za3k

Karma: 33

Telescoping

za3k16 Apr 2025 17:05 UTC

13 points

1 comment1 min readLW link

(blog.za3k.com)

za3k 11 Apr 2010 17:09 UTC
0 points
0
on: Self-modification is the correct justification for updateless decision theory
Just to be explicit: The first AI type, which is “time consistent”, would probably press the button. The second AI type, which does worse in impossible worlds, and better in world we don’t know are impossible, would not press the button.

za3k 26 Mar 2010 22:34 UTC
0 points
0
in reply to: zemaj’s comment on: Lights, Camera, Action!
My thinking style has changed twice in my lifetime; I’m going to ramble on about this for a while. I will do a better job of describing me now than when I was younger, because I have a bad memory and it’s hard to remember how I used to think.

When I was young (up until the age of 10-12) I just thought in thoughts. I was very quick back then; I could do mental arithmetic and problem solving much faster than I can now, for instance.

Then for just a few years, I started thinking visually. I read all the time during this period; I probably read a ten times as many books in junior high and high school than I have since (I’m 4th year in college). When I remembered something I’d picture the page on the book where I had seen it.

Now I think more verbally. I hear something like a “mental voice”. It’s very slow compared to either of the others. I think I’m starting to skip my mental dialogue a little lately. I go to lectures and don’t read books, which I never would have done in high school. I also am a lot more social; I’m not sure if there’s a connection. When I remember something it can be visual or verbal. I also remember things somewhat abstractly sometimes, especially ideas like math. It feels like they’re part of me. I’m not sure how long the abstract thing has been going on, it may not be new.

za3k 26 Mar 2010 22:19 UTC
4 points
0
in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: The Spotlight
I think it would be interesting, regardless of whether it’s useful. I’d also like to hear about some non-success stories. It’s good to know what to avoid or the limits of one’s tools as well.

za3k 25 Mar 2010 6:22 UTC
0 points
0
in reply to: orthonormal’s comment on: The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom
I followed this link, and found the blog of one of the “truth wizards” from the study. She writes about the Amanda Knox case. It seems to entirely focus on Amanda Knox.

za3k 25 Mar 2010 5:47 UTC
7 points
0
in reply to: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s comment on: Undiscriminating Skepticism
That’s an interesting take. She clearly loves me and my siblings and has never hurt anyone to the best of my knowledge, besides. So, it wasn’t an uncomfortable topic—only a bit of an odd position to be in.

Although, I also have to point out adoption does not carry the death penalty, so I can imagine a situation in which my hypothetical parent opts not to kill me because they think the fuzz will catch them.

za3k 25 Mar 2010 5:37 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: MichaelVassar’s comment on: Undiscriminating Skepticism
That’s very unlikely, I think. She’s not interested in rationalism.

za3k 25 Mar 2010 3:47 UTC
1 point
0
on: More thoughts on assertions
Allow to to start by saying I enjoyed this post and think Yvain makes an interesting point. It may help explain why rumor spreads well. I have however one difference of opinion, which is that if a person adds “I arrived at this belief through evidence”, I would believe their statement more. I would assume they are talking about a non-Bayesian, layman’s version of “evidence.” (If they’re talking about Bayesian evidence, they’re probably Bayesian and this is also a mark in their favor)

For instance, in mathematics it’s common to state that something is true, and add “And we can prove this.” It’s often too much work, or beyond the scope of the course, or beyond the mathematical abilities of the class, to actually look at the proof.

I often arrive at opinions by asking others’ their opinion. I do not want to spend the time to evaluate the evidence on global warming, for example. I simply trust that friends and experts I know to be well-informed know what they are talking about when they say a trend exists. But, I you know me to be rational in evaluating arguments and a careful reader, and you do not trust my unknown friends as much, you should trust what I say more if I indicate I arrived at it through firsthand evidence, than though the opinions of my friends. You may want to trust firsthand evidence more regardless, because content and thus authority is lost at every telling.

This might be one reason urban rumors in particular spread so much better; they’re typically told as though they happened to the teller or a close friend of the teller.

za3k 16 Mar 2010 23:32 UTC
8 points
0
in reply to: DonGeddis’s comment on: Undiscriminating Skepticism
My mother made this argument to me probably when I was in high school. Given my position as past infanticide candidate, it was an odd conversation. For the record, she was willing to go up to two or six years old, I think.

And let us not forget the Scrubs episode she also agreed with: “Having a baby is like getting a dog that slowly learns to talk.”