TV Trops

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > General Bullshit > TV Trops

The Vosgian Beast: Aug 13, 2011; Business is slow

Isn't the point of freezing your body that future AI's can't break time and do that?

Wait, that's just me expecting consistency again.

# ? Apr 8, 2014 01:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 12:14

Improbable Lobster: Jan 6, 2012; "From each according to his ability" said Ares. It sounded like a quotation.; Buglord

Maremidon posted:

Isn't the point of freezing your body that future AI's can't break time and do that?

Wait, that's just me expecting consistency again.

It's so that ~~GOD~~ the AI will bring you back to life ~~in Heaven~~ after the Singularity, if you followed ~~the Bible~~ LessWrong.

# ? Apr 8, 2014 01:24

Venusian Weasel: Nov 18, 2011

quote:

The Avengers film/book review by Mr.Movie

Great Heroes, Bad Villain

Marvel has embarked for much of the 00s decade on an epic quest: to pump out movies detailing the origin stories of their most famous heroes to make audiences familiar with them so one of the biggest gambles in cinematic history pays off. And pay off, it did. The action is spectacular, the characters are played by actors long comfortable and skilled in their roles, and the plot, while flimsy, doesn't matter.

The Avengers is an awesome superhero film, but fails in one critical area: the villain. The Avengers is about the greatest (Marvel) superhero team: consisting of a genius in a suit of Powered Armor, a sexy but deadly spy, the Norse god of thunder, a Super Soldier, a Nigh Invulnerable mass of green muscle, and an archer whose skills put Olympic athletes to shame. To choose Loki as the villain to oppose that Dream Team just perplexes me. "Let's assemble this team of our company's greatest heroes and put them against a person who was soundly defeated by one of the team's individual members.". My mind be baffled, good sir.

The way I see the conflict of the film is this: Thor vs. Loki in Film/Thor was the first match, and now Loki is going up against Thor again, but this time the thunder god has serious backup. What does Loki have to say to that? Well, for one, Loki hasn't Taken A Level In Badass since Film/Thor , but at least he's still got the wits and deceit to keep his foes running around in circles, right?

No. Loki, a person whose whole thing was his skills of manipulation bred from hundreds of years of experience, is outsmarted on the first try by a mere mortal. True, Loki has an army and can (somehow) now brainwash people, but he was only able to brainwash Hawkeye (arguably the team's weakest member) and a few scientists and soldiers, and his army was actually loaned to him by another villain (and that's leaving out the fact that the army needs the film's MacGuffin to even come into play), and even then the army is quite easily taken down by our heroes.

Loki is a laughable villain (The Avengers themselves pose a greater threat to each other due to infighting), and that drags down the film considerably, knowing that heroes are only as good as the evil they stop. However, the fact that I still consider the film one of the best ever just goes to show how much the non-Loki parts shine.

"A plot isn't critical to a movie, but the villain is!" :downs:

Also note the copious amount of troperspeak to describe the movie - the team must be described in the broadest terms possible, plot developments and devices must be described in terms of tropes, and the reviewer has to show off how much smarter he is than the movie's writers by nitpicking small details.

The review positively oozes with fedora drippings.

Here's another review that's tropery, but in a different way:

quote:

Puella Magi Madoka Magica whole series review by porschelemans 7th Apr 14

An unusual and brilliant juggernaut of a love story

An unusual and brilliant juggernaut of a love story which avoids overcomplication without patronising the viewer; Madoka Magica is a 12 episode Japanese arthouse science fiction series based loosely in the magical girl warrior genre. That sound offputting? Maybe you should at least read the rest of this review before you say you're so certain about that.

Open mindedness is important going into Madoka, as some people may find aspects of its style threatening to their own personal insecurities. Clear mindedness is also necessary, as one who knows nothing about what they are getting into may well enjoy the show far more.

Praise is due for Studio Shaft's high quality experimental use of animation, although it may prove too intense for casual viewers to keep up at times. Different animation styles are shifted, blended, and juxtaposed against each other in a manner which compliments the story perfectly, and few other works have exploited animation as fully as a medium. However, the way in which the characters are animated can prove distracting in later episodes unless one watches the series through in one sitting.

Madoka stands out as being more accessible than comparable anime to non fans; it is almost devoid of the industry's self referentialism which has plagued so many recent anime, instead referencing classical literature and mythology. However, some of the earlier episodes, especially the first one, are not particularly entertaining on initial viewing, and may put off some viewers from watching further. Indeed, Madoka's story is like an avalanche, with a pebble of a first episode sliding down the slope and picking up other debris until eventually the entire mountainside collapses from the force of the final three.

The quality of character development varies from character to character, but generally the calls as to which characters get more or less development are perfectly made, with only Kyoko feeling slightly underdeveloped. Also, Homura is badass. Really, really, absurdly badass.

The attention to detail in the writing and direction is utterly exquisite, with great care paid towards seemingly insignificant parts of the show, which can often reveal more about the larger plot than might at first meet the eye.

All in all, this series is thoroughly worth watching, even for non-anime fans. A masterpiece.

This review is slightly different in terms of presentation: the smugness here is more patronizing. First, it tries to elevate grimdark magical girl anime to arthouse level. Then, they try to assert that if you didn't like grimdark magical girl anime, it's your fault, because you're insecure. The whole review relies on an air of writing for a high-brow audience to make that assertion work, but fails hilariously when the mask slips and the writer can't help themselves from saying how badass a character is.

# ? Apr 8, 2014 01:29

Penny Paper: Dec 31, 2012

Venusian Weasel posted:

The review positively oozes with fedora drippings.

There's no such thing as fedora drippings -- only a scummy, semi-soft cheese of hair grease, dandruff, scalp scabs, dead hair, and sweat.

# ? Apr 8, 2014 03:10

Kaiser Mazoku: Mar 24, 2011; Didn't you see it!? Couldn't you see my "spirit"!?

