. However, the space of maps, the space of descriptions, is much larger than the space of terr... (read more)

I don't remember if I already wrote about this, but I was thinking about the space of hypotheses from first and second order logic, about where recursive reasoning hits the bottom and so on, and I came to the conclusion that if you actually find some mathematical formulation of the falsifiability criterion Popper, then it must be deeper than Bayes' Theorem. In other words, Bayes' Theorem shows not that positive cognition also exists, it's just weaker, but that negative cognition has indirect effects that can be mistaken for weak positive cognition. If we ... (read more)

Some time ago I saw an article here on the topic, but what do the words "deep causality" and "surface analogy" mean. For me personally, at that time it was intuitively obvious what the difference was, including for me it was obvious that the article was not about deep analogies, but only about the concentration of the probabilistic mass, which of course is a very important skill for a rationalist, actually key, but that's just not what I mean by deep causes, at least. However, despite this, I could not express my intuition in words at that time. I wasn'... (read more)

I noticed here that Eliezer Yudkowsky in his essays (I don't remember exactly which ones, it would be nice to add names and links in the comments) says that the map has many "levels", and the territory has only one. However, this terminology itself is misleading, because these are not close to "levels", these are "scales". And from this point of view, it is quite obvious that the scale is a purely property of the map, the territory does not just have one scale, the smallest, and it cannot even be said that it has all the scales in one, it simply does not... (read more)

"Map isn't the territory" comes out of Science and Sanity from Alfred Korzybski. Korzybski speaks about levels of abstraction. In the photography case, there's the subject, then there's light going from the subject to the camera (which depends on the lighting conditions), then the camera sensor translates that light into raw data. That raw data then might be translated into a png file in some color space. These days, the user might then add an AI based filter to change the image. Finally, that file then gets displayed on a given screen to the user. All those are different levels of abstraction. The fact that you might take your photo from different distances and thus have a different scale is a separate one.

As for the many attack vectors, I would also add "many places and stages where things can go wrong", AI became a genius social and computer hacker. (By the way, I heard that most hacks are carried out not with the help of computer hacking, but with the help of social engineering, because a person is a much more unreliable and difficult to patch system) From my point of view, the main problem is not even that the first piece of uranium explodes so that it melts the Earth, the problem is that there are 8 billion people on Earth, each has several electronic ... (read more)

I think it could have been written better, I found it a little stretched, especially in the beginning and middle (the ending looks very powerful), it could also be better with more references to already known concepts like "lost goals". But at the same time, it looks like a very important post for instrumental rationality, epistemological rationality is well solved by sequences, but instrumental seems to be what most people lack for a good achievement of goals, this is a more significant node in the tree (at least considering how bad everything is with i... (read more)

It occurred to me that looking through first-order logic could be the answer to many questions. For example, the choice of complexity by the number of rules or the number of objects, the formulas of quantum mechanics do not predict some specific huge combination of particles, they, like all hypotheses, limit your expectations compared to the space of all hypotheses/objects, so for at least complexity according to the rules, at least according to objects will be given one answer. At the same time, limiting the complexity of objects should be the solution... (read more)

It seems to me that the standard question on the conjunction error about "the probability of an attack by the USSR on Poland as a result of conflict X" and "the probability of an attack by the USSR on Poland" is inaccurate for this experiment, since it contains an implicit connotation that once in the first reason X is named, and in the second case, Y or Z is not indicated, then in the second case we evaluate the attack for no reason, and if we continue to show the person himself his answers to this question, the effect of hindsight comes into play, like ... (read more)

I liked the writing style. But it seems that no one in the comments noted the obvious that it’s not “you control the aliens”, but “the aliens control you” (although this sounds even crazier and like a freak in everyday life), in other words, you are in any case a simulation, but whose results can predict the decision of another agent, including a decision based on prediction, and so on. This removes all questions about magic (although it can be fun to think about it). Although this can cause a problem for the calculator, which, instead of determining the result "5 + 7", will try to determine what it will give out for the query "5 + 7", but will not work on calculating the sum.

Oh, I did not expect to see a link to this channel here. I already watched it some time ago, and unfortunately none of the explanations helped me. And recently I suddenly discovered that I understand everything perfectly.

Personally, April Fool's jokes annoy me, because I keep forgetting what date it is today. But on the other hand, often these post factum posts make sense on a meta level. Not to mention, I'm not against gaslighting in Dat Ilan, because when it's done consciously to optimize the beneficial effects (and not like with Santa), it looks like a good exercise in your distrust/doubt/critical thinking. In this particular case, I would like to know how many people on lesswrong took it seriously, but it’s not noticeable from the comments, it doesn’t let me understa... (read more)

I just now understood why Eliezer Yudkowsky chose Harry Potter for his character with such qualities, he's a typical Wiggin!

It's funny that to understand the "open-eyed look" people didn't have enough open-eyed look. Coincidentally, I looked into the comments and saw this one only after, on this reading, I finally didn't take it as just a nicely written fable. The fact is that some time ago I noticed that for the first time in a very long time I looked inside myself, and did not choose the most harmonious of other people's opinions. This is similar to one of the posts where someone says that for the first time in their life they realized that they did not like the taste of f... (read more)

Load More