PeerInfinity

Karma: 722

PeerInfinity 29 Apr 2009 21:03 UTC
1 point
on: Proposal: Use the Wiki for Concepts
My apologies for my late reply.

My todo list is now mostly clear of time-critical projects, and I can now officially volunteer to import all relevant Overcoming Bias posts to Less Wrong.

I also volunteer to:

*create Less Wrong wiki pages for all of the LW and OB posts, including all relevant information. However, writing the short summaries of the articles is a job that I would gladly delegate to someone else. What I should probably do is to just leave a placeholder for the article summaries, with tags to mark which articles still need summaries, and let all the other users fill in the summaries after the wikipages are posted to the wiki.

*update the links in the LW articles, changing them to link to the article’s wiki page, rather than the article itself

*set up the new Less Wrong wiki, hosted at LessWrong.com, importing all of the content from the current wiki

*create the dependency graphs for all of the Less Wrong articles

*set up a system to automatically generate dependency graphs for new posts to Less Wrong, by reading tags placed on the articles’ wiki pages.

*set up a system to automatically generate dependency graphs for the concepts themselves, rather than the articles, by reading tags placed on the articles’ wiki pages.

*update the Less Wrong forum code so that you can create links to the wiki by using the [[WikiPage]]-style links.

*set up a system to automatically monitor which pages on the Less Wrong wiki have corresponding articles on Wikipedia or on the Accelerating Future wiki, or possibly some other relevant wikis, and create the appropriate links to these other wikis.

For more ideas for future projects, see http://lesswrong.wikia.com/wiki/How_We_Can_Use_This_Wiki

I would also like to get the contact info for whoever is currently in charge of the Less Wrong website.

Some other things I have already done recently:

*setting up the Accelerating Future wiki: http://acceleratingfuture.com/wiki

*setting up the Accelerating Future forums: http://acceleratingfuture.com/forum

*upgrading the SL4 wiki to MediaWiki format, importing all relevant content from the SL4 wiki to the Accelerating future wiki

*fixing all of the broken links in the Categorized SL4 mailing list archive: http://acceleratingfuture.com/wiki/Categorized_SL4_Archive

*creating a first draft of the Scenarios Project: http://acceleratingfuture.com/wiki/The_Scenarios_Project

*creating a java applet for browsing through the dependency graphs of the Overcoming Bias posts: http://acceleratingfuture.com/lesswrong/dependencygraph/ WARNING: This is a resource-intensive java applet, and it may crash your web browser.

PeerInfinity 30 Apr 2009 18:42 UTC
0 points
in reply to: badger’s comment on: Proposal: Use the Wiki for Concepts
I could be wrong, but I don’t remember Eliezer ever suggesting we avoid making a separate wiki page for each article.

In fact, his idea for “short summaries on the wiki, linking to full posts on the forum” seems to me like a recommendation to do exactly that.

What I was planning to do was:

have a script to automatically generate wiki page stubs for every new LW post have the wiki users fill in the summary for the article *have the wiki users add any appropriate category tags to the article’s wiki page—if there are other articles on the same topic, then this will link to them. maybe have some way to graphically show the connections.

There was some discussion about requiring the LW forum posts to link to the wiki pages for the concepts, rather than the articles, but it looks like the best option is to go ahead and make pages for everything. Make a wiki page for each concept, and a wiki page for each article that discusses that concept. Make the concept pages link to the article pages, and vice versa. Allow the LW posts to link either to the article wikipage, or the concept’s wikipage.

Also, I would recommend updating all of the pages currently on the LW forum to link to the article’s wikipage, rather than the article itself.

I would also recommend considering methods to integrate the wiki content into the main LW forum. RSS feeds of recent changes is one obvious example of this sort of integration.

