noggin-scratcher

Karma: 859

noggin-scratcher 11 Mar 2025 10:42 UTC
3 points
2
on: Stress exists only where the Mind makes it
How should we speak about “stressful events”? Maybe instead of, “buying a plane ticket is stressful”, something like, “buying a plane ticket made me stressed.” But the word “made” implies inevitability and still cedes too much power to the event
“I am feeling stressed about buying a plane ticket” would acknowledge that the stress is coming from within you as an individual, and doesn’t foreclose the possibility of instead not feeling stressed.

noggin-scratcher 6 Mar 2025 2:55 UTC
1 point
0
on: Sparks of Original Thought?
Pretty sure I’ve seen this particular case discussed here previously, and the conclusion was that actually they had published something related already, and fed it to the “co-scientist” AI. So it was synthesising/interpolating from information it had been given, rather than generating fully novel ideas.
Per NewScientist https://www.newscientist.com/article/2469072-can-googles-new-research-assistant-ai-give-scientists-superpowers/
However, the team did publish a paper in 2023 – which was fed to the system – about how this family of mobile genetic elements “steals bacteriophage tails to spread in nature”. At the time, the researchers thought the elements were limited to acquiring tails from phages infecting the same cell. Only later did they discover the elements can pick up tails floating around outside cells, too.
So one explanation for how the AI co-scientist came up with the right answer is that it missed the apparent limitation that stopped the humans getting it.
What is clear is that it was fed everything it needed to find the answer, rather than coming up with an entirely new idea. “Everything was already published, but in different bits,” says Penadés. “The system was able to put everything together.”
That was concerning the main hypothesis that agreed with their work. Unknown whether the same is also true for its additional hypotheses. But I’m sceptical by default of the claim that it couldn’t possibly have come from the training data, or that they definitely didn’t inadvertently hint at things with data they provided.

noggin-scratcher 2 Mar 2025 14:47 UTC
1 point
0
on: Not-yet-falsifiable beliefs?
Technically it’s still never falsifiable. It can be verifiable, if true, upon finding yourself in an afterlife after death. But if it’s false then you don’t observe it being false when you cease existing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatological_verification
If we define a category of beliefs that are currently neither verifiable or falsifiable, but might eventually become verifiable if they happen to be true, but won’t be falsifiable even if they’re false—that category potentially includes an awful lot of invisible pink dragons and orbiting teapots (who knows, perhaps one day we’ll invent better teapot detectors and find it). So I don’t see it as a strong argument for putting credence in such ideas.

noggin-scratcher 2 Feb 2025 21:32 UTC
1 point
0
on: National Security Is Not International Security: A Critique of AGI Realism
Looks like #6 in the TL;DRs section is accidentally duplicated (with the repeat numbered as #7)

noggin-scratcher 23 Jan 2025 1:23 UTC
2 points
2
in reply to: gwern’s comment on: Mechanisms too simple for humans to design
Solid point. I realise I was unclear that for face shape I had in mind external influences in utero (while the bones of the face are growing into place in the fetus). Which would at least be a somewhat shared environment between twins. But nonetheless, changing my mind in real-time, because I would have expected more difference from one side of a womb to the other than we actually see between twins.
Even if I’m mistaken about faces though, I don’t think I’m wrong about brains, or humans in general.

noggin-scratcher 22 Jan 2025 21:58 UTC
3 points
−2
on: Mechanisms too simple for humans to design
In other words, all the information that controls the shape of your face, your bones, your organs and every single enzyme inside them – all of that takes less storage space than Microsoft Word™.
The shape of your face, and much else besides, will be affected by random chance and environmental influences during the process of development and growth.
The eventual details of the brain, likewise, will be in large part a response to the environment—developing and learning from experience.
So the final complexity of a human being is not actually bounded by the data contained in the genome, in the way described.

noggin-scratcher 6 Jan 2025 18:17 UTC
1 point
−2
on: Meal Replacements in 2025?
I wasn’t the one eating it, but having prepared a couple of Huel’s “hot meal pot/pouch” options for my partner (I forget which ones exactly, but something in the way of mac & cheese or pasta bolognese), I can report that I found the smell coming off it to be profoundly unappetising.
Not sure how they went down with her, but there’s a small stash of these pots in the cupboard that she hasn’t touched beyond the first few—so I suspect not very well.

noggin-scratcher 3 Jan 2025 1:36 UTC
1 point
0
on: 4. Uphold Voluntarism: Physical Defense
Slight glitches:

The “chapter shortcuts” section of https://www.lesswrong.com/s/9SJM9cdgapDybPksi lists “editPost” links to the chapter drafts (inaccessible to others)

The numbering in the post titles skip over #4

noggin-scratcher 31 Dec 2024 2:14 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: J Bostock’s comment on: Linkpost: Look at the Water
Oh I was very on board with the sarcasm. Although as a graduate of one of them, I obviously can’t believe you’re rating the other one so highly.

noggin-scratcher 30 Dec 2024 23:04 UTC
3 points
0
on: Linkpost: Look at the Water

This is a general principal

Principle* — unless they’re the head-teacher of a school, the type to be involved in a principal/agent problem, or otherwise the “first”

graduates of the great English universities (both of them)

Shots fired

noggin-scratcher 24 Dec 2024 19:39 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: dirk’s comment on: Preliminary Thoughts on Flirting Theory
That definitely looks like the one. Appears I’d forgotten some of the context/details though.

noggin-scratcher 24 Dec 2024 12:47 UTC
5 points
0
on: Preliminary Thoughts on Flirting Theory
I could swear there was a similar Scott Alexander post, about flirting deliberately skirting the edge of plausible deniability to avoid prematurely creating common knowledge. With an analogy to spies trying to identify a fellow operative without overtly tipping their hand in case they were mistaken and speaking to a non-spy.