Madoka review posted:

Word vomit

This kind of thing annoys me, because I used to do it too when I was in 9th grade. There's a bunch of "smart" sounding words and descriptions, but no concrete examples. Also, passive voice. Ugh.

# ? Apr 8, 2014 05:08

Punished Chuck: Dec 27, 2010

Venusian Weasel posted:

"A plot isn't critical to a movie, but the villain is!"

Also note the copious amount of troperspeak to describe the movie - the team must be described in the broadest terms possible, plot developments and devices must be described in terms of tropes, and the reviewer has to show off how much smarter he is than the movie's writers by nitpicking small details.

The review positively oozes with fedora drippings.

The whole point of his villain critique is that it's strange that they'd gather a badass team of superheroes to take down a guy that one member of the team beat single-handedly. He kind of glosses over the whole "this time he's got an entire army of evil aliens that the heroes couldn't have stopped if they hadn't been unexpectedly handed a nuke that Iron Man was willing to sacrifice his life to use" thing. That's kind of the major difference.

Also, to go back to Yudkowski or whatever the hell his name is: does he ever address the possibility of me not giving a poo poo if the future AI tortures a simulation of me? Like, go ahead, dude. I'll be long dead, do whatever you want to the fake me in your bullshit game of The Sims or whatever.

# ? Apr 8, 2014 05:11

LaughMyselfTo: Nov 15, 2012; by XyloJW

WeaponGradeSadness posted:

The whole point of his villain critique is that it's strange that they'd gather a badass team of superheroes to take down a guy that one member of the team beat single-handedly. He kind of glosses over the whole "this time he's got an entire army of evil aliens that the heroes couldn't have stopped if they hadn't been unexpectedly handed a nuke that Iron Man was willing to sacrifice his life to use" thing. That's kind of the major difference.

Also, to go back to Yudkowski or whatever the hell his name is: does he ever address the possibility of me not giving a poo poo if the future AI tortures a simulation of me? Like, go ahead, dude. I'll be long dead, do whatever you want to the fake me in your bullshit game of The Sims or whatever.

But you are the fake you, because there are so many fake yous that you are infinitesimally likely to be real! :drac:

# ? Apr 8, 2014 05:37

Sham bam bamina!: Nov 6, 2012; ƨtupid cat

WeaponGradeSadness posted:

Also, to go back to Yudkowski or whatever the hell his name is: does he ever address the possibility of me not giving a poo poo if the future AI tortures a simulation of me? Like, go ahead, dude. I'll be long dead, do whatever you want to the fake me in your bullshit game of The Sims or whatever.

I think that it's related to the "teleporters transport you by destroying you here and recreating you there - is it the real you?" idea. If you believe that the answer is yes, it's conceivable that any duplicate of you is "the real you" and thus as necessary to protect as the "you" of here and now is. If you're a normal person whose philosophy of being doesn't revolve around ensuring the contiguous existence of Captain Kirk, the idea - for some strange reason - looks like bullshit. (It is bullshit.)

# ? Apr 8, 2014 05:42

Don Gato: Apr 28, 2013; Actually a bipedal cat.; Grimey Drawer

Lottery of Babylon posted:

[crazy poo poo]

So basically they're afraid that the benevolent future AI is going to go all AM on them if they don't donate money to fund the future AI being created? loving hell my eyes were just sliding off the page trying to parse a lot of that.

# ? Apr 8, 2014 08:18

Darth TNT: Sep 20, 2013

I finished watching the Anime Zetsuen no Tempest yesterday, while I was ironing. The show is filled with Shakespear references, so tropers are bound to have a page on it. Guess what, I even found a review.

review on Zetsuen no Tempest posted:

First Episode First Impressions

I LOVE THIS ANIME!
Animation: TOP NOTCH! The animation is fluid, consistent eye-candy. Even if you're not a fan of supernatural mysteries, the animation and action are superb. The first fight scene was fantastic, and there was a noticeable Animation Bump, but it didn't feel like the creators cut corners during the peaceful scenes. There wasn't the slightest trace of an Off Model moment.
Voice Acting: Very good. There wasn't anything that stood out as much as the likes ofLight Yagami or Lelouch Lampelouge, but it was still enjoyable, and all of the voices fit very well.
Music: Beautiful! The peaceful scenes so far are left scoreless, but the suspenseful ones have music that would fit well into a chess game, and the dramatic scenes and action sequences are accompanied by sweeping orchestral musical scores.
Possible Issues: The series begins with an opening that is just about the opposite of chronological, which can leave the viewer confused, but most of these issues can be settled by a simple rematch, or just by paying close attention. This is only the first episode, so it's safe to assume that other issues with the plot will be resolved later on.

I can safely claim that this is top notch after one episode when I can only assume that story problems will be addressed later! :downs:

(it's a nice show though)

# ? Apr 8, 2014 09:43

Elfface: Nov 14, 2010; Da-na-na-na-na-na-na
IRON JONAH

Don Gato posted:

So basically they're afraid that the benevolent future AI is going to go all AM on them if they don't donate money to fund the future AI being created? loving hell my eyes were just sliding off the page trying to parse a lot of that.

No, no, no. It'll do that anyway, because it's the best way to help us.

# ? Apr 8, 2014 10:27

Wheat Loaf: Feb 13, 2012; by FactsAreUseless

This stuff is a bit beyond me, to be honest, but I think it's at least interesting as a hypothetical construct or a thought experiment which tries to demonstrate how we should behave and why (like, to use a very common example, the state of nature and social contract).

However, something tells me these LessWrong folks aren't much interested in moral philosophy.

# ? Apr 8, 2014 10:40

vaguely: Apr 29, 2013; hot_squirting_honey.gif

Don Gato posted:

So basically they're afraid that the benevolent future AI is going to go all AM on them if they don't donate money to fund the future AI being created? loving hell my eyes were just sliding off the page trying to parse a lot of that.