The script for automatically generating the wiki pages would include: Article name Author Original site Date posted Permanent link a list of the article’s tags, which will become categories in the wiki a list of articles that the article refers to, used for automatically generating the dependency graph a tag indicating that the page has been automatically created, and needs someone to fill in the article’s summary

I think it would be a good idea to have different kinds of tags marking the different kinds of dependencies. For example: “Required Reading”—an article that requires on a concept defined in a previous post “Side-topic”—an article that links to another article as a side-topic *”Supplementary Reading”—an article that links to another article for more details about a topic, but isn’t required to understand the article

Another thing I just realized: a dependency graph could also help avoid, or at least reveal, circular dependencies. Though, on second thought, the fact that LW posts can currently only link to older posts already prevents circular dependencies.

For more discussion about the dependency graphs, and other ideas for the wiki, see: http://lesswrong.wikia.com/wiki/How_We_Can_Use_This_Wiki

PeerInfinity 3 Aug 2009 18:02 UTC
7 points
on: Open Thread: August 2009
I recently had an idea that seemed interesting enough to post here: “Shut Up and Multiply!”, the video game

The basic idea of this game is that before each level you are told some probabilities, and then when the level starts you need to use these probabilities in real time to achieve the best expected outcome in a given situation.

The first example I thought of is a level where people are drowning, and you need to choose who to save first, or possibly which method to use to try to save them, in order to maximize the total number of people saved.

Different levels could have different scenarios and objectives.

You are given time to examine the probabilities before the level starts, but once it starts you need to make your decisions in real-time.

Another twist: You see the actual outcome of your actions, randomly generated by the probability formulas. However, you aren’t scored based on the actual outcome, but instead you are scored on the expected outcome of your actions, using the expected utility formula. I originally intended this to prevent people from getting a high score just by luck, or to prevent low scores caused by bad luck. Though I later realized that this doesn’t actually fix the problem—you can still play repeatedly until, by luck, you happen to guess high-scoring actions. Still, I think it would be a good idea to show both scores.

Other random ideas:

The first few levels should be a tutorial. Showing how to do the calculations in order to maximize your expected score. Or there could be a separate turotial mode. Or maybe the game itself is a bad idea, but the tutorial might still be useful.

During each level you need to make your decisions as quickly as possible—the longer you wait the worse you score. Though maybe only some levels should be like this.

Later levels require more options to choose from, and more complex scenarios.

As much content as possible should be generated randomly, to prevent the game from being the same if you play it again.

Maybe the player could also be scored based on some calculations they do before the level starts? Or just integrate this with the tutorial?

And most importantly: Specifically design the game so that the player must learn to overcome some of the standard biases, in order to maximize their score. We should try to work in as many of these biases as possible. And also plenty of generally useful advice for working with probabilities.

So, now that I posted this idea, I’ll let you decide what, if anything, we should do with this idea.

First, is this a stupid idea, that couldn’t possibly work as described?

Or is it a good idea, but a low priority, compared to the other projects we’re working on?

Should this be a group project? Does anyone volunteer to lead the project? Does anyone want to take on the project entirely on their own? Or should I lead the project, or work on it on my own?

What language would be best to implement this in? Flash? Java? PHP? Python? Something else?

I still haven’t earned much karma on this site (only 1 point actually, when I originally posted this). Mainly because I don’t expect to have anything original to say. And so I’m posting this here as a comment in the Open Thread, rather than making an actual post of it. If this comment gets enough upvotes for me to be able to make this into its own post, I plan to do so, unless someone objects. Or if anyone would like to take over the idea, please feel free to do so. I don’t care about credit, and generally prefer to avoid it. Possibly by the flawed reasoning “credit = responsibility = blame”, which I suppose might deserve a post of its own.
What links here?
- PeerInfinity's comment on Open Thread: September 2009 by AllanCrossman (2 Sep 2009 2:22 UTC; 2 points)

PeerInfinity 11 Aug 2009 3:40 UTC
3 points
on: Complex Novelty
SPOILER WARNING!

This comment contains spoilers for Permutation City.

I agree that Peer’s strategy, as described in Permutation City, is a very suboptimal strategy for maximizing fun, given both finite resources and finite time.