Can’t find it now: might have since been deleted, or might have only ever existed on LiveJournal or Tumblr or something.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/26/conversation-deliberately-skirts-the-border-of-incomprehensibility/ is similar but not explicitly about flirting.

noggin-scratcher 26 Nov 2024 1:53 UTC
5 points
8
on: Ultralearning in 80 days
While I can appreciate it on the level of nerd aesthetics, I would be dubious of the choice of Quenya. Unless you’re already a polyglot (as a demonstration of your aptitude for language-learning), it seems unlikely—without a community of speakers to immerse yourself in—that you’ll reach the kind of fluid fluency that would make it natural to think in a conlang.

And if you do in fact have the capacity to acquire a language to that degree of fluency so easily, but don’t already have several of the major world languages, it seems to me that the benefits of being able to communicate with an additional fraction of the world’s population would outweigh those of knowing a language selected for mostly no-one else knowing it.

noggin-scratcher 21 Nov 2024 23:37 UTC
2 points
0
on: Entropic strategy in Two Truths and a Lie
The strategy above makes all three statements seem equally unlikely to be true. Mathematically equivalent but with different emphasis would be to make all three statements seem equally unlikely to be false.

i.e. Pick things that seem so mundane and ordinary that surely they must be universally true—then watch the reaction as it is realised that one of them must actually be a lie.

noggin-scratcher 21 Nov 2024 23:23 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: TriflingRandom’s comment on: “It’s a 10% chance which I did 10 times, so it should be 100%”
I suspect there has to be a degree of mental disconnect, where they can see that things don’t all happen (or not happen) equally as often as each other, but answering the math question of “What’s the probability?” feels like a more abstract and different thing.

Maybe mixed up with some reflexive learned helplessness of not really trying to do math because of past experience that’s left them thinking they just can’t get it.

Possibly over generalising from early textbook probability examples involving coins and dice, where counting up and dividing by the number of possible outcomes is a workable approach.

noggin-scratcher 20 Nov 2024 23:17 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: Dweomite’s comment on: “It’s a 10% chance which I did 10 times, so it should be 100%”
I know someone who taught math to low-ability kids, and reported finding it difficult to persuade them otherwise. I assume some number of them carried on into adulthood still doing it.

noggin-scratcher 20 Nov 2024 20:18 UTC
7 points
5
in reply to: Thac0’s comment on: “It’s a 10% chance which I did 10 times, so it should be 100%”
In the infinite limit (or just large-ish x), the probability of at least one success, from nx attempts with 1/x odds on each attempt, will be 1 - ( 1 / e^n )

For x attempts, 1 − 1/e = 0.63212

For 2x attempts 1 − 1/e^2 = 0.86466

For 3x attempts 1 − 1/e^3 = 0.95021

And so on

noggin-scratcher 18 Nov 2024 2:24 UTC
22 points
4
on: “It’s a 10% chance which I did 10 times, so it should be 100%”
Ironically, the even more basic error of probabilistic thinking that people so—painfully—commonly make (“It either happens or doesn’t, so it’s 50/50”) would get closer to the right answer.

noggin-scratcher 12 Nov 2024 13:04 UTC
7 points
0
on: Inferential Game: The Foraging (Ex-)Bandit
not intended to be replayed
I have flagrantly disregarded this advice in an attempt to uncover its secrets. I’m assuming there are still a bunch of patterns that remain obscure, but the ones I have picked up on allowed me to end day 60 with 5581 food just now. So I’m calling that good enough.
Rat Ruins:
Starts out rich but becomes depleted after repeat visits
Dragon Lake:
I don’t think I’ve ever seen food here. Dragons not edible?
Goat Grove:
Good at the beginning, gradually runs down as time passes
Horse Hills:
A few random hours of each day (if there’s a pattern I haven’t spotted it) will return numbers in the 20s or 30s, small numbers otherwise
Tiger Forest:
Good in the last 2 or 3 hours of each day, small numbers otherwise
The rest:
Experimented with spending all day every day in any given territory—some broadly net-positive, some net-negative, but nothing seemed very exciting. Possibly they respond to more complicated conditions that I haven’t yet tried
Combined strategy:
Alternate 14 hours in Goat Grove with 2 hours in Tiger Forest as a daily routine. When Goat Grove starts to drop off to single digits per hour (around day 12–14), switch to Horse Hills. At some point hit Rat Ruins for 10 hours or so.

noggin-scratcher 1 Sep 2024 0:03 UTC
2 points
0
on: AI #79: Ready for Some Football

Also, the guy is spamming his post about spamming applications into all the subreddits, which gives the whole thing a great meta twist, I wonder if he’s using AI for that too.

I’m pretty sure I saw what must be the same account, posting blatantly AI generated replies/answers across a ton of different subreddits, including at least some that explicitly disallow that.

Either that or someone else’s bot was spamming AI answer comments while also spamming copycat “I applied to 1000 jobs with AI” posts.