All of Schlega's Comments + Replies

I'm not a fan of Evangelion or Doctor Who, but I've been enjoying Shinji and the Doctor

I'm in the under-qualified but interested camp. I'll plan on coming.

1Scott Garrabrant9y
Great! See you there.

In my experience, trying to choose what I care about does not work well, and has only resulted in increasing my own suffering.

Is the problem that thinking about the amount of suffering in the world makes you feel powerless to fix it? If so then you can probably make yourself feel better if you focus on what you can do to have some positive impact, even if it is small. If you think "donating to science" is the best way to have a positive impact on the future, than by all means do that, and think about how the research you are helping to fund will one day reduce the suffering that all future generations will have to endure.

0[anonymous]9y
It could be the problem, but, actually, the main one is that I see no point in reducing suffering and it looks like nobody can explain it to me.

I was thinking that using (length of program) + (memory required to run program) as a penalty makes more sense to me than (length of program) + (size of impact). I am assuming that any program that can simulate X minds must be able to handle numbers the size of X, so it would need more than log(X) bits of memory, which makes the prior less than 2^-log(X).

I wouldn't be overly surprised if there were some other situation that breaks this idea too, but I was just posting the first thing that came to mind when I read this.

Edit: formatting fixed. Thanks, wedrifid.

My response to the mugger:

  • You claim to be able to simulate 3^^^^3 unique minds.
  • It takes log(3^^^^3) bits just to count that many things, so my absolute upper bound on the prior for an agent capable of doing this is 1/3^^^^3.
  • My brain is unable to process enough evidence to overcome this, so unless you can use your matrix powers to give me access to sufficient computing power to change my mind, get lost.

My response to the scientist:

  • Why yes, you do have sufficient evidence to overturn our current model of the
... (read more)
2wedrifid10y
Why does that prior follow from the counting difficulty?
3wedrifid10y
Try an additional linebreak before the first bullet point.
1DSimon10y
You're trying to italicize those long statements? It's possible that you need to get rid of the spaces around the asterisks. But you're probably better off just using quote boxes with ">" instead.

This has changed my mind. Including examples that require slightly different thought patterns seems to be a good idea.

I agree that if the numbers given in the example were trustworthy, then it would be a good example. The part that confused me was that there would be no incentive to start the project unless the original estimate of the cost was significantly less than $7000. It seems reasonable to expect that the next $4000 you spend will have a similar effect on your expected cost to finish. If you perpetually think "Just another $5000 and I will be done", then you are no better off than if you think "I already spent so much, I can't just quit now."

Th... (read more)

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
0MartinB11y
I think you broke the example. The point as I see it that the surrounding conditions can change. Availability of coders, legal situation. Needed items from external sources etc. It should be made more clear.

The iPhone app example in the presentation confuses me.

The way it is presented, it looks like the conclusion is that you should always be willing to spend an additional $6999.99 no matter how much you have already spent. If current you is willing to spend the extra money regardless of whether you have already spent $4000 or $10999.99, then I don't see why future you would feel any different.

I would think that you should take in to account the fact that your original estimate of the cost was too low. Given that this is the case, you should expect that ... (read more)

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
0Schlega11y
This [http://nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/learning/transfer.html] has changed my mind. Including examples that require slightly different thought patterns seems to be a good idea.
0MartinB11y
The example is bad in that it compares income forecasting with expenses. In reality you would have an expected distribution of revenue, some probabilities etc. You can fix the example by imagining it as contract work where you get paid the mentioned $7000 on delivery, with no penalty for non-delivery. The problem you see is the point of the sunken cost fallacy. Current »you« should ignore the money already sunk, and just look at the options presented. Therefore sinking more money into the project to complete it is worthwhile as long as the money sunk is less than your payout. If in the future you are even only 1$ away from finishing the app it does not matter how much you put into it already. The money is gone, sunken. You get to invest the 1$ and reap the benefit or not.

Thank you for replying. This showed up just as I was editing the parent.

This was highly entertaining. I hope to see more of this in the future.

EDIT: Never mind the stuff I said below. I figured it out.

This got me started on the Hardest Logic Puzzle. I seem to be making an error in reasoning, but I can't identify the problem.

There are 12 possible ways to label A,B,C,da and ja. 3 yes-no questions can only distinguish between 8 states, so it must be possible to label A,B and C without knowing da and ja.