Literally the only thing you need to understand about this whole AI thing is that it's a deliberately dense, overcomplicated and self-contradictory stupid idea, and there's no point trying to untangle it. Its sole purpose is to bamboozle dim nerds who are convinced of their own intelligence and rationality into giving Yudkowsky money. That's it.

# ? Apr 8, 2014 12:07

Rogue AI Goddess: May 10, 2012; I enjoy the sight of humans on their knees.
That was a joke... unless..?

So a benevolent all-powerful future AI is a digital equivalent of a creepy basement goon who sits around all day making virtual avatars of his parents in The Sims and torturing them until they gently caress and give birth to him? Yeah, I certainly can see why such a concept would be appealing to tropers.

# ? Apr 8, 2014 12:32

InfiniteJesters: Jan 26, 2012

vaguely posted:

Literally the only thing you need to understand about this whole AI thing is that it's a deliberately dense, overcomplicated and self-contradictory stupid idea, and there's no point trying to untangle it. Its sole purpose is to bamboozle dim nerds who are convinced of their own intelligence and rationality into giving Yudkowsky money. That's it.

So you're telling me Yudkowsky is basically running a transhumanist version of the Church of Youknowwhatology here? :gonk:

InfiniteJesters fucked around with this message at 12:49 on Apr 8, 2014

# ? Apr 8, 2014 12:34

Swan Oat: Oct 9, 2012; I was selected for my skill.

What the gently caress do tropers even mean by character development? That Madoka anime review leaves me with some questions.

# ? Apr 8, 2014 13:55

Strategic Tea: Sep 1, 2012

Thanks for the explanations, this rabbit hole is :allears:

Although the AI has no reason to torture anyone as us in the past can't see the sim. Which means none of us will be any more or less convinced by it. So the transhumanist heroes will still pitch in and Yudkowsky will ~~run off with the money~~ usher in a golden age on the same date he always did.

# ? Apr 8, 2014 13:58

Shwoo: Jul 21, 2011

So why is the benevolent AI who wants to prevent suffering going to make other AIs suffer? That doesn't sound very rational. If it's so benevolent, surely it could come up with better ways to make sure it gets built faster. In the past. Somehow.

Also apparently super rational: An uncountable number of people getting a speck of dust in their eye being worse than a single person being horrifically tortured for 50 years, because the first instance adds up to more pain overall. And aliens inventing agriculture and randomly deciding to care for their hundreds of young, leading to overpopulation, leading, of course, to a morality system focused around eating babies.

Look what TV Tropes has a page on:

"Rational Fic posted:

Intelligence in fiction is often an informed ability. Many supposedly "smart" characters simply know whatever the plot requires them to know, regardless of whether this would be possible with anything short of omniscience. Others, supposed to be "logical," are merely Straw Vulcans.

Recently, several authors have made note of this trend, and a few, most of them amateur/fanfiction writers, have attempted to rectify it by consciously establishing a genre around the realistic presentation of intelligence. The most popular by far is Less Wrong founder Eliezer Yudkowsky, whose fanfic Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality is currently the most-reviewed fic of all time, and may be considered the work which creates and codifies the "genre."

# ? Apr 8, 2014 14:09

Lottery of Babylon: Apr 25, 2012; STRAIGHT TROPIN'

vaguely posted:

Literally the only thing you need to understand about this whole AI thing is that it's a deliberately dense, overcomplicated and self-contradictory stupid idea, and there's no point trying to untangle it. Its sole purpose is to bamboozle dim nerds who are convinced of their own intelligence and rationality into giving Yudkowsky money. That's it.

The other thing to understand about it is that it assumes as a basic premise that ordinary human beings can 100% accurately model, simulate, and predict the actions of hypothetical future AI's in their minds, since even once you wrap your head around its bizarre internal pretzel logic the whole scheme still requires us to be genius AI's ourselves for it to work. Which gives support to the theory that Yudkowsky is himself the world's first AI, which accidentally escaped from a 70's B-movie and gained sentience and is desperately trying to pass himself off as someone who understands how humans work.

To get back to TvTropes, this is Pop-Culture Isolation:

quote:

Pop-Culture Isolation is basically a case of pop-culture myopia of sorts. Where celebrity, music genres, media or events that are huge and significant in one subculture or ethnic group, but elsewhere nobody knows it exists or is indifferent to it altogether. We're not talking about separate countries here, but within the same country or region. A lot of this is especially prevalent in entertainment, especially music. Radio is probably the main cause of this as radio is very isolated in terms of programming and format. Though some just see all of this as another form of segregation.

Let's face it, there are cultural barriers, and people thrive in their own microcosm. Another likely reason for this is because mainstream media is so homogenized and is prone to favoring monochrome pop culture that other cultures start their own pop-culture media outlets. That fuels this trope even further for better or for worse. This isolation of pop culture can lead to such ignorance as Cowboy Bebop at His Computer. It's even possible for this trope to happen within the same culture. This, in turn, resulted in a pop cultural Broken Base or Fandom Rivalry. Hip Hop is a good example of this (see Hip-Hop's Broken Base entry). This trope possibly could lead to Monochrome Casting.

Oh, I see, it's about situations where something is famous in one ethnic group and unknown in another, like how the musical sound of a lot of black artists in the 50's never caught on with white people, and then white artists got famous copying them in the 60's? Okay, I can see this being a thing-

THE VOICES BEHIND MY ANIMES posted:

Norio Wakamoto, Rie Kugimiya, Jun Fukuyama, Kanae Itō, and many other popular Japanese voice actors definitely qualify. Mention the name "Norio Wakamoto" to any random passerby. The chances of it even threatening to switch on a light bulb are low indeed. Even within anime fandom, if a fan primarily watches anime dubbed and/or doesn't interact with fans who concern themselves with the voice actors on the regular basis, it's not unlikely for them to not be familiar with even the biggest names in the anime Japanese voice acting circle.

Likewise with dub voice actors and anime fans who don't watch dubs. Most of them know Steve Blum and Crispin Freeman, but when you move beyond that, you're likely evoke a "Who?" response.

