3 ms·

Okay. How confident are you that I'm wrong? Would you be willing to construct a wager with me? I ask, for the purpose of the wager, that you generalize the c

Okay. How confident are you that I'm wrong? Would you be willing to construct a wager with me? I ask, for the purpose of the wager, that you generalize the claim that overestimation of intelligence is exploitable. The bet will be as follows: $10,000, 1:1 odds. You will play, without the aid of a computer, against StockFish. My contention is that you will (1) lose the game and (2) lose it despite the fact that StockFish assumes you make better moves than you actually do. Your contention is that you will (1) win the game and (2) do this because StockFish predicted moves which overestimated your actual abilities, which makes it exploitable. I don't think you will be confident enough to put disagreement with my epistemics where your money is. However, to encourage you to do so, I will allow you to instead opt to donate the money to a charity of your choosing rather than giving it to me.

cutemonster 4y ago
But this was about: > humans' attribution of consciousness to inanimate objects and in that context, I think the text you wrote is off topic. But StockFish is good at calculating chess moves yes. And a counting stick is good at counting numbers, is it also alive?
- JoshCole 4y ago
  Game theory states that exploitability(s) is expected_utility(s, best_response(s)). I think you are perhaps confusing this with whether or not a conditional probability distribution is correctly estimated. Your point would be valid if he said that, but he went much much farther than that. He claimed exploitability and not just that but a troubling amount of exploitability. Within the last month, I've implemented a function which calculates the exploitability of a strategy. I've verified my implementation on known games which are solved, reproducing theoretical results. I'm quite confident that exploitability isn't what you seem to think it is and that in actual practice calculating exploitability with the sort of screening off your are proposing isn't as safe to do as you seem to think it is.
- JoshCole 4y ago
  In your next post, please exploit me. Extract $1,000 from me using this cognitive weakness you are defending the existence of. Notice that if I gave this same sort of request to a magician, they could fool me because they are talking about what is possible in reality. You aren't. You have to do this, cutemonster. It is desperately important to do this! You have to test your beliefs against reality. If not a bet, then do the trial. The only failure would not be putting your beliefs to the test, because then you stay wrong, but think you are right. Put fallibilism to the test. Do you really know what you think you know? I suspect you don't, but maybe I'm wrong. So humor me. If I'm really wrong, better I found out here, then later. You have a hypothesis about the way you think reality works! Test it! Exploit me with the proposed quasi-magical latent schizophrenic assumption thingy you were defending. I probably definitely have that, sure, you'll get me, don't you think? Easy money, right? Go for it. Shoot your shot.
- JoshCole 4y ago
  He claimed that a "latent schizophrenic impulse" to "impart consciousness" where it isn't present is exploitable through virtue of claiming that it is "being exploited" and not just that but that it was so bad that it is "severe and dangerous" and that people "don't just want to believe" but that "their animal psychology primes them" and so the exploitable hole is a "specific cognitive vulnerability" which is "highly pernicious." You seem to be trying to make his claim be about attribution rates, an exceedingly lesser claim, wherein your proposal that I am out of context would have some merit. His claim was far far broader than that. You need to calculate utilities, not attribution rates, in order to be able to make the claims he is trying to make. If you knew this, but still think I am wrong, then you are making a blunder. The context of this task is one of imperfect information. This means you need to do the evaluation relative to information state, not state. For several reasons, failure to do this is going to lead you to misleading and inaccurate estimation. Reach probabilities are one reason, because you have to scale the outcomes by the probability of getting to that information state. Another is that because you start in an information state, not with full knowledge of the result of the classification, you can't actually judge as if you knew which classification situation you were in. So all relevant possibilities have to be considered. For example, one I left out is the false negatives case: a person killed by a camouflaged solider, because they misidentified it as being inanimate, when it wasn't.
- JoshCole 4y ago
  > And a counting stick is good at counting numbers, is it also alive? Sticks are a bad example to use, because they come from living objects. So, yes, they can indeed be alive. In this case, alive, but probably rapidly dying or having become deceased in the past. In some cases you can attach the stick back to its original home and it will get to live. I feel like this in this you intended to provide an example which doesn't contradict your point. So it might make more sense if we talk about a counting rock rather than a counting stick. So I'm going to try and make your argument stronger before I address it: > And a counting rock is good at counting numbers, is it also alive? Obviously the answer here is that it is not alive. However, this does not at all establish the OPs claim of exploit-ability. The question you must ask to establish your claim is "And a counting rock is good at counting numbers, assuming someone ends up thinking it is alive, does it follow that others can exploit that person?" Or maybe an even more fair question would be "And a counting rock is good at counting numbers, assuming you observe someone to appear to think that the rock is alive, can you exploit them?" The flavor of his assertion is very different than the flavor of your question.