But Peer had an infinite amount of processing time, and (spoiler!) until the final chapter, believed that he had an infinite amount of computing resources as well. (In the final chapter, Peer found that he only had a finite, but large amount of computing resources—equivalent to a planet of computronium? a solar system? a galaxy? the story didn’t say.)

Also, Peer had one strategically relevant belief which you may have overlooked: Peer believes that an experience has literally no value if someone has had exactly the same experience before. i.e. if the digital representation of a mind ever enters exactly the same state more than once.

(I personally disagree with this. A pleasure is still real, and still has positive value, the second time you experience it. A pain is still real, and still has negative value, the second time you experience it.)

Given this belief, Peer’s strategy is the optimal: Randomly alternating between any experience that could even remotely be considered fun.

Given infinite time, this will eventually cover the entire volume of Fun Space. Or rather, all the parts of fun space that can be accessed by a mind running on the computing resources available to Peer.

If a mind really does have access to infinite computing resources, then that mind’s Fun Space is truly infinite. (trivial proof, and a degenerate example: spend a year contemplating the number 1, then spend a year contemplating the number 2, then 3, then 4...)

All Peer cares about is that as much of Fun Space is covered as possible, and this strategy achieves that.

(another spoiler) In the final chapter, Peer decides that he doesn’t even care who experiences the pleasure, and splits himself into a whole Solipsist Nation of minds that are each happy for their own wildly arbitrary reasons.

Other than a couple of major differences, Peer’s philosophy matches mine quite well. Well enough for me to name myself after him. (After all, if my life is at all worthwhile, then Peer must have experienced the good parts of it at some point during his random explorations of Fun Space.)

related plugs:

a wiki page I wrote examining Peer’s philosophy, and my own philosophy, in more detail: http://transhumanistwiki.com/wiki/Peer_Infinity/Quotes_from_Permutation_City

a dream I had, where I was Peer, that seemed almost good enough to write a short story out of, but not surprisingly ended up kinda lame: http://transhumanistwiki.com/wiki/Peer_Infinity/Short_Story_1

PeerInfinity 11 Aug 2009 3:40 UTC
1 point
on: Justified Expectation of Pleasant Surprises
Personally, I disagree with Eliezer’s “no spoilers” rule.

I generally find that the frustration of not knowing outweighs any advantages of delayed surprises.

Unless I’m misunderstanding something, wouldn’t the information be just as pleasantly surprising whether it’s all given right at the beginning, or gradually learned as you go along?

I’m the (degenerate?) sort of person who enjoys reading the walkthrough, or watching the speedrun, more than I enjoy playing the actual game.

Or maybe that’s just a preference for skipping the boring and annoying parts.

I also admit that there may be some contexts in which I agree with the “no spoilers” rule, that I hadn’t thought of while writing this.

PeerInfinity 11 Aug 2009 3:41 UTC
8 points
on: Serious Stories
I’m surprised that none of the other commenters suggested “What if you just invert the human sense of pain, causing it to become a new form of pleasure, and then write stories about that?”

You might think that would turn a horribly tragic story into a deliciously pornographic story, but I’ve personally tried this trick, and it doesn’t seem to work well. When the story keeps reminding you that the people are in fact suffering, and not at all enjoying the experiences, then it’s hard to keep imagining the pain being inverted as pleasure.

But if you wrote a story in which it was made explicit that the people find this inverted pain to be intensely pleasurable… lots of twisted possibilities instantly spring to mind.

For example, involving fully immersive virtual realities in which there is no threat of actually dying, massively multiplayer games, a creative assortment of tools, respawning after death, the ability to record particularly “high-scoring” sessions to play back and experience later, “cheaters” who do silly things like just turn on invincibility and dive into a fire...

Should I feel guilty about all of these ideas coming to mind so easily? What if I imagined what this guilt would feel like if it was inverted?

On a related topic, there is a genre where you’re allowed to write stories in which nothing bad happens to any of the characters. That genre is called “pornography”.

