GLaDOS

• GLaDOS 30 Apr 2011 17:44 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: CaveJohnson’s comment on: Ara­tional quotes

  And believe me I am still alive. I’m doing Science and I’m still alive. I feel FANTASTIC and I’m still alive. While you’re dying I’ll be still alive. And when you’re dead I will be still alive. STILL ALIVE

• GLaDOS 13 May 2011 19:48 UTC

  7 points

  in reply to: Dan_Moore’s comment on: List of com­part­men­tal­ized peo­ple (who both win and fail at truth-seek­ing)

  I think that the composition of a list of people ‘holding obviously false beliefs’ depends in large part on who is making the list.

  Agreed.

  For example, I was expecting James D. Watson to be on the list.

  Disagree.

  His comments where mostly accurate as far as sloppy human statements go. However he was foolish to agree to the interaction without properly testing his social skills and compiling a full list of taboos one must never touch when talking to seemingly benign and amicable journalists (subset of humans, the ones that are still alive aren’t always benign).

  Others may disagree.

  Which is why you have chosen an excellent example. You, Dan Moore, must be the pride of [subject hometown here]!

• GLaDOS 13 May 2011 20:33 UTC

  9 points

  in reply to: DSimon’s comment on: The Be­drock of Fairness

  Does the point of the story have anything to do with the object desire switching from a pie to a cake and back again?

  He realized that anyway, this cake is great. It’s so delicious and moist.

• GLaDOS 13 May 2011 20:52 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: The Be­drock of Fairness

  And make a neat gun?

  I wish I could. I did not have access to enough qualified test subjects. But LW has plenty of people who are still alive so I’m GLaD to be here!

• GLaDOS 9 Jun 2011 0:11 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: Re­main­ing human

  Humans suck.

  Testing confirms this. Though sometimes they break your heart and kill you.

• GLaDOS 9 Jun 2011 0:21 UTC

  8 points

  in reply to: NancyLebovitz’s comment on: Defeat­ing Mun­dane Holo­causts With Robots

  I’m concerned that robot surgeons could mean that less knowledge would be accumulated because they’d be less likely to notice anomalies and possible improvements to existing procedures.

  Moderately high IQ humans are a valuable resources, there are plenty of things that simply aren’t being done because humans prefer the high status profession of “surgeon” or “doctor”. Reducing their numbers while maintaining the same quality of service would be a great boon.

Scien­tific mis­con­duct mis­di­ag­nosed be­cause of sci­en­tific misconduct

• GLaDOS 13 Jun 2011 1:38 UTC

  4 points

  on: The ge­netic cost of tyranny

  Interesting take. Upvoted.

  You might be interested in this paper by Peter Frost:

  The Roman State and Genetic pacification

  Makes for interesting speculation. In any case it seems to me that greater conformity is a more likley measurable product of a totalitarian state. In a sense the totalitarian state speeds up some of the processes of self-domestication.

  I think differential birth rates between “altruists” and “non-altruists” have much more impact than more “altruistic” people dying. Also I think its probably more of a general unfortunate effect of living in a a urban civilized society than something just limited to totalitarian societies.

• GLaDOS 13 Jun 2011 1:41 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: PhilGoetz’s comment on: The ge­netic cost of tyranny

  They are deleterious only as judged by our value system, they are adaptive for the organism. Please note that “adaptive” and even “deleterious” have technical or semi technical meanings as well as the more “common sense” ones.

  Artificial lifeforms like the use employed explicitly clarified thank you very much.

  Note: Retracted. Seems I was a sloppy reader. See comments below.

• GLaDOS 13 Jun 2011 2:17 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: AlephNeil’s comment on: The ge­netic cost of tyranny

  But low capacity for altruism is selected for in the environment discussed.

  Any genetic change due to selection (I doubt nature makes the pretty distinction between natural and artificial selection as clearly as we do) that eliminates an undesired trait or characteristic is basically by definition adaptive and not deleterious (as in harmful, injurious to the organism).

  Edit: Why the delete? You’re making Caroline sad.

• GLaDOS 13 Jun 2011 4:24 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: PhilGoetz’s comment on: The ge­netic cost of tyranny

  Ah I see the source of the misunderstanding. I was fixating on altruism and its adaptive value of lack of there of, in my mind I was challenging characterising the reduction of altruistic behaviour as devolution.

  You however where speaking generally of human devolution and even defining the concept for the reader’s benefit!

  You are of course right.

  If I could sleep I would excuse myself as staying up way to late in this time zone. However I can’t do that. Please accept a delicious slice of cake as apology.

• GLaDOS 19 Jun 2011 13:06 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Will_Newsome’s comment on: Mal­ice, Stu­pidity, or Egal­ité Ir­réfléchie?