cutemonster 4y ago

But this was about: > humans' attribution of consciousness to inanimate objects and in that context, I think the text you wrote is off topic. But StockFish is good at calculating chess moves yes. And a counting stick is good at counting numbers, is it also alive?

JoshCole 4y ago
Game theory states that exploitability(s) is expected_utility(s, best_response(s)). I think you are perhaps confusing this with whether or not a conditional probability distribution is correctly estimated. Your point would be valid if he said that, but he went much much farther than that. He claimed exploitability and not just that but a troubling amount of exploitability. Within the last month, I've implemented a function which calculates the exploitability of a strategy. I've verified my implementation on known games which are solved, reproducing theoretical results. I'm quite confident that exploitability isn't what you seem to think it is and that in actual practice calculating exploitability with the sort of screening off your are proposing isn't as safe to do as you seem to think it is.
JoshCole 4y ago
In your next post, please exploit me. Extract $1,000 from me using this cognitive weakness you are defending the existence of. Notice that if I gave this same sort of request to a magician, they could fool me because they are talking about what is possible in reality. You aren't. You have to do this, cutemonster. It is desperately important to do this! You have to test your beliefs against reality. If not a bet, then do the trial. The only failure would not be putting your beliefs to the test, because then you stay wrong, but think you are right. Put fallibilism to the test. Do you really know what you think you know? I suspect you don't, but maybe I'm wrong. So humor me. If I'm really wrong, better I found out here, then later. You have a hypothesis about the way you think reality works! Test it! Exploit me with the proposed quasi-magical latent schizophrenic assumption thingy you were defending. I probably definitely have that, sure, you'll get me, don't you think? Easy money, right? Go for it. Shoot your shot.
JoshCole 4y ago
He claimed that a "latent schizophrenic impulse" to "impart consciousness" where it isn't present is exploitable through virtue of claiming that it is "being exploited" and not just that but that it was so bad that it is "severe and dangerous" and that people "don't just want to believe" but that "their animal psychology primes them" and so the exploitable hole is a "specific cognitive vulnerability" which is "highly pernicious." You seem to be trying to make his claim be about attribution rates, an exceedingly lesser claim, wherein your proposal that I am out of context would have some merit. His claim was far far broader than that. You need to calculate utilities, not attribution rates, in order to be able to make the claims he is trying to make. If you knew this, but still think I am wrong, then you are making a blunder. The context of this task is one of imperfect information. This means you need to do the evaluation relative to information state, not state. For several reasons, failure to do this is going to lead you to misleading and inaccurate estimation. Reach probabilities are one reason, because you have to scale the outcomes by the probability of getting to that information state. Another is that because you start in an information state, not with full knowledge of the result of the classification, you can't actually judge as if you knew which classification situation you were in. So all relevant possibilities have to be considered. For example, one I left out is the false negatives case: a person killed by a camouflaged solider, because they misidentified it as being inanimate, when it wasn't.
JoshCole 4y ago
> And a counting stick is good at counting numbers, is it also alive? Sticks are a bad example to use, because they come from living objects. So, yes, they can indeed be alive. In this case, alive, but probably rapidly dying or having become deceased in the past. In some cases you can attach the stick back to its original home and it will get to live. I feel like this in this you intended to provide an example which doesn't contradict your point. So it might make more sense if we talk about a counting rock rather than a counting stick. So I'm going to try and make your argument stronger before I address it: > And a counting rock is good at counting numbers, is it also alive? Obviously the answer here is that it is not alive. However, this does not at all establish the OPs claim of exploit-ability. The question you must ask to establish your claim is "And a counting rock is good at counting numbers, assuming someone ends up thinking it is alive, does it follow that others can exploit that person?" Or maybe an even more fair question would be "And a counting rock is good at counting numbers, assuming you observe someone to appear to think that the rock is alive, can you exploit them?" The flavor of his assertion is very different than the flavor of your question.