I especially enjoy the beautiful kinky transhuman sex scenes that already exist in sci-fi literature. I <3 Greg Egan :D

I, for one, would like to see more erotic fiction set in a positive, transhuman future. A Utopia. Or better yet, a Weirdtopia! :D

I have made some attempts to write such fiction myself, but I kept trying to make it too realistic, and just ended up with something like “Peer’s exoself finishes the latest set of modifications to Peer’s mind, and turns the Orgasmotron back on, causing Peer to experience yet another orgasm, which is both far more intensely powerful, and far more subtly nuanced, then anything ever dreamed possible by an unaugmented human mind. And also unlike anything Peer had experienced before this latest set of modifications.”

Oh, and if anyone shares these tastes and would like to meet me for some beautiful kinky transhuman sex in Second Life, you can find me by searching for “Peer Infinity”. :)

(Note to self: read through my old Second Life chat logs, and see if any of my previous beautiful kinky transhuman lovemaking sessions would make good short erotic stories...)

PeerInfinity 2 Sep 2009 2:22 UTC
2 points
on: Open Thread: September 2009
I’m going to use this open thread to once again suggest the idea of a Less Wrong video game.

( Here’s a link to the post I made last month about it )

After some more thought, I realized that making a game with fancy graphics and complex gameplay would probably not be a good idea for a first project to try.

A better idea would be a simple text-based game you play in your browser, probably running on either PHP or Python.

This might not have as much fun appeal as a traditional video game, since it would probably look like a university exam, but it could still be an effective way for us to measure our rationality.

So far I thought of the following ideas:

1) Multiple Choice questions, with only one right answer. Not just a quiz of trivia you memorized from Less Wrong, but applications of the techniques taught here. Also, the standard tests that reveal if you’ve learned how to not fall for the standard biases.

2) Questions that require you to do some math, and enter your answer, which can be scored on how close it is to the correct answer.

3) A “spot the logical fallacy” game, or a “spot the bias” game. The player is presented with a few paragraphs of text. It could be a news article, a section of a short story, a conversation between two people, or maybe something else. The purpose is to spot the first sentence that contains a logical fallacy, or a bias. Once you select which sentence contains the error, you have to say what type of error it is. Maybe typing in the name of the fallacy, or maybe selecting it from a list of the fallacies that have pages about them on the LW Wiki.

We could also implement questions that start with an introduction that you can read before the timer starts ticking, then you proceed to the timed part, where you are scored based on how quickly you answer. Maybe some questions could have a time limit of a few seconds, to force an immediate response.

This LW game could be integrated with the rest of the LW website, where your score is linked to your username. Though this feature is entirely optional. The wiki already has a separate user account not linked directly to your main LW user account, so the game could do the same. The game would keep track of which questions you got right, and how long it took you to answer. This would give speedreaders an advantage, but maybe this isn’t a problem, because speedreading is a generally useful skill to learn.

The game should keep track of which questions you’ve already answered, so it doesn’t ask you the same question again. Or maybe for the questions where you need to do math, it could ask you again with randomized numbers. Maybe there could be a calculator built into the question webpage, with functions for calculating probabilities, etc.

There should also be a way to compare your scores with other players, or see how you rank.

To generate questions for the game, we could use a comments thread in the main LW site, or we could use the LW wiki, or we could set up a special submission form in the game itself.

another random idea: If you give an answer that you think is right, but the game says is wrong, there should be a way to enter your explanation for why your answer is right. Someone would then check these messages, and if your explanation is valid, the game could award you double points.

(Another random idea I had was to make a text adventure game, where you participate in conversations, and sometimes need to interrupt a conversation to point out a logical fallacy, to prevent the conversation from going off-track and preventing you from getting the information you needed from the conversation. But that would be more of a challenge to implement, and generate content for.)

PeerInfinity 4 Sep 2009 19:07 UTC
4 points
in reply to: gwern’s comment on: Open Thread: September 2009
Thanks for the link.

