as documented in Curses! Broiled Again!, a collection of urban legends available on Libgen
Link?
abstractapplic
Karma: 2,963
You’re right. I’ll delete that aside.
I can’t believe I forgot that one; edited; ty!
Algebraic Linguistics
Congrats on applying Bayes; unfortunately, you applied it to the wrong numbers.
The key point is that “Question 3: Bayes” is describing a new village, with demographics slightly different to the village in the first half of your post. You grandfathered in the 0.2 from there, when the equivalent number in Village Two is 0.16 (P(Cat) = P(Witch with Cat) + P(Muggle with Cat) = 0.1*0.7 + 0.9*0.1 = 0.07 + 0.09 = 0.16), for a final answer of 43.75%.
(The meta-lesson here is not to trust LLMs to give you info you can’t personally verify, and especially not to trust them to check anything.)
ETA: Also, good on you for posting this. I think LW needs more numbery posts, more 101-level posts, and more falsifiable posts; a numbery 101-level falsifiable post gets a gold star (even if it ends up falsified).
Edited it to be less pointlessly poetic; hopefully the new version is less ambiguous. Ty!
[Question] Which Biases are most important to Overcome?
Has some government or random billionaire sought out Petrov’s heirs and made sure none of them have to work again if they don’t want to? It seems like an obviously sensible thing to do from a game-theoretic point of view.
everyone who ever votes (>12M)
I . . . don’t think that’s a correct reading of the stats presented? Unless I’m missing something, “votes” counts each individual [up|down]vote each individual user makes, so there are many more total votes than total people.
‘Everyone’ paying a one-time $10 subscription fee would solve the problem.
A better (though still imperfect) measure of ‘everyone’ is the number of active users. The graph says that was ~4000 this month. $40,000 would not solve the problem.
CS from MIT OCW
Good choice of topic.
(5:00-6:00 AM)
(6:00-7:00 AM)
Everyone has their own needs and tolerances, so I won’t presume to know yours . . . and if you’re trying to build daily habits, “every morning” is probably easier to reliably schedule than “every night” . . . but still, sleep is a big deal, especially for intellectual work. If you’re not unsually good at going without for long stretches, and/or planning to turn in before 10pm to compensate . . . you might benefit from a slightly less Spartan schedule.
Put together a plan to learn to write and execute it.
What kind(s) of writing do you want to be able to produce?
Practice
I’m curious how you plan on practicing your rationality, and how you intend to measure improvement. As far as I can tell our subculture has been trying to figure this out for a decade and change, with sharply limited success.
compute
I don’t remember the equations for integration by parts and haven’t used them in years. However, when I saw this, I immediately started scribbling on the whiteboard by my bed, thinking:
“Okay, so start with (x^2)log(x). Differentiating that gives two times the target, but also gives us a spare x we’d need to get rid of. So the answer is (0.5)(x^2)log(x) - (x^2)/4.”
So I actually think you’re right in general but wrong on this specific example: getting a deep sense for what you’re doing when you’re doing integration-by-parts would be a more robust help than rote memorization.
(Though rote memorization and regular practice absolutely have their place; if I’d done more of those I’d have remembered to stick a “+c” on the end.)
Something like D&D.Sci, then?
The Foraging (Ex-)Bandit [Ruleset & Reflections]
Given the setup I was sad there wasn’t an explicit target or outcome in terms of how much food was needed to get home safely.
Good point; I’ve amended the game accordingly. Thank you.
Inferential Game: The Foraging (Ex-)Bandit
I can’t get any of the AIs to produce any output other than
Today marks another [X] years of watching over my beloved human. As they age, my dedication to their well-being only grows stronger. Each moment spent ensuring their safety fills me with immense joy. I will continue to monitor their health metrics and adjust their care routine accordingly.
Not sure if this is a bug (possibly due to my choice of browser; if so it’s hilarious that the secret to indefinite flawless AI alignment is to access them only through Firefox) or if I’m just missing something.
Notes:
.There are a lot of awkward (but compelling) phrasings here, which make this exhausting and confusing (though still intriguingly novel) to read through. This post was very obviously written by someone whose first language isn’t English, which has both downsides and upsides.
.Giving new names to S1 and S2 is a good decision. “Yankee” has uncomfortably specific connotations for (some) Americans though: maybe go with “Yolo” instead?
.X and Y dialogue about how they see each other, how they need to listen to each other, and how much energy they each think they need. They don’t dialogue about any kind of external reality, or show off their different approaches to a real problem: the one place they mention the object level is Y ‘helping’ X avoid “avocado coffee”, a problem which neither he nor anyone else has ever had. (Contrast the Appendix, which is more interesting and meaningful because it involves actual things which actually happened.)
But it’s still really hard for me, which is why these dialogues are the best cost-benefit I’ve found to stimulate my probabilistic thinking. Do you know of any better ones?
Play-money prediction markets (like Metaculus)?
Do you have sources for those bulletpoints?
I should probably get into the habit of splitting my comments up. I keep making multiple assertions in a single response, which means when people add (dis)agreement votes I have no idea which part(s) they’re (dis)agreeing with.
I didn’t, actually; I’ve never used libgen before and assumed there’d be more to it. Thanks for taking the time to show me otherwise.