All of radical_negative_one's Comments + Replies

Glancing at the comments, I see one of them addressed to "nyan", so I'm guessing it's Nyan Sandwich, who left when More Right was formed.

I thought you might be joking, but low and behold, there is a "more right." What are they, a neo- reactionary offshoot of lesswrong?

Survey completed in full, reporting in for karma as per ancient tradition.

Thanks to Scott and Dan for all the work they put into this!

Now that I'm curious about what I missed, where can I sign up for Louie's newsletter? I just spent ten minutes looking and I can't find it.

7lukeprog9y []

Many thanks for the link to the Information Hazards paper. I didn't know it existed, and I'm sort of surprised that I hadn't seen it here on LW already.

He mentions intending to write a follow-up paper toward the end, but I located the Information Hazards Bostrom's website and I don't see a second one next to it. Any idea if it exists?

The survey's exact wording is:

If multiple possible answers, please choose the one you most identify with.

So, if you for example grew up in France and currently live in the USA, and you thought of yourself primarily as being "from France" then France would be the correct answer. If you thought of yourself mainly as American, then USA would be the correct answer.

In other words, neither answer would be "wrong".

"Where are you from" and "where do you live now" are different questions. The first of these has multiple answers for a lot of people I know; the second probably doesn't. I would suggest both questions be asked next year.

Well, I can't argue with that. I'm editing my previous comment to reverse my previous position.

Survey completed in full. Begging for karma as per ancient custom.

I choose DEFECT because presumably the money is coming out of CFAR's pocket and I assume they can use the money better than whichever random person wins the raffle. If I win, I commit to requesting it be given as an anonymous donation to CFAR.

EDIT: Having been persuaded my Yvain and Vaniver, I reverse my position and intend to spend the prize on myself. Unfortunately I've already defected and now it's too late to not be an asshole! Sorry about that. Only the slightly higher chance of winning can soothe my feelings of guilt.

Schelling had something to say about that too.
I defected, for similar reasons (without having read the comments, I just assumed that I'd be likely to prefer funds to whoever volunteered to fund this than to a random survey-taker, particularly weighted towards a survey-taker who defected). I'm afraid Yvain's answer here would not be enough to get me to switch. If the rest of the $60 prize was to be burned -- effectively a wealth redistribution among capital holders -- I'd cooperate.

The money is coming out of my pocket, it is not funging against any other charitable donations, and I am in favor of someone claiming the prize and using it to buy something nice that they like.

presumably the money is coming out of CFAR's pocket

I think the money is coming out of Yvain's pocket, actually.

... and at the same time, maybe he won't!

The pirate-specific stuff is a bit extraneous

Jack Sparrow: The only rules that really matter are these: what a [person] can do and what a [person] can't do. For instance, you can accept that [different customs from yours are traditional and commonly accepted in the world] or you can't. But [this thing you dislike] is [an inevitable feature of your human existence], boy, so you'll have to square with that some day ... So, can you [ally with somebody you find distasteful], or can you not?

Even more generally it can be taken as a paraphraasing of the Litany of Gendlin []

The reverse story--"don't waste your time on liars"--probably shouldn't end with there actually being a wolf, as one should not expect listeners to understand the sometimes subtle separation between good decision-making and good consequences.

The lesson of the story (for the townspeople), is that when your test (the boy) turns out to be unreliable, you should devise a new test (replace him with somebody who doesn't lie).

In the past I went through a period that felt like depression, though I never talked about it to anyone so of course I wasn't diagnosed at any point. I went against your warning and played the game. The protagonist started off with more social support than I did. I chose the responses that I think I would have given when I felt depressed. This resulted the protagonist never seeking therapy or medication, and what is labeled "endingZero".

Depression Quest seems accurate. Now I feel bad. (edit: But I did get better.)

I just glanced at Yvain's spreadsheet and it looks like 681 people gave probabilities less than 1% (AKA .01 as per survey formatting) and many of those entered simply 0 which couldn't be misinterpreted either way. With about a thousand responses, <1% is the most prominent response given. No idea what data the OP could be looking at.

a god, defined as a supernatural (see above) intelligent entity

From the previous question:

supernatural events, defined as those involving ontologically basic mental entities, have occurred since the beginning of the universe?

I'm not sure what would or would not qualify as an "ontologically basic mental entity". I'd need to look it up if you wanted me to tell you whether something does or does not deserve to be called "supernatural".

This is very important for the interpretation of the question. Could the operator of a universe sim... (read more)

I'm not sure I'm understanding your lack of understanding, but I hope this addresses it. An ontologically basic mental entity is something which can think, but can't be divided into smaller parts which can't think. If, hypothetically, there were a fundamental particle which had thoughts and intentions, which could not themselves be caused by interactions of smaller parts within it, that would be an ontologically basic mental entity. More to the point of what people postulating supernatural entities actually have in mind, if there were a such thing as souls, which could think and feel, but the thinking and feeling weren't the result of some process within parts that the soul were made of, such that you could separate those parts out and not have them be involved in thinking or feeling anymore, then those souls would be supernatural. As such, any beings simulating our own universe, as long as their intelligence were the result of a process among parts rather than a fundamental quality of some indivisible aspect of themselves, would not be supernatural.

