User Profile

star7
description0
message425

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
All Posts
personIncludes personal and meta blogposts (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

No posts to display.

Recent Comments

Agree with Denis. It seems rather objectionable to describle such behaviour as irrational. Humans may well not trust the experimenter to present the facts of the situation to them accurately. If the experimenter's dice are loaded, choosing 1A and 2B could well be perfectly rational.

Looking at:

http://google.com/search?q=Marshall+site:lesswrong.com

...there were about 500 comments involving "Marshall" - and now they all appear to have been deleted - leaving a trail like this:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/9/the_most_important_thing_you_learned/53

Did you delete your account there...(read more)

I don't pay much attention to karma - but it <em>is</em> weird what gets voted up and down.

For a rationist community, people seem to go for conformity and "applause signs" much more than I would have expcted - while criticisms and disagreements seem to be punished more than I would have thought.

...(read more)

<p>Re: First, foremost, fundamentally, above all else: Rational agents should WIN.</p>

<p>When Deep Blue beat Gary Kasparov, did that prove that Gary Kasparov was "irrational"?</p>

<p>It seems as though it would be unreasonable to expect even highly rational agents to win - if pitted against super...(read more)

<BLOCKQUOTE><EM>But what good reason is there not to? How can you be worse off from knowing in advance what you'll do in the worse cases?</EM></BLOCKQUOTE>

The answer seems trivial: you may have wasted a bunch of time and energy performing calculations relating to what to do in a hypothetical situa...(read more)

<blockquote><em>For the same reason that when you're buying a stock you think will go up, you decide how far it has to decline before it means you were wrong</em></blockquote>

Do any investors actually do that? I don't mean to be rude - but why haven't they got better things to do with their time?...(read more)

I didn't find "Engines" very positive. I agree with <a href="http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/general.articles/1986/drexler.mss">Moravec</a>:

"I found the speculations absurdly anthropocentric. Here we have machines millions of times more intelligent, plentiful, fecund, and industri...(read more)

Anon, you are arguing for "incorrect", not "cynical". Please consider the difference.

Like it or not, biologists are basically correct in identifying the primary goal of organisms as self-reproduction. That is the nature of the attractor to which all organisms' goal systems are drawn (though see a...(read more)

<BLOCKQUOTE><EM>Consider the hash that some people make of evolutionary psychology in trying to be cynical - assuming that humans have a subconscious motive to promote their inclusive genetic fitness.</EM></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is "cynical" about that? It is a central organising principle in biology th...(read more)

Re: The parental grief is not even subconsciously about reproductive value - otherwise it would update for Canadian reproductive value instead of !Kung reproductive value.

I think that a better way to put this would be to say that the Canadian humans <em>miscalculate</em> reproductive value - using...(read more)