That LogicTutor site you linked to provides a good, basic introduction to a few concepts and fallacies. However, the practice problems just ask you to identify which fallacy is in the sentence they give you. They’re missing the other half of the game, which is spotting the fallacy in a block of text that’s deliberately designed to hide the fallacy. I’ll keep looking in case someone has already made a game that contains this part.

One way to make the game more fun would be to have interesting text to find the fallacy in. Eliezer’s short stories are a good example of this. Though for the purpose of the game, we would need just short segments of stories, which contain one clear example of a fallacy. Preferably one that’s well-hidden, but obvious once you see it. Also, to keep players on their toes, we could include segments that don’t actually contain a fallacy, and players would have the option of saying that there is no fallacy.

And as I mentioned before, another idea is to flesh out the stories even more, so that it could be expanded into a mystery game, or an adventure game, or an escape-the-room game, where in order to continue you need to talk to people, and some of these people will give inaccurate information, because they didn’t notice a flaw in their own reasoning, and you will need to point out the flaw in their reasoning before they will give you the accurate information.

You would also have to choose your replies during the conversation, and have to choose a reply that doesn’t introduce a new fallacy and send the conversation off in the wrong direction. Many of the possible responses would be to question why the person believes specific things that they just said. Maybe there could also be a feature where you could interrupt the person in the middle of what they’re saying, to point out the problem. Optionally, score the player based on how long they took, and how many wrong paths they went down before finding the correct path.

And if this still doesn’t make the game fun, then there are ways to make people want to play games even if they aren’t fun.

One way is to make the not-so-fun game into a small but necessary part of a bigger game, that is fun.

Another way is to make it into a Flash game, and submit it to a site that tracks your achievements in the games, and gives you an overall score over all the games you’ve played. Examples of sites like this are Kongregate.com, and Newgrounds.com. If you’re lucky, the game might even get to spend a few days on the site’s front page, or get a limited-time challenge, for extra bonus points.

If the game could be made into a series, that would be even better.

So far I’ve only seen one “educational” game get promoted to the front page of Kongragate.com, with its own limited-time-only challenge. That was Globetrotter XL. The game says the name of a city, and you have to click on where that city is, on a map of the world with no border lines or labels. You’re scored for how close you click to the actual city. Unfortunately, I ended up not completing this game’s limited-time challenge, because the game was so unforgiving, and my knowledge of geography was so poor.

Anyway, while it would be a really nice bonus if the spot-the-fallacy game became popular outside LW, the main purpose of the game is to give current LW members an objective way to test their rationality, even if the game isn’t especially fun.

There have been several LW posts now talking about how desperately we need a way to measure our rationality, and so far I haven’t seen any serious proposals that anyone is actually working on. Or maybe there’s a project already started, and I just didn’t notice it because I got so far behind on reading the LW posts.

This game/quiz/whatever is a proposal for a way to go from having no objective way to measure our rationality, to at least having something.

PeerInfinity 6 Sep 2009 4:25 UTC
0 points
in reply to: gwern’s comment on: Open Thread: September 2009
5 articles? I only know of 2 articles where this topic was discussed. Can you post a link to the other 3, please?

Anyway, I went ahead and created a wiki page for discussing the game idea, and posted links to the two threads I know of:

http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_Less_Wrong_Video_Game

PeerInfinity 2 Oct 2009 14:14 UTC
4 points
on: Open Thread: October 2009
A link you might find interesting:

The Neural Correlates of Religious and Nonreligious Belief

Summary:

Religious thinking is more associated with brain regions that govern emotion, self-representation, and cognitive conflict, while thinking about ordinary facts is more reliant upon memory retrieval networks, scientists at UCLA and other universities have found. They used fMRI to measure signal changes in the brains of committed Christians and nonbelievers as they evaluated the truth and falsity of religious and nonreligious propositions. For both groups, belief (judgments of “true” vs “false”) was associated with greater signal in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, an area important for self-representation, emotional associations, reward, and goal-driven behavior. “While religious and nonreligious thinking differentially engage broad regions of the frontal, parietal, and medial temporal lobes, the difference between belief and disbelief appears to be content-independent,” the study concluded. “Our study compares religious thinking with ordinary cognition and, as such, constitutes a step toward developing a neuropsychology of religion. However, these findings may also further our understanding of how the brain accepts statements of all kinds to be valid descriptions of the world.”

