qwertyasdef

Karma: 27

qwertyasdef 28 Apr 2024 7:08 UTC
5 points
0
on: D&D.Sci Long War: Defender of Data-mocracy
Initial observations characterizing the data
The PGFDA seems to treat all weapon types completely interchangeably. All weapon types appear equally often and with the same distribution, and there are no correlations between different weapon types or between weapon types and alien species in the past missions. The only tactical decision they make is to send more soldiers when there are more aliens.

The alien species also seem to be acting independently of each other. They each have different distributions in the number of individuals per encounter but each species shows up in about 100,000 encounters and there are no correlations between the presence of any alien species with any other.

Victory is somewhat correlated with number of soldiers which makes sense, but isn’t correlated with specific weapon or alien types. I would guess that each weapon is strong and weak against certain aliens, or maybe some weapons combinations synergize and others interfere with each other such that they all come out to the same average effectiveness when chosen at random like the PGFDA and AM are doing.

qwertyasdef 31 Mar 2024 0:37 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: qwertyasdef’s comment on: D&D.Sci: The Mad Tyrant’s Pet Turtles
Tentative guesses:
Nothing else is standing out to me so I just threw some linear regression at it and added 1.22 times the standard deviation of the residual to be safe.
1. Abigail: 21.9 lb
2. Bertrand: 19.5 lb
3. Chartreuse: 25.4 lb
4. Dontanien: 21.8 lb
5. Espera: 19.1 lb
6. Flint: 7.3 lb
7. Gunther: 27.4 lb
8. Harold: 20.4 lb
9. Irene: 24.4 lb
10. Jacqueline: 21.0 lb
I completely ignored the greenish-gray turtles because His Malevolence didn’t have any and there weren’t that many of them in the data, I hope that wasn’t a mistake. It bothers me that I can’t figure out anything regarding nostril size. From a meta perspective, I feel like there wouldn’t be two irrelevant columns given that fangs was already redundant. Everything else was at least somewhat correlated with weight.

qwertyasdef 30 Mar 2024 5:01 UTC
4 points
0
on: D&D.Sci: The Mad Tyrant’s Pet Turtles
I’ve been loving reading these for a while and figured I’d give it a shot for once.
Random early observations
1. Focusing just on gray turtles for now because they’re outliers on every metric.
2. All gray turtles and only gray turtles have fangs.
3. Weight is approximately Shell Segments / 2 for gray turtles.
4. Nothing else seems obviously correlated.
Edit
There are way too many green turtles with 6 shell segments, and they all have no wrinkles, normal nostril size, no miscellaneous abnormalities, and weight 20.4.

qwertyasdef 16 Sep 2023 6:19 UTC
3 points
2
on: Ethics Needs A Marginal Revolution
Interesting. I agree with all your reasoning, but my plausibility judgements of the implications seem opposite to yours and I came away with the opposite conclusion that well-being is clearly capped.

qwertyasdef 2 Oct 2022 21:38 UTC
3 points
2
on: Reward IS the Optimization Target
I think you and the linked post might have mismatching definitions of reward. It seems like your definition is that reward is what the AI values, but the linked post uses reward to mean the reward function specified by the programmers that is used to train the AI.

qwertyasdef 17 Jul 2022 4:24 UTC
7 points
1
in reply to: paulfchristiano’s comment on: Avoid the abbreviation “FLOPs” – use “FLOP” or “FLOP/s” instead
As for using FLOP as a plural noun, that’s how other units work. We use 5 m for 5 meters, 5 s for 5 seconds, 5 V for 5 volts, etc. so it’s not that weird.

qwertyasdef 16 Oct 2021 17:44 UTC
6 points
on: Is moral duty/blame irrational because a person does only what they must?
If human behaviour is fully determined by the laws of the universe, then you have no choice in whether you assign moral blame or not so it doesn’t make sense to discuss whether we should or shouldn’t do that.

qwertyasdef 7 Oct 2021 20:26 UTC
6 points
in reply to: Ghatanathoah’s comment on: How do bounded utility functions work if you are uncertain how close to the bound your utility is?
I think you’re right that your pennies become more valuable the less you have. Suppose you start with $m$ money and your utility function is $U : money \to utility$ . Assuming the original lottery was not worth playing, then $x y + (U (m - 1) - U (m)) (1 - y) < 0$ , which rearranges to $U (m) - U (m - 1) > \frac{x y}{1 - y}$ . This can be though of as saying the average slope of the utility function from $m - 1$ to $m$ is greater than some constant $\frac{x y}{1 - y}$ .
For the second lottery, each ticket you buy means you have less money. Then the utility cost of the first lottery ticket is $U (m - 0.01) - U (m)$ , the second $U (m - 0.02) - U (m - 0.01)$ , the third $U (m - 0.03) - U (m - 0.02)$ , and so on. If the first ticket is worth buying, then $0.01 x y + (U (m - 0.01) - U (m)) (1 - y) > 0$ so $\frac{U (m) - U (m - 0.01)}{0.01} < \frac{x y}{1 - y}$ . This means the average slope of the utility function from $m - 0.01$ to $m$ is less than the average slope from $m - 1$ to $m$ , so if the utility function is continuous, there must be some other point in the interval $[m - 1, m]$ where the slope is greater than average. This corresponds to a ticket that is no longer worth buying because it’s an even worse deal than the single ticket from the original lottery.
Also note that the value of $m$ is completely arbitrary and irrelevant to the argument, so I think this should still avoid the Egyptology objection.