I want to point out that it is possible that some of these downvotes* could be honest assessments of a comment history. If a user notices you by reading one comment, that user might become interested in other comments you've written, and if this person didn't like one comment, he may also dislike other comments in which you express similar ideas.

* Which were not from me, because i have not read the conversation you linked to.

I say this because i realize that i have (arguably) done it before. I noticed a comment from one particular user which deserved to be... (read more)

I do this regularly. Finding comments worthy of downvotes is a (necessary) chore, but user histories are low-hanging fruit.

I would argue that when you do this, you owe it to the person you are downvoting to explain WHY you believe they are systematically wrong. A series of downvotes + one helpful comment is far preferable to a simple series of downvotes, even if it costs you karma to do so. As an example:

my response to an apparent troll comment on Brain Preservation

See, just smacking someone without telling them WHY you're smacking them leaves them to all sorts of conjecture as to what happened - if whomever had downvoted 30+ of my posts had left a single comment explaining wh... (read more)

I finished the survey! Including the Unreasonably Long and Complicated part which i admit took even longer than i expected.

Typo: the first question of "Part Four: Views and Opinions" refers to the "US Labour Party".

I thought he was giving extra points to Eneasz.

Thought he meant the comment. My bad.

Hear that, Randall? You need to lampoon us better next time!

Eventually he did []!

consider the effect on Thiel's income

In that case I suppose we should let Thiel tell us who to vote for.

Not necessarily, even if the effect on Thiel's income is my only consideration. For one thing, Thiel might recommend candidate A over B because he calculates expected income under A > expected income under B, but I might consider Thiel's expected income calculations incorrect and believe EI(B) > EI(A), in which case I would vote for B. For another, Thiel might recommend A over B because he values other things more than EI... for example, maybe B is a Mormon and Thiel really hates Mormons. In which case Thiel's endorsement of A would not be strong evidence that I should vote for A. Etc. In fact, even by novalis' reasoning, we don't care about Thiel's income, we care about the size of Thiel's donations to SIAI. If Thiel credibly precommits to donating N to SIAI if candidate A wins, and 2N if B wins, then in this case I should vote for B, even if everyone agrees that A will maximize Thiel's income.
Well, that's only if we think the marginal effects of policy changes on SAIA donors' income would be greater than any other difference between the candidates in terms of effects on the world. I think this is pretty unlikely.

No, the poll is actually less bad. You see, your comment proposes:

wedrifid is ( misshapen AND a troll AND has no friends )

while the poll merely asserts

wedrifid is ( misshapen XOR a troll XOR has no friends )

Wedrifid got off pretty lightly, from this perspective.

radical_negative_one is a terrible person [pollid:31]

The overall total equals the sum of the individual answer totals, in contrast to previous polls.

Just one suggestion: come up with a new goal to put at the top of the list, and shift the rest down. That way, "how to hack into the computer our universe is running on" would be "up to 11" on the list.

The new #1 item could be something like "We're going to make yet another novelty t-shirt store!"

Nah. 11 We think we've figured out how to hack into the computer ALL the universes are running on.

Since it's basically a log scale in terms of outcomes, the T-shirt store might be a 0.

-10 would be "I will make a generic post on LW."

It would be a fun exercise to flesh out the negative side of the scale.

I remember once we had a big Open Thread argument about Pirates Vs Ninjas. IIRC it involved dozens of posts and when somebody pointed out that it had gone on too long, and how silly it had become, somebody else argued that it was, in fact, a useful rationality exercise.

Perhaps this [edit: cutting the conversation short] is a sign that the community has matured in some way.

I'm guessing that even if you survive, your quality of life is going to take a hit. Accounting for this will probably bring our intuitive expectation of harm closer to the actual harm.

Do we have any reliable authorities on the sociology of internet forums yet?

Thanks Xachariah, this question had occurred to me also, it's nice to see that someone else already took the risk.

It just occurred to me that this is basically the state of humanity in Brave New World.

I happen to have a copy of The Dilbert Future. You're right that Scott Adams writes mainly for comedy. However, the end section of The Dilbert Future is more serious. Adams actually writes, "I'm turning the humor mode off for this chapter because what you're going to read is so strange that you'd be waiting for the punch line instead of following the point." And without re-reading the whole thing, as i recall his tone is about as serious as he promises. The serious chapter includes some quantum physics speculation, but the main idea Adams advocates is affirmations), which he ties into part of his life story.

IJ Good Institute would make me think that it was founded by IJ Good.

