|
I thought the Harry Potter world gold coins were hubcap sized or something. Maybe Krugerrands at the smallest? Making them ludicrously heavy, but also screwing with the Fermi estimation. Gold is HEAVY, a Krugerrand is 33g. Off by a factor of 6 from 5g, so still almost close enough for Fermi estimation I guess. Still 20 Krugerrands is a good pound and a half of gold, a good bit more than a tenth of a kilo. I guess Krugerrands are the only real gold coins much minted now, but even old gold guineas or sovereigns were closer to 10g than 5g. Regardless, a purse of a thousand gallons for the triwizard tournament prize will weigh quite a bit. Moreover what sort of Brit uses kilos for weights? The fight against metrication was still alive and well in '97. Bloody quitters.
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 06:21 |
|
|
Wouldn't it be better for everyone involved if he just died?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuup. Basically. Now I'm morbidly curious to see how Hermione is characterized. I can anyone be a bigger insufferable knowitall than Harry? JWKS:The Artimis Fowl series is more or less is what you asked for. Assuming you want YA Fiction. Pretty much any evil child overlord will be YA Fiction anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Velius posted:You guys are spewing a hell of a lot of vitriol at a guy who appears guilty of, at worst, self promotion in conjunction with some relatively innocuous philosophy. If his worst transgression is writing some mediocre fanfiction filled with very-implausible-for-an-11-year-old-especially-in-conversation infodumps of (his?) ideas, which has an active fanbase, is that really worth the amount of personal attacks being leveled? I don't know how you can read that OKCupid profile and not laugh. I don't care what else the author may have written, that is an amazing/terrifying profile. This is still somethingawful.com, right?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Bendigeidfran posted:Well most of his levels must have been in Fighter then, since he did beat You're over-thinking it. When you're writing a author insert worldview exposition livejournal you go for the biggest potential audience possible. And if that means piggybacking on the most popular book series of all time, so be it. The other thing to remember, as you embark on spewing out multiple copies of War and Peace, is that you don't want to try to blandly appeal to everyone. You just need some small, small subset of readers to become Atlas-Shrugged-evangelist levels of fanatically devoted to your philosophy. So take chances, espouse controversial ideas, kill characters, reinterpret major plot points. And throw in as many callouts and meta-references as you can. Someone will think its brilliant! The rest of the plebs just don't get your genius and will give up on reading a few hundred pages in. Ignore them, they don't bother to write reviews anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
fanfiction.net posted:Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality LotR: Words: 455,125 Atlas Shrugged: Words: 561,996 War and Peace: Words: 587,287 All seven Harry Potter books: 1,084,170 Words i81icu812 fucked around with this message at 09:42 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 09:37
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:This is why I told JWKS that this was a bad idea. Even if this poo poo was good, it's long as gently caress. Yeah. Feynman was a lot of fun to talk to and be around. And a brilliant, sociable, well-rounded guy in general. And also a huge rear end in a top hat. But a smart and entertaining one!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 00:21
|
|
big enough.