PeerInfinity 6 Oct 2009 3:55 UTC
1 point
on: Open Thread: October 2009
I recently realized that I don’t remember seeing any LW posts questioning if it’s ever rational to give up on getting better at rationality, or at least on one aspect of rationality that a person is just having too much trouble with.

There have been posts questioning the value of x-rationality, and posts examining the possibility of deliberately being irrational, but I don’t remember seeing any posts examining if it’s ever best to just give up and stop trying to learn a particular skill of rationality.

For example, someone who is extremely risk-averse, and experiences severe psychological discomfort in situations involving risk, and who has spent years trying to overcome this problem with no success. Should this person keep trying to overcome the risk aversion, or just give up and never leave their comfort zone, focusing instead on strategies for avoiding situations involving risk?

yes, the “someone” I mention above is myself.

and yes, I am asking this hoping that the answer gives me an excuse to be lazy.

PeerInfinity 7 Oct 2009 15:08 UTC
0 points
in reply to: AdeleneDawner’s comment on: Open Thread: October 2009
Everything Adelene has said so far is accurate.

Sorry, but I still haven’t thought of a good example that wouldn’t take too long to explain.

Another topic that Ade and I have been discussing is the difference between my idealized utility function (in which a major component is “maximize the probability that the Singularity turns out okay”), and whatever it is that actually controls my decisions (in which a major component is “avoid situations where my actions have a significant probability of making things worse”)

(I think there was at least one LW post on the topic of the difference between these two utility functions, but I didn’t find them after a quick search.)

So to answer Vladimir’s question, in my idealized utility function, certainty is not inherently valuable, and I know that when faced with a choice between certainty and uncertainty, I should shut up and multiply. However, my actual utility function has a paralyzing inability to deal with uncertainty.

Other relevant details are:

*severe underconfidence

*lack of experience, common sense, and general sanity

*fear of responsibility

*an inability to deal with (what appear to be) high-stakes situations. A risk of losing $1000 is already enough to qualify as “paralyzingly high stakes”.

PeerInfinity 7 Oct 2009 17:23 UTC
1 point
in reply to: PeerInfinity’s comment on: Open Thread: October 2009
I’m surprised that noone gave the obvious answer yet, which is:

If overcoming the problem really is hopeless, then give up and focus on more productive things, otherwise keep trying.

If it isn’t obvious whether it’s hopeless or not, then do a more detailed cost/benefit analysis.

Still, I don’t remember seeing any LW post that even mentioned that sometimes giving up is an acceptable option. Or maybe I just forgot, or didn’t notice.

PeerInfinity 7 Oct 2009 18:10 UTC
0 points
in reply to: CronoDAS’s comment on: Open Thread: October 2009
Yes, that link is relevant and helpful, thanks.

It’s not specifically about giving up on overcoming a particular irrational behaviour, but I guess the same advice applies.

PeerInfinity 7 Oct 2009 18:31 UTC
0 points
in reply to: CronoDAS’s comment on: Open Thread: October 2009
Yes, that seems like a reasonably accurate summary.

PeerInfinity 7 Oct 2009 19:50 UTC
0 points
in reply to: pdf23ds’s comment on: Open Thread: October 2009
upvoted. good advice. thanks.