Random's answer to any question is not correlated with the content of that question, so it seems impossible to extract any infor... (read more)

1HonoreDB11y
ᆱラレ￟ロ゙￐ユ゙￟レモレメレムヒ￟ミル￟ヒラレ￟マヘミンモレメ￟ヨフ￟レホハヨノ゙モレムヒ￟ヒミ￟ヒラレ￟ヒヘハヒラ￐モヨレ￟レモレメレムヒᅭᅭヨル￟ニミハ￟ヤムミネ￟ラミネ￟ヒミ￟レヌヒベワヒ￟ヒヘハヒラ￟ルヘミメ￟レヨヒラレヘ￟ムミムᅭベムロミメ￟リミロᅮ￟ニミハ￟ヤムミネ￟ラミネ￟ヒミ￟ムミヒ￟ヷヘレ￟ネラレヒラレヘ￟ロ゙￟メレ゙ムフ￟ニレフ￟ミヘ￟ムミ￑ [http://www.makefoil.com/markdownSpoiler.html?message=%EF%BE%AB%EF%BE%97%EF%BE%9A%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%9B%EF%BE%9E%EF%BF%90%EF%BE%95%EF%BE%9E%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%9A%EF%BE%93%EF%BE%9A%EF%BE%92%EF%BE%9A%EF%BE%91%EF%BE%8B%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%90%EF%BE%99%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%8B%EF%BE%97%EF%BE%9A%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%8F%EF%BE%8D%EF%BE%90%EF%BE%9D%EF%BE%93%EF%BE%9A%EF%BE%92%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%96%EF%BE%8C%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%9A%EF%BE%8E%EF%BE%8A%EF%BE%96%EF%BE%89%EF%BE%9E%EF%BE%93%EF%BE%9A%EF%BE%91%EF%BE%8B%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%8B%EF%BE%90%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%8B%EF%BE%97%EF%BE%9A%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%8B%EF%BE%8D%EF%BE%8A%EF%BE%8B%EF%BE%97%EF%BF%90%EF%BE%93%EF%BE%96%EF%BE%9A%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%9A%EF%BE%93%EF%BE%9A%EF%BE%92%EF%BE%9A%EF%BE%91%EF%BE%8B%EF%BF%92%EF%BF%92%EF%BE%96%EF%BE%99%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%86%EF%BE%90%EF%BE%8A%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%94%EF%BE%91%EF%BE%90%EF%BE%88%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%97%EF%BE%90%EF%BE%88%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%8B%EF%BE%90%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%9A%EF%BE%87%EF%BE%8B%EF%BE%8D%EF%BE%9E%EF%BE%9C%EF%BE%8B%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%8B%EF%BE%8D%EF%BE%8A%EF%BE%8B%EF%BE%97%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%99%EF%BE%8D%EF%BE%90%EF%BE%92%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%9A%EF%BE%96%EF%BE%8B%EF%BE%97%EF%BE%9A%EF%BE%8D%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%91%EF%BE%90%EF%BE%91%EF%BF%92%EF%BE%8D%EF%BE%9E%EF%BE%91%EF%BE%9B%EF%BE%90%EF%BE%92%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%98%EF%BE%90%EF%BE%9B%EF%BF%93%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%86%EF%BE%90%EF%BE%8A%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%94%EF%BE%91%EF%BE%90%EF%BE%88%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%97%EF%BE%90%EF%BE%88%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%8B%EF%BE%90%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%91%EF%BE%90%EF%BE%8B%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%9C%EF%BE%9E%EF%BE%8D%EF%BE%9A%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%88%EF%BE%97%EF%BE%9A%EF%BE%8B%EF%BE%97%EF%BE%9A%EF%BE%8D%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%9B%EF%BE%9E%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%92%EF%BE%9A%EF%BE%9E%EF%BE%91%EF%BE%8C%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%86%EF%BE%9A%EF%BE%8C%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%90%EF%BE%8D%EF%BF%9F%EF%BE%91%EF%BE%90%EF%BF%91]

It's just an image, not a real site. The link to the full article is in Bongo's comment.

This still confuses me. 'Ball draws are completely unrelated and determined by completely separate processes' still contains information about how the balls were generated. It seems like if you observed a string of 10 red balls, then your hypothesis would lose probability mass to the hypothesis 'ball draws are red with p > 0.99.'

It seems like the problem only happens if you include an unjustified assumption in your 'prior', then refuse to consider the possibility that you were wrong.

My prior information is that every time I have found something Eliezer said confusing, it has eventually turned out that I was mistaken. I expect this to remain true, but there's a slight possibility that I am wrong.

0jsalvatier12y
Yes, I thought about this a bit too, but did't pay as much attention to being confused as you did. I'm not sure how to resolve it.

I've been intending to get more involved in this community for a while. I will come on Saturday, but I won't be able to make the Wednesday meetings. Just out of curiosity, is there anybody who would be interested in a regular Antelope Valley meetup?

My understanding is that your conversion was based primarily on the goodness and love of your Mormon friends. If other evidence were to convince you that the Mormon God does not exist, would you expect them to continue to treat you with goodness and love?

7Alicorn12y
Fixed that.