|
Double post
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Added Space posted:I remember thinking when I read this part that this guy must be fairly young. Anyone old enough can remember a time before ATMs were on every block and a lot of places didn't take checks. Back then you carried around cash for most of your transactions, and for precisely that reason you always made sure to carry at least some extra around with you. Carrying a hundred dollars in cash, if you could afford to, was routine for many people. So he's made McG stupid not to show some deep aspect of human nature, but because he's young. Given the photos though I'm not sure, how old is this guy? This chest is more expensive than all of Harry's actual school supplies combined. A wand is 7 Galleons, a textbook 9 Galleons. Harry buys a wand, 8 textbooks, and spends maybe another handful of Galleons for clothes and a cauldron. That just about covers his school stuff and is generously around 100 Galleons. This whole passage has been "Harry can't budget and is spoiled" rather than McGonagall doesn't understand human nature and estimation. Harry took out 150% more money than he needed for school supplies but spent it all on nonessential stuff! Additionally, those withdrawn 250 Galleons (plus the 30 he stole) weigh some 20 pounds. I'm surprised his pockets haven't given out. Wizard money is handled terribly in general. Prices from the books per http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizworld/money.html cursed opal necklace at Borgin and Burkes (HBP6) .....1500 Galleons prize for winning the Triwizard Tournament (GF12) .....1000 Galleons prize from Daily Prophet drawing (PA1) .....700 Galleons amount Fred and George bet (their whole savings) (GF7) .....37 Galleons, 15 Sickles, 3 Knuts unicorn horn (PS5) .....21 Galleons human skull from Borgin and Burkes (HBP6) .....16 Galleons twelve-week course of Apparition Lessons from a Ministry of Magic Apparition Instructor (HBP17) .....12 Galleons amount Hermione had set aside to buy herself a birthday present (PA4) .....10 Galleons Omnioculars (GF7) .....10 Galleons a new copy of Advanced Potion-Making from Flourish and Blotts (HBP9) .....9 Galleons new wand from Ollivanders (PS5) .....7 Galleons pile of candy from the cart on the Hogwarts Express .....11 Sickles, 7 Knuts fare on the Knight Bus from Little Whinging to London (PA3) .....11 Sickles
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Who the hell wants to be called 'Mr Anything' by other eleven-year-olds to attract less attention? Also that is not a schema. Good news, the fanfiction is officially complete. Clocks in at 661,619 words. Only 640,000 more words to go. Plus or minus a few thousand. Hope you weren't planning on doing anything else for the next few years JWKS!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:21,000 words in 23 days, that's about 913 words a day. So literally seven hundred more days, at this rate. No, I disagree. Word by word is the only way for us to fully appreciate this work. For a while JWKS was actually losing ground and Yud was writing faster than JWKS was reviewing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
This is not the part that was edited. So something was even worse and got edited out! Someone needs to post the unedited bits. Also, author notes are here: https://www.evernote.com/pub/adelenedawner/Eliezer#st=p&n=2c67f08c-97ca-4a3c-9df5-395e3e46f326 starting from chapter 17, unfortunately. JWKS should read those too!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:We haven't actually seen the edited part yet, which incidentally was edited for completely different reasons. Yep! Something to look forward to! i81icu812 fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Mar 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
Just checking, but this is still the comedy forum somethingawful.com, right? A website founded on mocking the worst the internet has to offer?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, I've been reluctantly reading along because I feel like I need to keep an eye on the big threads in this forum, got to that post, my skin tried to crawl into my eyeballs, but then I went "well, this is Something Awful after all." Mocking the horrible is part of the mission statement. I don't know what else there is to do with this fic other than mock. Detailed literary criticism seems like a waste of effort for 660,000 words. The writing is bad. Show don't tell is ignored. Characterization is inconsistent. Tone shifts are bizarre and whiplash inducing. Is this supposed to be a children's book with fallible eleven-year-old protagonist or a philosophical paean to Bayesianism? The story is explicitly a didactic, pedagogical, rationalist tale, showing the reader how rationalists should think. Per intro: "This is a rationalist story; its mysteries are solvable, and meant to be solved" and "All science mentioned is real science". But the science presented isn't all correct! (Legacyspy, a less linguistically nitpicky criticism of the pouch passage is that it isn't a demonstration of natural language processing! Everything could have been done with a lookup table by a CS101 student.) The pedagogy is blatant and assaults (or insults) the reader with tons of jargon and belabored explanations of reciprocation theory and the like alongside self-congratulatory observations of how clever other characters are. Show don't tell! The other thread of the fic introduced in the very beginning--'Harry applies the scientific method to the wizarding world'--is not explored well. The only experimentation so far has been with the pouch. But it stopped after one paragraph and didn't ever go beyond what a lookup table debugger would have done. The wizarding economy is dumb sure, but explore that! Why can't you just transfigure stuff to gold/silver/bronze and melt THAT down? Why can't you just conjure anything you want? 