• 48 Posts
  • 969 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 27th, 2023

help-circle
  • Yudkowsky had a gift for making hyperniche concepts accessible.

    No, he didnā€™t. His ā€œexplanationsā€ are turgid and useless even when theyā€™re not just mathematically wrong. They create the feeling of understanding for some readers ā€” those who want their self-image of smartness validated, who imagine that LessWrong is the cool kidsā€™ table, and who arenā€™t actually tested on how much theyā€™ve learned.

    Over the course of thousands of pages, rationalist Harry uses logic and decision theory to save the world and defeat Voldemort.

    No, he uses his fucking Time Turner.

    Snyder seemed to be trying to break through to Yudkowsky with an appeal to his self-importance

    OK, zero notes there.





  • To reduce the traffic to their serverā€¦

    A human who is not me, a carrot, a potato, and I need to cross a river. There is a boat that can only carry 3 things across the river. I cannot be left alone because if I am, I will run away. How does the human get us across the river

    The response:

    Hereā€™s how the human can get everyone across the river:

    Trips:

    Trip 1: The human takes the carrot and the potato across the river. Trip 2: The human returns alone. Trip 3: The human takes you across the river. Trip 4: The human returns with the carrot. Trip 5: The human takes the potato across the river. Trip 6: The human returns alone. Trip 7: The human takes the carrot and you across the river.

    Explanation:

    This solution ensures that you are never left alone on either side of the river. The human acts as the ferry, carefully transporting the items and you while always being present to prevent your escape.










  • Having read all the Asimov novels when I was youngerā€¦

    spoiler

    The Caves of Steel: human killed because he was mistaken for the android that he built in his own image.

    The Robots of Dawn: robot killed (positronic brain essentially bricked) to prevent it from revealing the secrets of how to build robots that can pass for human. It had been a humanā€™s sex partner, but that wasnā€™t the motive. No one thought banging a robot was that strange; the only thing that perturbed them was the human getting emotional fulfillment from it (the planet Aurora is a decadent world where sex is for entertainment and fashion, not relationships).

    The Naked Sun: the villain manipulates robots to commit crimes by having multiple robots each do a part of the task, so that the ā€œa robot shall not harm a human beingā€ software directive is never activated. He tries to poison a man by having one robot dose a water carafe and another unknowingly pour from it, but being a poisoning noob, he screws up the dosage and the victim lives. His only successful murder involves a human as well; he programs a robot to hand a blunt object to a human during a violent quarrel with the intended victim.





  • ā€œConspiracyā€ is a colorful way of describing what might boil down to Gagniuc and two publicists, or something like that, since one person can hop across multiple IP addresses, etc. But, I mean, a pitifully tiny conspiracy still counts (and is, IMO, even funnier).

    A comment by Wikipedia editor David Eppstein, theoretical computer science prof at UC Irvine:

    Despite Malparti warning that ā€œit would be a waste of time for everyoneā€ I took a look at the book myself. 60 pages of badly-worded boring worked examples with no theory before we even get to the possibility of having more than two states. As Malparti said, there is no theory, or rather theory is alluded to in vague and inaccurate form without any justification. For instance the steady state (still of a two-state chain) is first mentioned on 46 as ā€œthe unique solutionā€ to an equilibrium equation, and is stated to be ā€œeventually achievedā€, with no discussion of exceptional cases where the solution is not unique or not reached in the limit, and no discussion of the fact that it is never actually achieved, only found in the limit. Do not use for anything. I should have taken the fact that I could not find a review even on MR and zbl as a warning.

    Itā€™s been a while since Iā€™ve seen a math book review that said ā€œDo not use for anything.ā€

    ā€œThis book is not a place of honorā€¦ā€