This was what I expected to see, and I believe it’s equivalent to H(X,Y,Z) = H(X) + H(Y) + H(Z) - I(X;Z) - I(Z;Y) - I(X;Y | Z)
It appears that Z is very artificially constructed—Z is exactly I(X,Y) in the example. Therefore, H(X,Y) = H(X,Y,Z). Since the term I(X,Y | Z) is mutual information about X and Y given Z, that’s just 0. There’s no new mutual information about X and Y that isn’t already in Z. So I believe that we could replace it with +I(X,Y) - I(X,Y,Z), and get inclusion-exclusion.
I’m a bit skeptical of using majority survey response to determine “morality.” After all, given a Bayesian probability problem, (the exact problem was patients with cancer tests, with a chance of returning a false positive,) most people will give the wrong answer, but we certainly don’t want our computers to make this kind of error.
As to the torture vs. dust specks, when I thought about it, I decided first that torture was unacceptable, and then tried to modify my utility function to round to zero, etc. I was very appalled with myself to find that I decided the answer in advance, and then tried to make my utility function fit a predetermined answer. It felt an awful lot like rationalizing. I don’t know if everyone else is doing the same thing, but if you are, I urge you to reconsider. If we always go with what feels right, what’s the point of using utility functions at all?
Another similar problem that I’ve encountered runs thus: suppose we’re in a scenario where it’s one person’s life against a million, or a billion, or all the people in the world. Suppose aliens are invading and will leave Earth be if we were to kill an arbitrarily-determined innocent bystander. Otherwise, they will choose an arbitrary person, take him to safety, and destroy Earth, along with everyone else. In that case, consensus seems to be that the lives of everyone on Earth far outweigh a healthy innocent’s rights.
The largest difference between the two cases is numbers: five people becomes six billion. If there is another difference, I have yet to find it. But if it is simply a difference in numbers, then whatever justification people use to choose the healthy man over five patients ought to apply here as well.
“If you choose to follow a religion where, for example, devout Catholics who are trying to be good people are all going to Hell but child molestors go to Heaven (as long as they were “saved” at some point), that’s your choice, but it’s fucked up. Maybe a God who operates by those rules does exist. If so, fuck Him.”—Bill Zellar’s suicide note, in regards to his parents’ religion
I love this passage. If a god as described in the Bible did exist, following him would be akin to following Voldemort: fidelity simply because he was powerful. This isn’t precisely a rationality quote, but it does have a bit of the morality-independent-of-religion thing. (The rest of the note is beautiful and eloquent as well.)
I’m sorry; I’m still a bit confused by this. “Amplitude flows to both end configurations every time,” so when a single photon is fired (as in figure 1), I agree that the amplitudes of A->1 and A->2 are both 1. Does that mean both detectors click? (I was under the impression that only one detector would click.)
I personally loved this video. Such beautiful dreams! It made me feel like there was a great deal that was possible, and had I believed I wouldn’t be alive to see it myself, I would be filled with regret. I think it has the power to make people dream of watching galaxies rise from distant worlds. Even if it’s not so much about rationality, I feel it speaks well for science. At least, it shatters the common mis-impression that science makes everything mundane.
There is something about this that skeeves me out as well, and it’s not simply discomfort at the idea of doing it. It’s the idea of manipulating others for drinks. It reminds me of begging, almost, the whole trying to get free stuff from others. Also, it sounds like leading men on far enough to get them to buy you a drink; it sounds like making them think you’re interested, even if you don’t actually promise anything. I’m not so fond of things that might inconvenience others, nor the idea of getting drinks from others because I’ve led them to believe something false.
I believe the male version is to get a girl’s phone number? What skills does this require? I’d guess confidence, the art of conversation, body language, assertiveness, initiative, etc etc. Everything that’s already been listed. However, what skills does convincing a man to buy a girl a drink require? What would make a man want to buy a girl a drink? I’m getting the impression of a great deal of flirtatiousness.
I feel that a more equivalent challenge would be for a girl to get a man to accompany her to one of her hobbies, like a knitting group or an orchestra concert or a rationalists’ meetup. That way, she has to present her hobby well, get the guy interested, and he has to be interested in something other than sleeping with her. It will require more communication than sexuality, and I feel it will teach the desired social skills better.
I’ve just a couple days ago returned home from Rationality Camp, and to the best of my estimates, about half the participants prefer this ending, and also, among rationalists that I encounter elsewhere, a non-trivial portion of them prefer this ending as well. What am I saying? Other than the mass suicides, it is not immediately obvious that this original ending is “awful” in any way.
Grargh argh grr! The first thing I did afterwards was go to Wikipedia and see when [the thing identified] was actually [verbed], and I was off by a hundred or so years. Blech.
Anyways, survey taken.
I’m glad this post is here! Today, I came across this lovely little statement on Xanga: “Richard Dawkins admitted recently that he can’t be sure that God does not exist. He is generally considered the World’s most famous Atheist. So this question is for Atheists. Can you be sure that God does not exist?”
It made me cranky right away (I promise, I was more patient many many instances of this sentiment ago), and my first response was to link here in a comment. Well, I’m glad this post is here to link to. Grr.
Here’s an interview Bill Gates gave on healthcare. It’s not directly rationality related, but it’s very good. I’d recommend reading all the way to the end. It’s especially good at the end.
Oh wow, I didn’t realize there was a series already. I’d still like to go ahead and do it though. It would be in a different style, and I’d write music for it, and everything. I mean, it has value to me as a personal project.
That’s a good idea. I’ll contact the Sims series author. I’m afraid I’ll start at chapter 1 anyways, because I’ve never made a video before, and chapter 45 is beyond my skills at this point. :( But after a few chapters, I’ll see how things are going and possibly skip ahead.
Thanks for your feedback!
Thanks! I’ll try hard to make it cool. :)
I have a work schedule and no willing buddy in the area. Could you keep the data form up indefinitely? I’d love to submit to the study at a later date.
I’m actually very very bothered by “0.3% of the speed of light”. This is 900,000 meters/second. A passenger airplane flies at slower than 300 meters/second. Harry is flying 3000 times faster than an airplane?
Let’s say a broom accelerates a thousand times faster than a car. A car can go to 60 mph in 7-8 seconds. Let’s say 5 seconds. That’s an acceleration of about 5 meters/second squared. Let’s say Harry accelerates 5000 meters/second squared (an impossibly large acceleration). It would take him 3 minutes to get to that speed. All the while experiencing 500 G force, that is 500 times the force of gravity. The record G force survived by a human is 46.2.
Seriously. This is 9000 football fields in ONE SECOND. He can’t possibly be making those turns and bumping the Weasleys like a bludger. He’d be killing them all (in a fraction of a second). Throw in some more zeroes please! 50 meters/second (about 100 mph) is the limit of what I find believable.
I wondered about why he took out the gem and put it far away from the ring. But I’d be surprised if Harry were good enough at occlumency to fool Dumbledore. Wondering how he answered those questions.
Hello, world!
I just sent in my application. I’m really curious, and it looks like nothing I’ve ever seen before. I’m still a college student, so I doubt I’ll be accepted (the first few questions make Rationality Boot Camp look as though it’s targeted towards professors and established scientists), but this is something I’m really excited about, and it couldn’t hurt to apply. I’m hoping for the best.
Peace and happiness, wobster109