Liron

• Liron 13 Jul 2019 23:44 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: shminux's comment on: What are we pre­dict­ing for Neu­ral­ink event?

  We know Elon Musk is at least push­ing the in­ter­net to the other ex­treme, satel­lites en­cir­cling the Earth

• Liron 13 Jul 2019 22:44 UTC

  7 points

  on: Let’s Read: Su­per­hu­man AI for mul­ti­player poker

  This is very in­ter­est­ing, thanks for post­ing.

  The ex­pla­na­tions of the AI’s al­gorithms sound pretty sim­plified, i.e. I wouldn’t be sur­prised if all these de­scrip­tions of how the al­gorithm works ap­plied to efforts from 10+ years ago. Why did the hu­man-level thresh­old just get crossed now?

• Liron 10 Jul 2019 11:44 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov's comment on: Do bond yield curve in­ver­sions re­ally in­di­cate there is likely to be a re­ces­sion?

  The mar­ket on av­er­age goes up and ev­ery day they have their cash pul­led out of the mar­ket in an at­tempt to time it on av­er­age loses them money? I think that’s why timing the mar­ket fails.

• Liron 20 Jun 2019 3:06 UTC

  11 points

  on: LW2.0: Tech­nol­ogy Plat­form for In­tel­lec­tual Progress

  I think you guys are do­ing a great job rapidly hy­poth­e­siz­ing and test­ing ways to en­able the LW com­mu­nity cre­ate more value. I’m a fan of the ques­tions fea­ture and pre­dict its us­age will grow steadily. I’m in­ter­ested to see how the other ideas play out.

• Liron 18 Jun 2019 21:01 UTC

  6 points

  on: Is the “busi­ness cy­cle” an ac­tual eco­nomic prin­ci­ple?

  Re­lated: A lot of peo­ple seem to think that the next re­ces­sion is “com­ing up” more so than usual due to the fact that we’ve now had a long eco­nomic boom. Isn’t this pure gam­bler’s fal­lacy?

[Question] Is the “busi­ness cy­cle” an ac­tual eco­nomic prin­ci­ple?

• Liron 18 Jun 2019 14:36 UTC

  8 points

  in reply to: steven0461's comment on: Is “phys­i­cal non­de­ter­minism” a mean­ingful con­cept?

  Thanks I think that clar­ifies ev­ery­thing I’m won­der­ing about. If we had a fea­ture like Stack Overflow’s “ac­cepted an­swer” this would be it for me :)

• Liron 16 Jun 2019 21:43 UTC

  11 points

  in reply to: shminux's comment on: Is “phys­i­cal non­de­ter­minism” a mean­ingful con­cept?

  Looks like there are a lot of top­ics in there be­sides the ques­tion of whether phys­i­cal non­de­ter­minism is a mean­ingful con­cept. Can you sum­ma­rize or point to the rele­vant sec­tion?

[Question] Is “phys­i­cal non­de­ter­minism” a mean­ingful con­cept?

• Liron 9 Jun 2019 14:21 UTC

  5 points

  in reply to: Dr. Jamchie's comment on: Book Re­view: The Struc­ture Of Scien­tific Revolutions

  I be­lieve the term “chaotic” refers to those things. E.g. for an air­plane’s lift, there are higher-level-than-par­ti­cle-mod­el­ing phys­i­cal prin­ci­ples you can ex­plain it with, but for a 1-month weather fore­cast you have to go down to par­ti­cle mod­el­ing, or close.

• Liron 7 Jun 2019 1:55 UTC

  5 points

  on: Ar­bital scrape

  Nice pro­ject thanks. It’s also con­sis­tent with my anal­y­sis that Ar­bital’s fancy wiki fea­tures never added much value (say, more than +30%) be­yond the value that that con­tent would have if pub­lished in a pre-ex­ist­ing for­mat and venue.

• Liron 17 Mar 2019 15:07 UTC

  17 points

  on: Ask LW: Have you read Yud­kowsky’s AI to Zom­bie book?

  I’ve read it 3 times and think it’s the best book ever. What a co­in­ci­dence that I’m some­one who is cur­rently spend­ing time on LessWrong.com and be­com­ing part of your sam­ple of an­swers eh?

