Gust

Pre­dict—“Log your pre­dic­tions” app

Surely, rhetor­i­cal ques­tion?

• Gust 23 Dec 2013 3:05 UTC

  10 points

  in reply to: lukeprog’s comment on: Build­ing Phenomenolog­i­cal Bridges

  Awesome project. I really liked the facebook discussion, and this post explains clearly and concretely a part that some people found confusing. Very well written. Congratulation, Robb.

• Gust 26 Nov 2011 13:01 UTC

  9 points

  on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2010-2011)

  Hello. My name is Gustavo Bicalho, I’m from Brazil, I’m 20 years old today. I intended to introduce myself here after I finished the sequences (I’m half way through the Fun Theory Sequence) but I thought I should give me this as a birthday gift. Heh.

  I have some background in computer programming, having done a technical course of three years during high school. Although I don’t know much of computer science (I know just a little about algorithm analysis and that was self-thaught from wikipedia), I think programming has helped me reshape my way of thinking, made it more structured and precise. I try to improve it however I can, and this is one of the reasons I’m joining LessWrong.

  For several reasons, though, I left the computers field (not completely) and I’m now a Law student. I don’t know if you get many of those around here. Anyway, reasoning in this field seems, to me, specially biased. Of course, any reasoning about law involves thinking about ethics and politics, but that isn’t a license for fallacies lack of rigor in arguments. I think this is a problem, and rationality can help me to fight against this.

  Also, I’m very interested in moral philosophy, as the foundation of Law. Yudkowsky’s metaethics still isn’t completely clear to me, but I’ve seen some discussion about moral philosophy around here and I guess it’s probably worth reading (I have yet to read lukeprog’s No-Nonsense Metaethics). Specially, if there’s any discussion about justice, or fairness, I would like very much to read.

  Besides that, I like to learn almost anything. Physics is interesting, math is very interesting. After reading the first sequences, cognitive science, evolutive psychology and decision thory got into the list, too. If I can learn at least the basics of these fields, I think I’ll be a better thinker and a better person. I think LessWrong is a good starting point for that, too.

  I think that’s it.

  Oh, if there’s some post/​discussion around here about Law already, I would be very glad if someone pointed it out.

  See you around!

  Gust

  PS: Wow, this took me three hours to write o.o Trying to make a good first impression is kinda hard. PPS: Three persons in the same day! Is that usual?

5-minute timer tool

Meetup : São Paulo Meet Up 2

• Gust 21 Dec 2011 16:59 UTC

  7 points

  in reply to: AspiringKnitter’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong!

  Welcome! And congratulations for creating what’s probably the longest and most interesting introduction thread of all time (I haven’t read all the introductions threads, though).

  I’ve read all your posts here. I now have to update my belief about rationality among christians: so long, the most “rational” I’d found turned out to be nothing beyond a repetitive expert in rationalization. Most others are sometimes relatively rational in most aspects of life, but choose to ignore the hard questions about the religion they profess (my own parents fall in this category). You seem to have clear thought, and will to rethink your ideas. I hope you stay around.

  On a side note, as others already stated below, I think you misunderstand what Eliezer wants to do with FAI. I agree with what MixedNuts said here, though I would also recommend reading The Hidden Complexity of Wishes, if you haven’t yet. Eliezer is more sane than it seems at first, in my opinion.

  PS: How are you feeling about the reception so far?

  EDIT: Clarifying: I agree with what MixedNuts said in the third and fourth paragraphs.

In­ter­ac­tive model knob-turning

• Gust 26 Jun 2018 14:01 UTC

  6 points

  in reply to: ryan_b’s comment on: Prob­lem Solv­ing with Mazes and Crayon

  There’s this http://​​miegakure.com/​​ in development for several years now

• Gust 31 Jul 2015 18:28 UTC

  5 points

  on: The Brain as a Univer­sal Learn­ing Machine

  The ULH suggests that most everything that defines the human mind is cognitive software rather than hardware: the adult mind (in terms of algorithmic information) is 99.999% a cultural/​memetic construct.

  I think a distinction worth tracing here is the diferrence between “learning” in the neural-net-sense and “learning” in the human pedagogical/​psychological sense.

  The “learning” done by a piece of cortex becoming a visual cortex after receiving neural impulses from the eye isn’t something you can override by teaching a person (in the usual sense o the word “teaching”) - you’d need to rewire their brain. I don’t think you can call it cultural/​memetic because this neural learning does not (seem to) occur through the mechanism(s) that deals with concepts, ideas and feelings, which is involved in learning a language or a social custom or a scientific theory.

  In the same way, maybe the availability heuristic isn’t genetically coded, but is learned through the type of data certain parts of the brain have to work with. That would mean you could fix it through some input rewiring during gestation, but doesn’t mean you can change it through a new human education system—it may be too low level, like a generic part of the cortex becoming the visual cortex. If that’s the case, I wouldn’t say it’s a cultural/​memetic construct (although it is an environmental construct).