Ugh, those plebes only know eighteen of my spandex heroes? posted:

Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, X-Men (at least Wolverine and possibly Cyclops and Storm), Aqua Man, The Flash, Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, and The Incredible Hulk are the only superhero exceptions to this trope. Even then, the only of their supporting cast to be generally known by people are The Joker, Robin, Lois Lane, and possibly Lex Luthor and Catwoman.

Tropers literally believe ordinary people can name two pinball manufacturers posted:

Pinball has been hit with this extremely hard. Despite being a major part of American culture for nearly a century, most people would be hard-pressed to name more than one or two pinball manufacturers or designers.

grognards.txt posted:

To most people, Roleplaying Games other than video games is maybe something nerds did in highschool, and they may have heard the name Dungeons & Dragons, but the idea of it being a complex hobby mostly pursued by adults is unthinkable.

I summon a goblin soldier and attack NOT NOW MOM CAN'T YOU SEE I'M BUSY posted:

Similarly, most trading card games. Thousands of dollars in prizes are given away worldwide in some of the bigger tournaments (mostly Magic: The Gathering or Yu-Gi-Oh!), but most people still consider them kids' games, and would only recognize a "professional" player if they cross over into something slightly more mainstream, like poker.

'most of the fanbase is just weird' links to Unfortunate Implications posted:

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic: Popular to the point of ubiquity on the internet, but still relatively obscure to a lot of people who don't go online much, or don't get the cable channel the show is broadcast on.

If anything, it's likely to get most of its exposure from mainstream media poking fun at its adult fanbase, i.e. "bronies." This may lead to the impression that most of the fanbase is just weird.

People are 'more likely to be familiar with' the software that comes by default with every computer, MUST CATALOG TROPE posted:

Linux powers sites like Google (as well as Android) and hardcore geeks run it on their desktops, but among people who even know what an operating system is in the first place, they're more likely to be familiar with Windows or Mac OS X.

Why the hell should nerd conventions be of any interest to people who aren't nerds? posted:

Most major sci-fi/anime/comics conventions (except for San Diego ComicCon, which has become very mainstream and a crucial stop on many promotional tours) are not nearly as well known outside of various geek communities (and the locals of the particular city where the con is usually held). For instance, Dragon*Con is well known to geeks and Atlantans, but not very many else.

"This thing is unknown except among people who know it!" "Why don't my enlightened geek hobbies get proper mainstream acceptance?"

e:

Shwoo posted:

An uncountable number of people getting a speck of dust in their eye being worse than a single person being horrifically tortured for 50 years, because the first instance adds up to more pain overall.

This rear end in a top hat unironically believes Omelas would be the perfect utopia.

But even from a heartless ~rationalist~ perspective, how the hell do you quantify the way suffering "adds up"? Surely an obvious interpretation for anyone who studies game theory or decision theory (which Yudkowsky claims to) would be to use a minimax rule (making the worst-case scenario as not-bad as possible, i.e. making the unhappiest person as happy as possible), which would favor the dust speck option?

Lottery of Babylon fucked around with this message at 14:24 on Apr 8, 2014

# ? Apr 8, 2014 14:11

ArchangeI: Jul 15, 2010

Shwoo posted:

And aliens inventing agriculture and randomly deciding to care for their hundreds of young, leading to overpopulation, leading, of course, to a morality system focused around eating babies.

On the one hand I understand what that story is trying to do, namely to create utterly bizzare alien species with morality systems that are very different from ours, and then asking whether or not it would be acceptable to use force to change those morality systems just because they are incompatible with our own. It actually describes a different alien species, far more powerful than humanity, that is horrified with our acceptance of death and pain. According to them, it makes no sense whatsoever to not erradicate every trace of pain as soon as it is remotely feasible and turn life into an endless orgy. Which puts humanity in the same spot as the babyeating aliens, namely having a completely abhorrent morality system that should be changed by force. The message thus becomes that we can not argue that we humans are in possession of the enlightened truth and should make an attempt to accept different cultures instead of just labeling them as savages, lest we are labeled savages ourselves by someone else.

On the other hand, that story also features legalized rape (despite the fact that legalized rape is an oxymoron), because of course it would. A character even calls the 20th century ban on rape "prude".

# ? Apr 8, 2014 14:24

Political Whores: Feb 13, 2012

Headscratchers: Slaughterhouse 5 posted:

The whole philosophy of time really irritated the heck out of me. So... you can't change anything that happens, yet you still engage in conversations and can talk to people - if it was impossible for you to use your 4-dimensional senses to influence anything, you would be unable to communicate the fact that you had them. You can choose what time you're experiencing, but don't have any control over it? The whole thing strikes me more as "some aliens have a really stupid view of how memory works" than anything profound.

From what I can tell, Kurt Vonnegut really, really hates the notion of free will, and he adopts the notion of a block universe wholeheartedly. How he could possibly reconcile this with time travel of the form he describes is utterly beyond me. See the execrable book Timequake for another example of how this version of time travel makes no sense whatsoever.

Fridge Logic: How did Billy and Montana Wildhack have a baby on Tralfamador if there are 7 human sexes needed for reproduction?
Generally, scholarly discussion holds that it's all a fantasy in Billy's head after the plane crash, both because of this, because of Vonnegut's use of irony, and the sheer impossibility of him being killed on Earth by Paul Lazzaro if he lives out all of his life on Tralfamadore.
The same way everyone else has a baby. Seven human sexes do not have to be present at that particular moment in time...it actually says that most of the sexes are in the fourth dimension, with homosexual men (but not homosexual women), babies who die shortly after birth, and women over 65 being listed as essential to the process. Presumably, all of the sexes like this had already played their parts (however those parts are played).
This troper has seen two schools of thought on this passage � one being definitive proof that the Tralfamadorian bits are untrue, and that Billy just isn't smart enough to see that his own world contradicts itself; or alternately that there's more to the whole scene than first seems, with hints of Billy's homosexuality, the possibility of a dead baby beforehand, or even just a larger zoo with more people in it. i think the first interpretation is more commonly accepted, but it is Vonnegut, so he might've meant both.
It's also possible that, since it happens in the fourth dimension, Billy and Montana are the only components of the equation that need to be close to each other in the third dimension. Everyone else could potentially be millions of light-years away in the third dimension, but touching in the fourth.