• Liron 14 Jan 2019 20:47 UTC

  10 points

  in reply to: Vanessa Kosoy's comment on: Book Re­view: The Struc­ture Of Scien­tific Revolutions

  From look­ing at Con­way’s Game of Life, my in­tu­ition is that if a uni­verse can sup­port non-on­tolog­i­cally-fun­da­men­tal Tur­ing ma­chines (I’m in­vok­ing an­thropic rea­son­ing), then it’s likely to have phe­nom­ena an­a­lyz­able at mul­ti­ple hi­er­ar­chi­cal lev­els (be­yond the looser re­quire­ment of be­ing sim­ple/​com­press­ible).

  Ba­si­cally, if a uni­verse al­lows any re­duc­tion­is­tic un­der­stand­ing at all (that’s what I mean by call­ing the Tur­ing Ma­chine “non-on­tolog­i­cally-fun­da­men­tal”), then the re­duc­tion­ist struc­ture is prob­a­bly a multi-lay­ered one. Either zero re­duc­tion lay­ers or lots, but not ex­actly one layer.

• Liron 18 Oct 2018 5:42 UTC

  11 points

  on: Dat­ing book recommendations

  I started a com­pany to help these kinds of situ­a­tions. We have a team of 50 full-time dat­ing/​re­la­tion­ship coaches available ²⁴⁄₇ to give you per­son­al­ized ad­vice: Re­la­tion­shipHero.com

  Also check out our anal­y­sis of 100+ user-sub­mit­ted on­line dat­ing con­ver­sa­tions: Re­la­tion­shipHero.com/​conversations

• Liron 30 Jan 2018 17:01 UTC

  14 points

  on: Ar­bital postmortem

  Thanks for the can­did write up!

  I’d make at least one Rick and Morty post a day if I could.

  Given your think­ing that Ar­bital pri­ori­tized en­g­ineer­ing too much over ac­quiring users (aka val­i­dat­ing de­mand), con­sider test­ing this claim of self-de­mand be­fore in­vest­ing effort to­ward it.

• Liron 6 Jun 2017 5:42 UTC

  4 points

  on: Open thread, June 5 - June 11, 2017

  If you use on­line dat­ing, I just launched a site called Wit­tyThumbs to an­a­lyze and im­prove your con­ver­sa­tions, in or­der to get bet­ter dates. Let me know what you think!

• Liron 27 May 2017 0:05 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: TheAncientGeek's comment on: Rewrit­ing the se­quences?

  Seems like first you ob­jected that TST’s les­son is mean­ingless, and now you’re ob­ject­ing that it’s mean­ingful but limited and wrong. Worth not­ing that this isn’t a back and forth ar­gu­ment about the same ob­jec­tion.

  The rest of LW’s episte­mol­ogy se­quences and meta-moral­ity se­quences ex­plain why the foun­da­tions in TST also help un­der­stand math and morals.

• Liron 14 May 2017 6:45 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: TheAncientGeek's comment on: Rewrit­ing the se­quences?

  By “re­al­ity-con­trol­led”, I don’t just mean “ex­ter­nal re­al­ity”, I mean the part of ex­ter­nal re­al­ity that your be­lief claims to be about.

  Un­der­stand­ing truth in terms of “cor­re­spon­dance” brings me no­tice­ably closer to cod­ing up an in­tel­li­gent rea­soner from scratch than those other words.

  The sim­ple truth is that brains are like maps, and true-ness of be­liefs about re­al­ity is analo­gous to ac­cu­racy of maps about ter­ri­tory. This sounds su­per ob­vi­ous, which is why Eliezer called it “The Sim­ple Truth”. But it runs counter to a lot of bad philo­soph­i­cal think­ing, which is why Eliezer both­ered writ­ing it.

• Liron 25 Oct 2016 5:12 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: CronoDAS's comment on: What’s the most an­noy­ing part of your life/​job?

  Yes, ap­par­ently this is a thing! Look up pro­fes­sional or­ga­niz­ers.

• Liron 24 Oct 2016 22:23 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: James_Miller's comment on: What’s the most an­noy­ing part of your life/​job?

  Can you send me an email? I’m happy to proofread some stuff for you for free in or­der to bet­ter un­der­stand your needs. (I’m ac­tu­ally good at that.)

  wiseguy@gmail.com