• Gust 11 Mar 2014 3:46 UTC

  5 points

  on: Should one be sad when an op­por­tu­nity is lost?

  Not sure what you mean by “you SHOULD be sad when you miss an opportunity1”? What’s the advantage of being sad instead of just shrugging and replanning?

• Gust 21 Dec 2011 15:04 UTC

  5 points

  in reply to: Nornagest’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong!

  fanfictional works like Dante’s

  That made me laugh. Calling Dante “fanfiction” of the Bible was just so unexpected and simultaneously so accurate.

• Gust 12 Dec 2011 3:09 UTC

  5 points

  0

  in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: Eliezer Yud­kowsky Facts

  I don’t get it =|

• Gust 4 Dec 2011 20:22 UTC

  5 points

  in reply to: Vladimir_M’s comment on: [SEQ RERUN] The Amaz­ing Vir­gin Pregnancy

  Did you have such an experience? Please tell me about it.

• Gust 4 Dec 2011 5:05 UTC

  5 points

  on: [SEQ RERUN] The Amaz­ing Vir­gin Pregnancy

  I’m not sure about how I feel about Eliezer’s approach on religion in the sequences. On the one hand, I like using sarcasm; on the other, that doesn’t seem to work for more deeply-rooted beliefs, like religion. I think he should’ve left religion out of his sequences on rationality and criticized it later. The way he did it, it may scare off people who still have a somewhat deep link to religion, before they can learn enough to be able to break free.

  On the third hand, I think I may be biased towards avoiding conflicts.

  On the specific point illustrated by the story, as expressed in the quote at the beginning of the post, I do agree. I try to induce that same feeling of “shock from how stupid people can be” when I notice a mistake I’ve done, as some kind of mini-”Crisis of Faith”.

  Eliezer makes the same point at If Many-Worlds Had Come First.

Meetup : São Paulo, Brazil—Meetup at Base So­ciedade Colaborativa

• Gust 19 Mar 2015 6:03 UTC

  4 points

  0

  on: Ra­tion­al­ity: From AI to Zombies

  Hi, and thanks for the awesome job! Will you keep a public record of changes you make to the book? I’m coordinating a translation effort, and that would be important to keep it in sync if you change the actual text, not just fix spelling and hyperlinking errors.

  Edit: Our translation effort is for Portuguese only, and can be found at http://​​racionalidade.com.br/​​wiki .

• Gust 3 Dec 2014 1:36 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: James_Miller’s comment on: The Power of Noise

  Interesting idea. Brazilian law explicitly admits lottery as a form of settling, but I’m not sure if that example with a penalty for not winning a lawsuit would be admissible.

• Gust 2 Mar 2012 18:31 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: Scott Alexander’s comment on: Heuris­tics and Bi­ases in Charity

  I do think your hypothesis is plausible, but the reasoning it describes seems too complex. One would think like that only if one cares about being consistent and reflects on that, and only after one has decided that the “I’ve done my part of the job” excuse is not enough… and it seems improbable that most people think like that.

  Also, it seems to me that “help Haiti just this once” is not the same scenario as “help just this person”.

  Worth testing, though. I guess if you set up a scenario like “Help poor kid X grow up well”, a long term goal with kinda-hard-to-predict cost that most people wouldn’t be willing to pay all at once, with a specific identifiable subject...

• Gust 20 Dec 2011 3:05 UTC

  4 points

  on: Defect­ing by Ac­ci­dent—A Flaw Com­mon to An­a­lyt­i­cal People

  Very, very good post.

  I realized I had this problem, and how much it could cost me, a few months ago.

  I was going to write a small column for a newspaper made by students from my faculty. The subject was a delicate one, and the positon I would argue against was strongly popular among one of the colors in the faculty. I already saw the irrationality in the old false dillemas and the groupthink that guided most color politics, and I thought I could use a chance to criticize the “movement” as well as the specific cause.

  I wrote a text with a strongly ironical introduction. I showed it to my father, and he said “This is going to get you in trouble with these people in the future. You probably don’t want that.” My first reaction was something like this. But as I thought about it, I realized there was no need for provoking the “greens”. It would accomplish nothing and would possibly gain enemies. I rewrote that first paragraph, and the tone of the text changed completely, without removing or changing a single argument. When it was published, I even received compliments from one of the “greens”.

  Since then, I’m careful about what I say, and more so about what I write. I think one thing aggravates the problem you described: when we write something, we can “hear” the specific tone we would use to say that, but the reader can’t. Normal statements may seem ironic, and ironic statements may seem to carry much more criticism than intended.

  -- Edited for markdown syntax correction.