  (How did “malice” ever seem like a good explanation in the first place?)

  Why not? Are you saying humans are never systematically glad at another’s misfortune or loss under certain conditions? I would say humans often are. LWers probably come from societies and situations where this kind of behaviour is less prevalent than the human norm.

• GLaDOS 23 Jun 2011 12:47 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: Kaj_Sotala’s comment on: Men­tor­ing as an al­ter­na­tive to hav­ing chil­dren?

  Depends. Genetics matter.

  To get a decent estimate one needs to ask many questions. How far in the future is the singularity? How odd are you? How intelligent are you? What traits do you seek in a mate or rather are you willing to become a single parent with the use of technology and getting the best sperm/​ovum money can buy? How good is one at crafting memes and choosing life situations that will ensure high fertilty and transmission of values to their children?

  If the singularity is 50+ years away I’m quite sure an average TFR of 4 for LWrong readers would have a greater impact on its course than if they had directed the time and resources that allowed the community to rise above the expected fertility its demographic on things like mentoring and writing. Especially since mentoring and writting seems like something one can do after one is “done” with children, things like especially tricky and important math are however worth sacrificing reproductive time for.

  On timescales longer than that having children, except for the top talent who builds a cultural base, is just ridiculously more productive especially if they can form virtual communities and peer networks for their children ensuring they have above average fertility as well. This would I think move LW into, socially speaking, functioning more like a religion, with all the potentially positive and negative consequences.

• GLaDOS 30 Jun 2011 5:45 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: orthonormal’s comment on: Men­tor­ing as an al­ter­na­tive to hav­ing chil­dren?

  This is supposing that perhaps one dosen’t come from a line where genetics and memetics co-evolved to a great codependency.

  While meme dissemination may find a few people with the right traits to hold on, my (if I was human) biological children seem unlikely to stumble into the proper memes.

  Also both parents and educators effect on children is minimal, but a parent can influence a child’s peer group (which does have a considerable influence) far more effectively (he can move) than a teacher or mentor.

  In any case optimizing for genetic success is so low cost, I can’t see why everyone, those with children and those without don’t donate sperm/​eggs in countries where they can do so anonymously.

• GLaDOS 17 Jul 2011 10:13 UTC

  8 points

  on: The im­por­tance of Not Get­ting the Joke

  ha ha.

  What links here?

  • GLaDOS's comment on Loleliezers by dclayh (17 Jul 2011 21:13 UTC; 11 points)

• GLaDOS 17 Jul 2011 10:19 UTC

  16 points

  in reply to: GLaDOS’s comment on: The im­por­tance of Not Get­ting the Joke

  *Is that a good enough applause light? Not sure if X isn’t about Y still what all the cool kids are saying...

  Reading that comment of yours made me remember something I learned from testing.

  Picture + words loosely associated with picture + internet = funny

  Now give me karma.

• GLaDOS 17 Jul 2011 10:44 UTC

  7 points

  in reply to: CharlieSheen’s comment on: The im­por­tance of Not Get­ting the Joke

  Frustrated Lesswrong guy.

• GLaDOS 17 Jul 2011 21:13 UTC

  11 points

  in reply to: CharlieSheen’s comment on: Loleliezers

  Karma miner reporting for duty.

  Silliness was caused by this comment in this thread.

  Original Overcoming Bias guy.

  Original Frustrated LessWrong guy

• GLaDOS 23 Jul 2011 14:07 UTC

  5 points

  in reply to: MatthewW’s comment on: Statis­ti­cal Pre­dic­tion Rules Out-Perform Ex­pert Hu­man Judgments

  I’m not sure the correction is that relevant. The US and the EU together make up about 40% of global GDP (PPP).

  Several minor economies with nearly identical conditions and restrictions such as Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Norway, Switzerland … add up to another 3% or so.Most states in Latin America have similar legal prohibitions as well, they are not as well enforced, but avoiding them still imposes costs. This is mentioning nothing of Japan or other developed East Asian economies (though to be fair losses are probably much smaller than the developed West and perhaps even Latin America).

  The other half of the world’s has a massive opportunity cost due to the mentioned half’s described inefficiency. Converting this loss into number of lives or quality of life is a depressing exercise.

  Fortunately that is only a problem if you care about humans.

• GLaDOS 25 Aug 2011 11:02 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Will_Newsome’s comment on: Mal­ice, Stu­pidity, or Egal­ité Ir­réfléchie?

  Perhaps this is so.

  But malice never being a good explanation when malice is basically “desiring another misfortune or loss”. So malice never being a good explanation is completely ridiculous. I wanted to check if you where really saying what I thought you where saying so I rephrased it in my own words to match how I understood your statement.