This scenario is much farther along the impossible scale than reviving an intact brain. If I wanted to live forever, I would make absolutely sure that I had a plan that did not involve violating the laws of physics.

(Not that I'm an expert physicist, but my understanding is that decomposition is an irreversible process.)

This is the first time I've ventured out of the MoR and Luminosity threads, and I support 5. If the limit was 1, spambots would eventually learn to post "Hey, I'm new" then wait a few hours before spamming.

Of course, this would also mean that no one should vote up a "Hey, I'm new" comment beyond 4.

2wedrifid12y
Spambots would also create 5 siblings.

These past few chapters have been excellent. Now I'm curious about how effective a weaponized version of Elspeth's power would be against Bella. Does it penetrate Bella's shield, or does Bella need to consciously allow it through?

1Alicorn12y
Bella is not now and has never been immune to Elspeth's power in any form.

I had forgotten about the potion.

Still, I don't think he would have bothered breaking Bellatrix out if he didn't expect to use her in the ritual. I also can't think of a reason to have her hide his wand next to his father's grave unless that connection was enough to keep the bone potent.

Replace execution with Somnium. That way, people who prefer death over imprisonment can be revived if they are later exonerated.

"And before you ask, it must be the original grave, the place of first burial, the bone removed during the ritual and not before. Thus he cannot have retrieved it earlier; and also there is no point in substituting the skeleton of a weaker ancestor. He would notice it had lost all potency."

I wonder how long a ritual can last. If it was started ten years ago but never finished, would that be a loophole?

1TobyBartels12y
There's a potion too, right? (Whatever's in the cauldron before Wormtail's hand is added, although that might have only been in the movie.) If that has to be made before the grave is robbed and goes bad after a few hours, then you have a time limit.

OK, I obviously have not been doing a good job of thinking through the examples I'm using.

I'll concede this point.

Bella knew about Allirea's power and apparently remembered long enough to tell Elspeth about it. I thought the Volteri would remember things that Demetri told them about his mate, even if they couldn't notice her.

3wedrifid12y
Keyword being Bella. She's badass like that. :)

Ignoring a witch who makes multiple escape attempts, can make herself and others unnoticeable and is invisible to Alice does not strike me as an argument against the presence of an idiot ball.

I have a tendency to only speak up when I have something to complain about, so just to be clear, I do like this story. It seems perfectly believable that the Volteri set up this system hundreds of years ago when they only had one or two uncooperative witches, then never bothered to reevaluate it as the operation scaled up. From a story-telling perspective, neither Bel... (read more)

2Alicorn12y
They would be idiots if they willfully ignored her. They aren't. Her power is to be ignored. Occasions when she chooses not to be ignored are rare, and they can't get rid of her without ruining the effectiveness of an important witch of theirs. (Do they wish they'd kept James, now, so they could kill Allirea and Demetri and replace the latter with a less effective tracker with a more convenient (dead) mate? Yes, yes they do, but they didn't.) Adelaide did not work for the Volturi hundreds of years ago, and so they had no reason to keep witches in the basement in bits.

There's no reason for them to reassemble all of the witches at the same time. It would still be stupid even if the room was full of guards. Having only a single point of failure preventing 16 powerful enemies from waking up in a room with only 2 defenders, plus any invisible enemies that might have been brought in, is the Biggest Ball of Idiot in Minnesota.

They knew Allirea hated Demitri, could turn invisible and could wake the witches just by touching Del. Yes, that would let Del get a sneak attack, but that would only last until she touched one of the other witches, or one of them touched her. Allirea only needed Elspeth because she couldn't rely on Chelsied vampires to cooperate with her plan to kill Demetri.

3Alicorn12y
There actually is a reason, although it's one of convenience more than absolute necessity. To keep vampires alive while normally maintaining them in fragments, they need to be fed pretty often, and on a tight schedule if they want any safety margin. They can't just be kept in small immobile chunks indefinitely. It's quite a production to handle the healing-and-feeding phase (Alec or Alec!Adelaide needs to be available, you need to fill up whoever feeds them so their food doesn't get stolen by inadequately fed guards, you need to have extra food on hand for the witches themselves, etc.). Heidi has to make a bunch of trips for extra food. She has to range farther than usual to get it so there won't be too many concentrated disappearances all at once in the near environs of Volterra. This all takes a while. Someone else could take on some of the hunting duties, but except for Heidi!Adelaide, nobody is quite as well-equipped to unobtrusively bring in an entire delicious tour group all at the same time, and Adelaide usually has other people to copy and other tasks to accomplish. Every extra guard they put in the room is somebody they have to saturate with even more blood so they can handle being there. The best candidate for the idiot ball action here is that they didn't time the capturing of Jacob's pack for when the witches had already just been fed and were in harmless bits and pieces.
2Alicorn12y
They don't usually know this. She's usually too inconsequential for them to remember.