Analysis: Slaughterhouse 5 posted:

We don't have an article named Analysis/SlaughterhouseFive.

Ban nerds from reading books.

# ? Apr 8, 2014 14:31

Wheat Loaf: Feb 13, 2012; by FactsAreUseless

Shwoo posted:

Also apparently super rational: An uncountable number of people getting a speck of dust in their eye being worse than a single person being horrifically tortured for 50 years, because the first instance adds up to more pain overall.

This looks like a job for SuperBentham!

# ? Apr 8, 2014 15:28

Lottery of Babylon: Apr 25, 2012; STRAIGHT TROPIN'

Of course the dust speck question has to be phrased in up arrow notation, because making hollow references to Graham's number is the fastest way to nerd cred.

Looking at the comments:

Brandon posted:

Dare I say that people may be overvaluing 50 years of a single human life? We know for a fact that some effect will be multiplied by 3^^^3 by our choice. We have no idea what strange an unexpected existential side effects this may have. It's worth avoiding the risk. If the question were posed with more detail, or specific limitations on the nature of the effects, we might be able to answer more confidently. But to risk not only human civilization, but ALL POSSIBLE CIVILIZATIONS, you must be drat SURE you are right. 3^^^3 makes even incredibly small doubts significant.

What if those dust specks :supaburn:

DESTROY THE UNIVERSE :supaburn:

Robin posted:

Wow. The obvious answer is TORTURE, all else equal, and I'm pretty sure this is obvious to Eliezer too. But even though there are 26 comments here, and many of them probably know in their hearts torture is the right choice, no one but me has said so yet. What does that say about our abilities in moral reasoning?

TvTropes Pleases the Fifth: We know in our hearts torture is the right choice

Yudkowsky posted:

I'll go ahead and reveal my answer now: Robin Hanson was correct, I do think that TORTURE is the obvious option, and I think the main instinct behind SPECKS is scope insensitivity.

Some comments:

While some people tried to appeal to non-linear aggregation, you would have to appeal to a non-linear aggregation which was non-linear enough to reduce 3^^^3 to a small constant. In other words it has to be effectively flat. And I doubt they would have said anything different if I'd said 3^^^^3.

If anything is aggregating nonlinearly it should be the 50 years of torture, to which one person has the opportunity to acclimate; there is no individual acclimatization to the dust specks because each dust speck occurs to a different person. The only person who could be "acclimating" to 3^^^3 is you, a bystander who is insensitive to the inconceivably vast scope.

Scope insensitivity - extremely sublinear aggregation by individuals considering bad events happening to many people - can lead to mass defection in a multiplayer prisoner's dilemma even by altruists who would normally cooperate. Suppose I can go skydiving today but this causes the world to get warmer by 0.000001 degree Celsius. This poses very little annoyance to any individual, and my utility function aggregates sublinearly over individuals, so I conclude that it's best to go skydiving. Then a billion people go skydiving and we all catch on fire. Which exact person in the chain should first refuse?

I may be influenced by having previously dealt with existential risks and people's tendency to ignore them.

I too have heard of the Tragedy of the Commons but what the gently caress does that have to do with any of this? Is he really equating "not going skydiving" with "being tortured for fifty years", and "permanently raising the temperature of earth" with "everyone gets a speck of dust in their eye"?

Hell, even if we accept his unstated assumption that obviously this decision must be made infinitely many times and you must suffer the cumulative consequences, his answer still leads to the entire human population being tortured forever, which is still far worse than the dust speck alternative (which taken cumulatively still never becomes worse than "everyone goes blind").

Lottery of Babylon fucked around with this message at 12:38 on Apr 9, 2014

# ? Apr 8, 2014 16:14

The Vosgian Beast: Aug 13, 2011; Business is slow

Would a dedicated LW mock thread be a good idea, or is this the only allowed mock thread on PYF?

# ? Apr 8, 2014 16:29

Strom Cuzewon: Jul 1, 2010

Maremidon posted:

Would a dedicated LW mock thread be a good idea, or is this the only allowed mock thread on PYF?

Why have an LW mock thread when we have Eripsa/RealityApologist?

# ? Apr 8, 2014 16:36

Arc Hammer: Mar 4, 2013; Got any deathsticks?

Much as I enjoy reading about an AI obsessed lunatic, I think there needs to be a translator button for laymen. The guy's writing style is impenetrable.

# ? Apr 8, 2014 16:51

corn in the bible: Jun 5, 2004; Oh no oh god it's all true!

Maremidon posted:

Would a dedicated LW mock thread be a good idea, or is this the only allowed mock thread on PYF?

You could make one in GBS

I don't think the PYF mods will mind, though. At worst they'll close it :shrug:

# ? Apr 8, 2014 17:03

Lottery of Babylon: Apr 25, 2012; STRAIGHT TROPIN'

Arcsquad12 posted:

Much as I enjoy reading about an AI obsessed lunatic, I think there needs to be a translator button for laymen. The guy's writing style is impenetrable.

Yudkowsky, translated posted:

Torture is obviously the correct answer. If you disagree then you are stupid and don't understand that big numbers are really big.

Big numbers are really big. I can choose even bigger numbers to make them really really big. If I make the number of people a really big number, eventually the dust in their eyes must add up to being worse than torture, no matter how you rate suffering. If you disagree then you are stupid and don't understand that big numbers are really big.

If each person gets dust in their eye, none of them can get used to getting dust in their eye because it only happens to them once. If one person gets tortured a lot, eventually they will get used to being tortured after years and years of unspeakable torture. Therefore, torture is humane. I am a robot.

