Here are some details http://senseis.xmp.net/?RuleDisputesInvolvingGoSeigen
DavidPlumpton
Karma: 133
Private Manned Moonbase in the 1990s, Yet Another Planning Fallacy
Maybe we can perform the “Mary’s Room” thought experiment
SciAm article about rationality corresponding only weakly with IQ
Can anybody give a URL or show a simple practical worked example similar to the applications described here? It all sounds awesome but I have little idea how to apply it to estimating the mass of Saturn and my artillery shelling is suffering somewhat.
Actually a fun example might be the probability that the Nickel/Hydrogen low energy fusion system being developed by Rossi is real or bogus. Points in favour: several tricky to fake successful demonstrations in front of scientists and the president of a skeptics society. Points against: no public disclosure of the secret catalyst, previous convictions for fraud, and cancelling the contract with the company that was going to manufacture the system.
I’ve noticed this sort of thing with documentaries about the JFK assassination. One documentary will seem to produce very strong and reasonable evidence that Oswald did it, and the next documentary seems to have a similar strength argument that he did not. Sigh. The real world is confusing some times; when smart people are trying to make you more confused then life is hard.
Don’t explode when somebody says, “Why?”
A couple of years ago there was an online auction site that a number of people semi-seriously described as “pure evil”. Items would appear for sale, and you could bid a small amount, maybe $5 for a stereo or something. But you gave up that $5 there and then. People would eventually buy a $300 item for $60 or so, but the site would take in $1000 for that $300 item. Wish I could remember the name of that site...
Having a known number of rounds seems like a problem to me. Everybody wants to defect on the last round. It might be interesting to retry with a number of rounds chosen randomly from 100 to 110 or where after 100 each round has a 25% chance of being the final round. However a large number of matches might be needed to offset the advantages of playing in some matches with a higher than average number of rounds.
What phrase would you use to describe the failure to produce an AGI over the last 50 years? I suspect that 50 years from now we will might be saying “Wow that was hard, we’ve learnt a lot, specific kinds of problem solving work well, and computers are really fast now but we still don’t really know how to go about creating an AGI”. In other words the next 50 years might strongly resemble the last 50 from a very high level view.
My experience is that the majority of such signalling is around the time that will be needed. You look at a new project and think to yourself it’s probably about 6 months work. Your manager tells you that it “has to” go live in 2 months. And then somehow you end up saying “Okay, we’ll try” instead of “That seems very unlikely”. Even if the previous overdue project was quite similar.
Technical people are not comfortable asserting a realistic schedule to management and management is not comfortable asserting it to shareholders.
Perhaps underpromotion is the rarest move of all.
Spontaneous Human Combustion. Somebody living alone gets drunk/has stroke/heart attack spills alcohol/perfume on themselves and a cigarette ignites a fire. The body slumps onto carpet and the body fat together with clothing and carpet form a candle wick effect and a small high temperature fire burns for some hours. Parts of the body with low fat levels (e.g. lower legs) often remain unburned. It’s a simple experiment to do with a pig carcass.
Hi there!
I’m a 43 year old software Developer in New Zealand. I’ve found this site through the Quantum Physics sequence, which has given me an enormous improvement in my understanding of the subject, so a huge thank you to Eliezer. (I’d like to know the detailed maths, but I don’t hold much hope of that happening). I’ve since managed to do the double-slit experiment using a laser pointer, Blu-tack and staples, which was great fun. I’m currently trying to think through the Schrödinger’s cat experiment, which seems to me to be described slightly incorrectly. I may try to write up a page or so about that some time.
The Bayes’ Theorem stuff was also a great topic, although I’ve not been able to think of practical ways to apply it yet.
I’m a pessimist on the Singularity: I think that various resource, time and complexity constraints will flatten exponential curves into linear ones (and some curves will even decline).
I’ve always valued accuracy in the sense that we should try to find out what’s really happening and understand our evidence and assumptions. I find one of my main tools for thinking is the “level of confidence”, e.g. when people say “you can’t prove that” I like to re-state the issue in terms of “this evidence gives us an extremely high level of confidence”.
I’m currently reading the Methods of Rationality story and loving it.
That cat: not dead and alive
Why the singularity is hard and won’t be happening on schedule
In computer science an elite coder might take 6 months to finish a very hard task (e.g. create some kind of tricky OS kernel), but a poor coder will never complete the task. This makes the elite coder infinitely better than the poor coder. Furthermore the poor coder will ask many questions of other people, impacting their productivity. Thus an elite coder is transfinitely more efficient than a poor coder ;-)
Possibly asking something like “you’re good at finding points that back up your beliefs, but you also need to spend time thinking about points that might contradict your beliefs. How many contradictory points can you think of over the next five minutes?”
Usually “Monty Hall”?
Chinese rules for Go are quite simple. Japanese rules are quite complex (to the point where a world championship level match had a rule disagreement that resulted in a player agreeing to being forced to play a certain move in return for a promise that the rule would get changed in the future. Ouch.)