PeerInfinity 23 Oct 2009 18:58 UTC
1 point
in reply to: taw’s comment on: Better thinking through experiential games
Yes, here’s a similar game starring that same elephant:

Achievement Unlocked

Another vaguely similar game:

Take Something Literally

PeerInfinity 24 Oct 2009 17:34 UTC
−2 points
in reply to: CronoDAS’s comment on: Better thinking through experiential games
And so you have to make a guess, and start over if you guess wrong, remembering what not to guess next time. This may have been what the game designer intended.

I got stuck on the part with the toenails, about halfway through the game. I just couldn’t click fast enough.

See also The Impossible Quiz 2

I also got about halfway through this one.

PeerInfinity 24 Oct 2009 17:39 UTC
0 points
in reply to: taw’s comment on: Better thinking through experiential games
Yes, some of those were just annoying. There were a few that I couldn’t solve.

Some of the puzzles have alternate solutions if you don’t have a microphone or mousewheel or whatever.

For example:

Ba gur yriry jurer lbh’er fhccbfrq gb oybj vagb gur zvpebcubar, na nygreangr fbyhgvba vf gb glcr “oybj” ba gur xrlobneq.

(rot13′d)

PeerInfinity 24 Oct 2009 18:27 UTC
7 points
in reply to: AndrewKemendo’s comment on: Better thinking through experiential games
While I’m at it, here are links to a bunch of other games that require some degree of thinking outside the box and adapting to changing rules:

Factory Balls and Factory Balls 2

Easy. Each level introduces new puzzle pieces, but no dramatic changes in the rules. The solutions are all inside the box, once you figure out what the rules are.

Aether

Easy. Requires solving some puzzles without any hints what the puzzle is or what a solution would look like. Solvabe just by trying random things until something happens.

Duck, think outside the flock

Medium. A series of puzzles, each of which has different rules.

me and the key

Medium. A series of puzzles, each of which has different rules.

Electric Box

Medium. Each level introduces new puzzle pieces, but no dramatic changes in the rules. The solutions are all inside the box, but you have to figure out how to put them together.

Dynamic Systems

Medium. Each level introduces new puzzle pieces, but no dramatic changes in the rules. The solutions are all inside the box, but you have to figure out how to put them together.

Casual Gameplay Escape

Hard! A series of puzzles, connected by other puzzles, each of which have different rules, and most of which have a counterintuitive solution. Hints about the solutions are cleverly hidden in the game. Hint: Gur cevagfperra ohggba vf lbhe sevraq. (rot13′d)

Take Something Literally

Hard. A series of puzzles, each of which has a deliberately counterintuitive, and often malevolent, solution. Don’t worry if you can’t solve all of them, some of the solutions require specific computer hardware or softwae to win.

The Impossible Quiz and The Impossible Quiz 2

Almost Impossible. A series of quiz questions and other challenges that have deliberately counterintuitive solutions. Some of the quiz questions are solvable only by trial and error. Some of the challenges require extremely fast reflexes. Many of the puzzles are blatantly evil. Do not expect to win this. You have been warned.

The rest of these games don’t really fit with the theme of thinking outside the box and adapting to changing rules, but are unique enough to include in the list anyway:

Closure

Medium. A unique game, but the rules don’t change much, except when new puzzle elements are introduced. The solutions are mostly inside the box.

Time Kufc

Medium. This game doesn’t really belong in this list. The rules don’t change much, except when new puzzle elements are introduced. The solutions are mostly inside the box.

Red Remover

Medium. This game doesn’t really belong in this list. The rules don’t change much, except when new puzzle elements are introduced. The solutions are mostly inside the box.

Shift, Shift 2, Shift 3, and Shift 4

Medium. This game doesn’t really belong in this list. The rules don’t change much, except when new puzzle elements are introduced. The solutions are mostly inside the box.

Exploit

Medium. Actually, this doesn’t belong in this list at all. The rules don’t change, and the solutions are all quite literally inside the box.

There are plenty of other good puzzle games I could link to, but they didn’t really fit with the theme of thinking outside the box and adapting to changing rules.

Question: Would it be inappropriate to put this list somewhere on the Less Wrong Wiki?