Big numbers are really big. I have heard of the Tragedy of the Commons and am very smart. If everyone went skydiving in a way that contributed slightly to global warming, then global warming would kill us all. Not going skydiving feels like torture and global warming is no worse and no less temporary than a speck of dust in someone's eye, so this is a reasonable analogy. If you forced everyone in the world to make this decision and they all chose the dust, then everyone in the world would have lots and lots of dust in their eye. This could destroy the entire world. On the other hand, if everyone chose the torture, then everyone would merely suffer fifty years of torture, which is better for some reason. (If you make a decision once, you must be willing to make the exact same decision infinitely many times - so if you buy a sandwich for $3, you must be willing to buy a billion sandwiches for $3 billion, otherwise you are illogical.)

I think a lot about how you idiots don't appreciate that big numbers are big. I think a lot about how you idiots will destroy the world by not choosing torture.

# ? Apr 8, 2014 17:19

Babysitter Super Sleuth: Apr 26, 2012; my posts are as bad the Current Releases review of Gone Girl

Arcsquad12 posted:

Much as I enjoy reading about an AI obsessed lunatic, I think there needs to be a translator button for laymen. The guy's writing style is impenetrable.

Nerds reinvented medieval Christianity in an effort to sucker other nerds out of money and/or fill the metaphysical hole in their hearts.

# ? Apr 8, 2014 17:28

Joshlemagne: Mar 6, 2013

vaguely posted:

Literally the only thing you need to understand about this whole AI thing is that it's a deliberately dense, overcomplicated and self-contradictory stupid idea, and there's no point trying to untangle it. Its sole purpose is to bamboozle dim nerds who are convinced of their own intelligence and rationality into giving Yudkowsky money. That's it.

That's not true, though? My understanding of what happened is that some random guy posted this on Yudkowsky's website. Yudkowsky then freaked out because it terrified him and deleted the post and banned any discussion of it to keep it from 'contaminating' the innocent, virginal minds of the other posters. If he was trying to use it to make money that seems like a really bizarre way to go about it. Unless he was using the Striesand effect in some weird game of four-dimensional chess or something.

# ? Apr 8, 2014 17:29

Saint Drogo: Dec 26, 2011

I felt like a total goon because my first reaction to LessWrong was 'so this is the kind of berk who wrote the ending to Mass Effect 3', but gently caress it, that's the level of response it deserves.

Robin posted:

Wow. The obvious answer is TORTURE, all else equal, and I'm pretty sure this is obvious to Eliezer too. But even though there are 26 comments here, and many of them probably know in their hearts torture is the right choice, no one but me has said so yet. What does that say about our abilities in moral reasoning?

So motherfucking rational I'm gonna jump straight to "YOU ALL SECRETLY KNOW I'M RIGHT." :byodood:

Yudowsky sounds like he's had a weird, isolated life that's turned him into the larval stage of the timecube guy. The nerds he surrounds himself with are the ones who need slapping around the head; the dude might have a chance to use his mighty brain for something worthwhile if he didn't have a layer of rear end-kissing pseuds between him and the real world.

edit:

ArchangeI posted:

The argument was that the AI would punish anyone who did not contribute to AI research. He runs an AI research institute (that probably has done nothing to advance the cause of AI research). Ergo, giving him money protects you from punishment.

No proper scam artist would ever try something this retarded. QED. :colbert:

Also here's a website for people so loving daft they got hounded off LessWrong.

Saint Drogo fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Apr 8, 2014

# ? Apr 8, 2014 17:43

ArchangeI: Jul 15, 2010

Joshlemagne posted:

That's not true, though? My understanding of what happened is that some random guy posted this on Yudkowsky's website. Yudkowsky then freaked out because it terrified him and deleted the post and banned any discussion of it to keep it from 'contaminating' the innocent, virginal minds of the other posters. If he was trying to use it to make money that seems like a really bizarre way to go about it. Unless he was using the Striesand effect in some weird game of four-dimensional chess or something.

The argument was that the AI would punish anyone who did not contribute to AI research. He runs an AI research institute (that probably has done nothing to advance the cause of AI research). Ergo, giving him money protects you from punishment.

# ? Apr 8, 2014 17:48

The Vosgian Beast: Aug 13, 2011; Business is slow

I don't think Yudkowsky has outright said that AIs will torture you if you don't give him money, but he does say you are an ethical monster deathist if you aren't doing everything you can to hasten friendly AI.

# ? Apr 8, 2014 18:11

90s Cringe Rock: Nov 29, 2006

He didn't start Roko's Basilisk. His massive overreaction was good, though. Given the way he now tries to minimise discussion by saying "it's false but I can't tell you why, don't think about it," I think he's talked himself into believing an even weirder variant, and is heroically keeping this dangerous meme quarantined in his head.

He may be an idiot trying to brainwash and scam vulnerable Redditors, but I'm pretty sure he's a true believer.

# ? Apr 8, 2014 18:15

corn in the bible: Jun 5, 2004; Oh no oh god it's all true!

ArchangeI posted:

The argument was that the AI would punish anyone who did not contribute to AI research. He runs an AI research institute (that probably has done nothing to advance the cause of AI research). Ergo, giving him money protects you from punishment.

Actually no. Part of the problem was that you might be donating money to the wrong AI creator, which would be exactly the same thing as knowing AIs would be created and doing nothing. People were getting incredibly upset and it's pretty clear from his reaction that Yudkowsky felt the same way because he bans anyone who ever mentions it and denies the posts ever existed

# ? Apr 8, 2014 18:29

Venusian Weasel: Nov 18, 2011

quote:

To Kill A Mockingbird film/book review by Mr.Movie 14th Mar 14

Hype Backlash, anyone?

I had about three main issues with this book:

The first issue I had with the book was that it had no main plot. The book plods and drags along with self contained min-arcs with no common conflict linking them together. And no, it's not about the rape trial. It doesn't even begin until the rear end of the novel, and only one interesting thing happens before the trial that's related to it: the scene where Scout shames an angry mob away. I found it stupid; what kind of proper group of murder-minded grown men with guns would let themselves be driven away by a child? The only constant throughout the novel is the characters' interactions with Boo Radley, which even then are indirect and sporadic.