I would suspect that it means "The Good Institute", something related to either philantropy or religion, with a waving hand and smiling face the webmaster failed to mark properly as a Wingdings font. :D

I remember reading, on the topic of optimal charity, that it's only rational to select a single cause to donate to... until the point of giving enough money to noticeably change the marginal utility of each additional dollar. (Thiel has that much money, of course.) This information-gathering strategy could be a new reason for spreading donations at the level of large-scale donations, if it hasn't been discussed before.

It's the same reason. You expect the marginal value of information to decline rapidly.
I remember reading and enjoying that article (this one [], I think). I would think that the same argument would apply regardless of the scale of the donations (assuming there aren't fixed transaction costs (which might not be valid)). My read would be that it comes down to the question of risk versus uncertainty. If there is actual uncertainty, investing widely might make sense if you believe that those investments will provide useful information to clarify the actual problem structure so that you can accurately target future giving.

I also can't advocate Ruby as a beginner language because of its syntax.

What specifically is wrong with Ruby's syntax? (I don't know much about comparative programming languages.)

It's not that it's wrong or bad, just that it's unusual in some ways and generally not very readable. This comes primarily from Ruby treating practically everything as objects. Also, you'll be using more characters like # and @, which makes learning more difficult and frustrating. You can do without these in most languages as long as you don't use pointers. I'm not sure what you refer to when you say "comparative programming languages"...

Who else is reading this page because they visited LessWrong to procrastinate?

And the first thing i see when i get here is a discussion post on internet procrastination. I feel so ridiculous now that i have no choice but to get back to work!

I'm not procrastinating, I'm taking a break from work.

Ah, but perhaps there a simple fix for this: posts that would be on-topic for LessWrong are off-topic for the Off-Topic section. (edit: didn't see komponisto's comment)

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

I like desserts and meat, i didn't want to give myself an aversion to those things. So i selected Smoking on the list. In between the disgust images, it showed mainly... kittens, babies, and electric guitars, but very little smoking.

Who Can Participate

Requirements for participation include the following:

A baccalaureate, bachelors, or undergraduate degree from an accredited college or university (more advanced degrees are welcome); and A curiosity about how well you make predictions about world events – and an interest in exploring techniques for improvement.

Ah. After a few weeks i just assumed that the response rate or overall quality was too low to be usable.

I'd be willing to share mine, if people were interested in the subject. It's long though.

So... we're not going to see an article built out of all the submissions?

I thought there was going to be, but I'm not involved in using the hired researchers; you'd have to ask Luke.

Just to be clear, we're all reading it as-is and pronouncing it like "fig", right? Because that's how i read it in my head.

I hope so, or this [] would make even less sense than it should.
I've been pronouncing it to rhyme with the first syllable in "tiger".

Dr. Sidney Zweibel and Dr. Emilio Lizardo

I don't know if i can trust a paper written by people with names like those... but then again, i'm probably just being irrational, just like you've explained.

(Try Googling those names.)

I was about to ask, "How do you know it was a joke?" but then i looked at the user profile for TwistingFingers and in general his posts only make sense as dry humor.

This book is from 1873! Surely we've made some more recent advances in the science of horse-shoeing than that.

a Hacker News-style moderation system where only users with high karma could vote down.

I idly wonder if any noticeable fraction of downvotes does come from people who don't have enough karma to post toplevel articles.

I'd guess that "high karma" would refer to the threshhold needed for posting articles, which is a pretty low bar.

I read strongly downvoted posts as well, but perhaps they have more than just novelty value. For a post that is merely bad, people usually stop downvoting it once it's negative. But something voted to -10 or below is often bad in a way that serves as an example of what not to do. Heavily downvoted comments can be educational.

Received. Thanks a lot!

Last Halloween i dressed as a P-zombie. I explained to anybody who would listen that i had the same physical composition as a conscious human being, but was not in fact conscious. I'm not sure that any of them were convinced that i really was in costume.

For this to be really convincing and spoooky, you could stay in character: Halloween party attendant: Hi radical_negative_one, what are you dressed as? confederate []: radical_negative_one is a p-zombie, who acts just like a real person but is not actually conscious! radical_negative_one: That's not true, I am conscious! I have qualia and an inner life and everything!

I wouldn't be surprised to see SMBC celebrating Baconmas. Getting a mention on that website would get you a lot more views.

Or XKCD, that's probably the biggest science-themed webcomic. There must be a few people here who frequent the XKCD forum, maybe a mention of Baconmas could be put in over there.

I agree that the website could be more colorful, it could use some strips of bacon lining the margins, or a portrait of Francis Bacon at the top.

Thanks, I added a header that I think works for it. I e-mailed Randall, but yeah, it would be better if a XKCD forum regular said something...

I've takent he liberty of editing the relevant wiki page as well, to mention the current 2012 page.

Load More