User Profile

star18
description242
message3724

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
Personal Blogposts
personPersonal blogposts by LessWrong users (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

What conservatives and environmentalists agree on

1y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
33

Increasing GDP is not growth

1y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
24

Stupidity as a mental illness

1y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
130

Irrationality Quotes August 2016

2y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
11

Market Failure: Sugar-free Tums

2y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
30

The increasing uselessness of Promoted

2y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
12
96

Is there a recursive self-improvement hierarchy?

2y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
10

The mystery of Brahms

3y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
65

Recent Comments

I just now read that one post. It isn't clear how you think it's relevant. I'm guessing you think that it implies that positing free will is invalid.

You don't have to believe in free will to incorporate it into a model of how humans act. We're all nominalists here; we don't believe that the con...(read more)

Yep, nice list. One I didn't see: Defining a word in a way that is less useful (that conveys less information) and rejecting a definition that is more useful (that conveys more information). Always choose the definition that conveys more information; eliminate words that convey zero information. ...(read more)

[moved to top level of replies]

But you're arguing against Eliezer, as "God" and "miracle" were (and still are) commonly-used words, and so Eliezer is saying those are good, short words for them.

Great post! There is also the non-discrete aspect of compression: information loss. English has, according to some dictionaries, over a million words. It's unlikely we store most of our information in English. Probably there is some sort of dimension reduction, like PCA. There is in any case pr...(read more)

I don't think that what you need has any bearing on what reality has actually given you. Nor can we talk about different decision theories here--as long as we are talking about maximizing expected utility, we *have* our decision theory; that is enough specification to answer the Newcomb one-shot qu...(read more)

I can believe that it would make sense to commit ahead of time to one-box at such an event. Doing so would affect your behavior in a way that the predictor might pick up on.

Hmm. Thinking about this convinces me that there's a big problem here in how we talk about the problem, because if we allow ...(read more)

>This was argued against in the Sequences and in general, doesn't seem to be a strong argument. It seems perfectly compatible to believe your actions follow deterministically and still talk about decision theory - all the functional decision theory stuff is assuming a deterministic decision process,...(read more)

I think that first you should elaborate on what you mean by "the goals of humanity". Do you mean majority opinion? In that case, one goal of humanity is to have a single world religious State, although there is disagreement on what that religion should be. Other goals of humanity include eliminat...(read more)

The part of physics that implies someone cannot scan your brain and simulate inputs so as to perfectly predict your actions is quantum mechanics. But I don't think invoking it is the best response to your question. Though it does make me wonder how Eliezer reconciles his thoughts on one-boxing wit...(read more)