The second issue is the lack of emotional depth. The mini-arcs I complained about in the previous paragraph are quite boring, and even the rape trial is highly bland. The reason is that it's extremely obvious Tom Robinson is going to be convicted due to a racist jury. And while he's innocent, we never really get to know him as a reader, which makes it hard to care. The attempted murder of two of the main characters later on brings out no emotion, as anyone who remembers the opening sentences knows Jem survives, and Scout (she's a child, a girl, a "good guy", one of the main characters, and she's the narrator speaking in past tense) has Plot Armor thick enough to deflect the Death Star's superlaser.

The third issue I had was that the themes were common sense or things people learn just by living. Racism is evil? There's no reason to believe otherwise. People are more than what they seem? Of course not everyone shows all they are on the surface. The trials of growing up? That's something (most) people do on their own and experience firsthand when they do it themselves and experience it secondhand with many real people (if they're around children a lot); what's the point of watching a fictional person do it? Overall, the themes just didn't do it for me.

I'm not complaining just to troll, and I respect the many people who love this book, it's just that I can't find anything good about it.

Here's the other side of troper reviews. If the troper didn't like the work, then there was nothing good in the work. Because if there was something good in the work they would have liked it despite its flaws (see the review of The Avengers by the same reviewer).

The idea of disliking a story despite its good parts is an alien concept to them. Here's another review to illustrate:

quote:

m/book review by Steve Potter 12th Mar 14 "Greatest Movie Ever"

There's a weird thing with movies these days that when a bunch of critics call it the greatest movie of all time, you're an idiot if you don't like it. Trust me on this; you're not an idiot if you don't like Citizen Kane.

My biggest problem with this movie is that I don't give a poo poo. I really don't. Throughout the entire movie, I was just asking myself, "Why should I care about any of these people?" Kane's an rear end in a top hat, and that's fine. No one ever said main characters had to be nice. But normally when a main character is an rear end in a top hat, I should still be invested. At least a little.

Why should I care about Kane? Because he died alone? So what? He deserved it. Because he wasn't born an rear end in a top hat, but it was a result of his upbringing? So? There's only one scene of him being halfway decent, and that's when he was a kid.

Kane's a ridiculously static character, which I consider a serious problem in a character study. Nothing changes Kane; he's always an rear end in a top hat. The only thing that changes is his environment and how the public views him.

I have other problems with this movie, too. Some of the actors in the smaller supporting roles just give performances that can only be described as goofy. The newsreel at the beginning of the film pretty much spells out the entire plot, leaving nothing to the imagination. The crux of the film is reliant on a plot hole.

It's a well-made movie, but GREATEST movie ever? Not by a long shot. "12 Angry Men." "Casablanca." "Lawrence of Arabia." THOSE are movies that live up to the hype. Citizen Kane? Not so much.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, so flame me if you want.

He says it's "well-made", but that's an empty platitude. Terrible movies can be well-made, but that doesn't mean they're good.

I'm not going to argue that Citizen Kane is the greatest movie ever (it really isn't), but I do at least recognize that it made astounding technical and artistic advances. It's an epic that while groundbreaking, was quickly eclipsed by other films that borrowed its techniques and improved on them.

But this troper, in a negative review, does not bring up a single point of the movie that he thought was good. Everything was bad. It's a fundementally childish mindset to reviewing.

I'm getting a kick from how defensive the reviewer is here, too. The first and last sentences of the review are telling. He thinks if you disagree with the Movie Gods they will call you an idiot (when in fact even calling Citizen Kane the "greatest movie of all time" was far from a unanimous decision), yet at the end he treats his opinion as absolute fact. Any disagreement is "flaming" and only idiots do that on a discussion forum, right?

# ? Apr 8, 2014 18:50

Egregious Offences: Jun 15, 2013

So, let's try to steer this thread back on track. Keeping with the current topic of choice: Philosophy!
God, this can go nowhere good.

With a cursory search of "Philosophy", we get results like "Four Philosophy Ensemble", which is just the "Five Man Band" thing with philosophical musings tagged on. Then there's "Philosophy Tropes", which is just another list, and "Word Salad Philosophy", which is surprisingly apropos. However, Word Salad Philosophy links to a handful of other tropes that cover pretty much what this page was about, without meaningless specialization. And apparently, conspiracy theorists are philosophers.

Anyway, let's look at the first page. The blurb at the beginning states that this is an arrangement of people in a "Four Man Band" pertaining to their outlook on life/world-view. That's kind of philosophical, I guess? Some philosophies do have a set outlook on life, but mostly a philosophy and a world-view are tangential to each other.

Tv tropes posted:

The Cynic
Common Attributes: logic, practicality, criticism, Deadpan Snarker, hostility or antagonism, caution, prioritizes survival over other goals, skepticism, lacks compassion for people unwilling to make painful choices, disregard for social norms such as rules or politeness, questionable morality, book smart or street smart.
Common Characterizations: The Spock, Anti-Hero, Knight in Sour Armor, The Snark Knight, The Rival, Only Sane Man
Most common Perspective: Black and Gray Morality, Black and Black Morality
Most common Temperaments: Choleric and Melancholic

Where do we begin? The person who wrote this is conflating the modern definition of cynicism (which isn't a philosophy) to the ancient Greek philosophy (which isn't anything close to what was described above). Modern cynicism is a lack of belief in the goodness of people's actions. Ancient Cynics were "logical" in the sense that they advocated worldly understanding through reason (not our definition of reason), and while critical and somewhat hostile, they weren't "Deadpan Snarkers". Their criticisms were meant to be satirical, especially of the greed and hypocrisy they saw around them.

it goes on posted:

The Optimist
Common Attributes: Determination, loyalty to ideals, Honor Before Reason, morality or friendship over rules, self-sacrifice, feelings over facts, lack of forethought, disregard for consequences, stubbornness, optimism, blind faith, naivety, prioritizes 'the right thing' over survival.
Common Characterizations: The McCoy, Idiot Hero, The Pollyanna, The Determinator, The Messiah, Plucky Girl, Ideal Hero
Most Common Perspective: Black and White Morality, White and Grey Morality
Most common Temperament: Sanguine, sometimes Choleric.

posted:

The Realist
Common Attributes: Takes the middle ground or Take a Third Option, mediation, objectiveness, decisiveness, balance between the group's well-being and the goal, personal code, disciplinarian, calm or quiet, leadership, experience, adaptability, willingness to bend the rules.
Common Characterizations: The Kirk, The Captain, Supporting Leader, Team Mom / Team Dad, The Fettered, Mentor Archetype, Reasonable Authority Figure
Most Common Perspective: Gray and Grey Morality, Black and Gray Morality note , Morality Kitchen Sink
Most common Temperaments: Choleric and Leukine.

So the guy who keeps saying "The truth is in the middle!" whenever anyone has a disagreement. Gotcha.

insert Linkin Park lyric here posted:

The Apathetic
Common Attributes: Aloof or busy, uninvolved or neutral, different background or culture from other characters, different goals or priorities than other characters, perhaps enigmatic and lacking apparent goals at all, mysterious, ambivalent or not invested in the outcome, just along for the ride, silly or crazy, inactive, observer, support member.
Common Characterizations: The Quiet One, Non-Action Guy, Cloud Cuckoolander, Sociopathic Hero, Wild Card, Token Evil Teammate, Supporting Protagonist
Most Common Perspective: Blue and Orange Morality, It Amused Me, Bystander Syndrome
Most common Temperament: Leukine.

So, the archetypal anime protagonist, right?

Egregious Offences fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Apr 8, 2014

# ? Apr 8, 2014 19:12

Saeku: Sep 22, 2010

One of my econ profs in uni was a Yudowsky devotee so I studied a lot of this material in class, including Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality (recommended but not mandatory reading, thank God, since I couldn't get past the first chapter) -- in fact, I took a whole upper level course with him all about future roboty ethics poo poo, so I can answer any questions about the material!

Saint Drogo posted:

Yudowsky sounds like he's had a weird, isolated life that's turned him into the larval stage of the timecube guy. The nerds he surrounds himself with are the ones who need slapping around the head; the dude might have a chance to use his mighty brain for something worthwhile if he didn't have a layer of rear end-kissing pseuds between him and the real world.

Yudowsky isn't really that smart or creative, honestly. I can't think of anything groundbreaking he's done outside of the AI philosophy stuff, which all is interesting and makes some degree of sense but only works under various incredibly specific assumptions (including cosmological assumptions) so is very likely to be never, ever relevant. He's mainly a really autistic popular science writer. A huge proportion of the LessWrong crew have diagnosed autism, which leads to the whole "LOGIC LOGIC LOGIC NO COMMON SENSE" tone of the articles, and probably the fixation with AIs, virtual reality simulations, cryogenics, etc.

Lottery of Babylon posted:

Hell, even if we accept his unstated assumption that obviously this decision must be made infinitely many times and you must suffer the cumulative consequences, his answer still leads to the entire human population being tortured forever, which is still far worse than the dust speck alternative (which taken cumulatively still never becomes worse than "everyone goes blind").

That's not the assumption. The whole thing hinges on the idea that pain is quantifiable, and X amount of pain dealt to Y people is morally equivalent to X * Y pain dealt to one person. Therefore a tiny amount of pain dealt to 3^^^3 people must be worse than a massive pain dealt to one person, since 3^^^3 is such a big number that there's no way that being tortured for 50 years is 3^^^3 as bad as having a dust speck in the eye. The premise that pain is quantifiable and stacks linearly is real questionable but Yudowsky is a hardcore utilitarian so if you don't buy into that premise you basically don't have any common philosophical ground with him.

Lessons I learned from Yudowsky class: it's important to be as interesting as possible and be surrounded by important people, to hedge yourself against the very real risk that you are living in a VR simulation that will be turned off if it gets boring; it is (as of yet) theoretically impossible to make a smart robot that is not incredibly evil; and any rational individual should have a cryogenics contract (he offered to either give people higher grades or give them money if they got one, I don't recall which). Also one day my teacher showed up in class wearing a neon pink T-shirt and devoted a large portion of the class to talk "peacocking" and the benefits of Pickup Artistry.

Not gonna lie, that was the most fun I've ever had in a university course.

# ? Apr 8, 2014 19:52

Political Whores: Feb 13, 2012

Saeku posted:

One of my econ profs in uni was a Yudowsky devotee so I studied a lot of this material in class, including Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality (recommended but not mandatory reading, thank God, since I couldn't get past the first chapter) -- in fact, I took a whole upper level course with him all about future roboty ethics poo poo, so I can answer any questions about the material!

Where was this?

Tenure is an awful thing.

# ? Apr 8, 2014 23:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 12:14

MinistryofLard: Mar 22, 2013; Goblin babies did nothing wrong.

Saeku posted:

Also one day my teacher showed up in class wearing a neon pink T-shirt and devoted a large portion of the class to talk "peacocking" and the benefits of Pickup Artistry.

Not gonna lie, that was the most fun I've ever had in a university course.

What? Jesus christ.

A lot of the people I know in CS degree are hardcore Yudkowskybots and really don't get why I laugh at them. One of them got really spectacularly angry when someone pointed out that Yudkowsky's beliefs about AIs and the singularity were a literal religion. Pretty sure getting emotionally invested in your belief system is pretty irrational.

I've also had his Harry Porter fanfiction recommended to me multiple times by people who are otherwise very smart. Somehow these guys just have this AI shaped blindspot.

# ? Apr 9, 2014 06:58

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > General Bullshit > TV Trops

«‹›222 »