Eliezer

80 ms·

931.
by Eliezer 17y ago
Fair enough, but I hope you won't overlook the points that: 1) People are, in fact, fucking crazy. 2) People often have difficulty in coming to terms with the above fact in its simple form, to the detriment of their development as ratio
932.
by Eliezer 17y ago
> Also, humans aren't "fucking crazy" so much as they make near-instant judgments sometimes in flawed ways, with associations, context, language, and thought getting jumbled up and being hijackable sometimes. With respect, and with grat
933.
by Eliezer 17y ago
Why is this downvoted? This is exactly what the experimental results coming out of the field of heuristics and biases say.
934.
by Eliezer 17y ago
Read "Judgment Under Uncertainty" first.
935.
by Eliezer 17y ago
One must acquire the habit of thinking on the margins . If there are millions of people and billions of dollars attacking problem A which kills millions of people, and dozens of people and hundreds of thousands of dollars attacking proble
936.
by Eliezer 17y ago
> "My question for reddit: what would you do if you had $20M in the bank?" Fight death. - Fight death of individuals: Cryonic preservation: http://www.cryonics.org/ -- see also http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Cryonics Basic research
937.
by Eliezer 17y ago
What do you think you know that other market participants don't? You can't beat the stock market by buying companies that look like they'll do well. http://lesswrong.com/lw/yv/markets_are_antiinductive/
938.
by Eliezer 17y ago
I hope it's not too much of a plug, but: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences And in this particular case: http://lesswrong.com/lw/hz/correspondence_bias/
939.
by Eliezer 17y ago
Downvoted for saying you expect a rain of downvotes.
940.
by Eliezer 17y ago
> Eugenics was and still is part of the agreed-upon scientific consensus. WTF? Eugenics is a policy proposal , not a fact. How could it possibly be part of the scientific consensus?
941.
by Eliezer 17y ago
> Cutting back to be under 250k would probably make more sense than making 255k and paying a lot more What kind of job do you have that makes >$250K and doesn't require you to understand how income taxes work? I'm skeptical.
942.
by Eliezer 17y ago
http://lesswrong.com/lw/r6/an_intuitive_explanation_of_quant... "There's a widespread belief that quantum mechanics is supposed to be confusing. This is not a good frame of mind for either a teacher or a student. Complicated math can be
943.
by Eliezer 17y ago
Of course, this probably doesn't reflect market value directly destroyed, so much as the market reacting to the new information about Amazon's sanity. S&P 500 up 1.43% for the day, and AMZN was down another 4% on top of that earlier in
944.
Verdict is In: Amazon drops 5.3%, wiping out $2.9B of market cap(google.com)
2 points by Eliezer 17y ago|1 comments
945.
by Eliezer 17y ago
http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth
946.
by Eliezer 17y ago
Not to mention, does "outperform" mean "higher earnings over time relative to stock price" or does it mean "stock prices higher relative to earnings"? The latter would seem to be what is predicted, and that's hardly "outperformance".
947.
by Eliezer 17y ago
er, maybe check the larger Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano
948.
by Eliezer 17y ago
Another brilliant idea that makes you cry with the impossibility of anyone ever doing it.
949.
by Eliezer 17y ago
> However, the Royal Navy argued that its officers could be trusted and: "It would be invidious to suggest... that senior Service officers may, in difficult circumstances, act in defiance of their clear orders." Even by the standards of
950.
by Eliezer 17y ago
It's sad that things have changed so little in 10 years.
951.
by Eliezer 17y ago
If I understand correctly, the "fastest program f" is the one which M not only proves to solve the problem, but also proves to solve more quickly than any other provable time bound. That is, it's not so much "fastest program f" as "program
952.
by Eliezer 17y ago
A similarly misleading statement in the abstract: "the most efficient program computing some function f is also among the shortest programs provably computing f." If this were actually true, it would reveal an extremely deep principle abou
953.
by Eliezer 17y ago
I've spoken briefly to Hutter about this, but the description is simply not correct. Though you'd have to read the paper to notice; Hutter makes the same mistake. It is an algorithm that solves with the same limiting O(n) behavior as the f
954.
by Eliezer 17y ago
He's certainly not worth trying to sue. But he's worth reporting to his school, publicly nailing to the wall, and the resulting story posted on one's website to discourage anyone thinking of ripping off future apps, if that can be done. R
955.
by Eliezer 17y ago
I prefer to conduct my business dealings with non-nitwits.
956.
by Eliezer 17y ago
http://lesswrong.com/lw/yv/markets_are_antiinductive/
957.
by Eliezer 17y ago
I always walk away from "request price" sites. Somewhere online is a site that respects my time enough to tell me what they charge without demanding my personal info, and I'll search a bit and find there instead.
958.
by Eliezer 17y ago
Look, I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you, but if you have difficulty with any programming concept, you must not be a supergenius. You're just an ordinary genius at best. I'm sorry. Life isn't always fair. Of course, I say this
959.
by Eliezer 17y ago
"Life on Mars", but the "this year" part means that the bet should settle soon, which makes it a good thing to bet on.
960.
by Eliezer 17y ago
> I learned to never base your worldview on something so tenuous that a new discovery could topple it. What? I'd just call that "learning from evidence". I believe plenty of things that a new discovery could topple and there's nothing

More ›