'Wizards are stupider than Harry and ignore muggles' is a pretty uninspired point to make. We're a good novella worth of words into the story and there isn't much science being explored. Perhaps comed-tea will change this? i81icu812 fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Mar 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Ahhh Real Zombies! posted:The first 17 chapters of this are for sale on Amazon. $7 and weirdly no kindle version. Although you'd think he'd add the rest of the story, but maybe he's going to charge seven bucks for chucks of chapters. How has that listing been up for almost a year? 300,000 amazon sales rank for a book is actually quite a few sales. No ISBN so it probably is vanity press. The lone 'new' bookseller has 15 copies for sale but is otherwise a normal amazon seller account selling almost exclusively books. 1,000 seller feedback/year translates to ~30,000 sales/year --a respectable amount of business. Almost definitely not an amazon seller account that Yud personally runs, way more profitable than his AI foundation. I wonder who created the listing and actually printed the books. With the shipping credit the seller only gets $8.02 minus shipping fees. Seems like a lot of work for a few bucks. EDIT And to state the obvious, this is a clear copyright violation without consent of J.K. Rowling. i81icu812 fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Mar 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
JosephWongKS posted:
Secrets are secrets for a reason. Also moving large rocks from point A to point B. To build things like pyramids or Machu Pichu or stonehenge or what have you. And Greek Fire and Damascus steel Moreover, scientists aren't Renaissance ubermensch polymaths. Modern scientists typically make breakthroughs in their particular field after years of study and are by-and-large ignorant of other fields. You can't reasonably compare a 'scientist' from a century ago to someone today. Comparing Planck or Einstein's knowledge of physics to Brenner or Bray's expertise in biology is comparing apples and oranges. Physicists from a century ago have a deeper understanding of physics than Nobel wining biologists, shock and surprise. Would anyone argue that Bohr or Einstein's 'powers' are nothing compared to 2014 Nobel laureate Shuji Nakamura? Creating practical blue LEDs is a great advance, surely. But we aren't all that much closer to unified field theory since Einstein worked on it, and Nakamura et al are too busy making money and chasing their own projects to care to push boundaries in theoretical physics. The romantic Da Vinci ideal of the lone autodidact polymath genius is merely a Hollywood construct. A popular and enduring one, but a construct and not reflective of reality. This sort of thing is simply not how science advances. Which is too bad for Yud, who plays up his 'self-taught, dropped out of school at 12 genius' aspect as much as possible. And tries to convince people reading the handful of blog posts he writes and calls a Sequence will make them an expert in a field. And that sort of thinking IS damaging.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
JosephWongKS posted:Chapter 7 – Reciprocation Because Harry has the script. Obviously. Doubtlessly this will be a future plot point.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
Remember, Harry has only known about the existence of magic for a week and only knows about Lucius from accosting some bystander at Madam Malkin's robe shop while everyone else was incapacitated with laughter over the Harry and Draco comedy routine. The letter from Lucius reveals the bystander to be Snape. You don't remember this scene because it happened offscreen and we are only told it happened by Harry in passing. I would also point out that Yud stopped his formal education at age 12... so the homeschooling comparison is perhaps apropos. This dialog is pretty amazingly terrible. i81icu812 fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:What's the story there? Behold. Yudkowsky's autobiography, written in 2000. http://web.archive.org/web/20010205221413/http://sysopmind.com/eliezer.html Highly recommended reading, very entertaining. I note that Yud doesn't like people poking fun at his autobiography and doesn't understand fair use. Opening disclaimer is: quote:NOTE: I don't want people quoting sections of this page out of context, so, as copyright holder, I specifically deny permission to quote this page in whole or in part. If you want to reproduce so much as a sentence, then please just ask me. Likewise, please do not mirror or duplicate this page. Therefore I present the relevant quote to answer your question. Thank you modern US copyright laws. quote:At the end of seventh grade (14), when I was around eleven and a half, I suddenly lost the ability to handle school. I stopped doing my homework. Instead of going to classes, I would sit in the school office, crying, until my mother picked me up. I am told that I made it through eighth grade and graduation, but I remember little or nothing of it. I don't recall it as a period of intense misery, except when I was actually in the classrooms (15); I do recall it as a period when I spent a lot of time crying.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
A3th3r posted:I feel like the people who get a kick out of Eliezer Yudhowsky's academic antics would like Seth Godin. Well, aside from the fact that Godin has a Stanford MBA and is a successful entrepreneur. And his educaitonal background doesn't look like this: quote:In second grade, I was shocked to learn that my math teacher didn't know what a logarithm was. (Not to give you the wrong impression, at the time, I didn't know what an "exponent" was. My parents called them logarithms, so that's what they were.) I permanently lost all respect for my teachers, and for the entire institution of school, and started pleading to be taken out. My parents told me that I had to go to school, even if I wasn't learning, to learn how to interact with the other kids. I said that if that was the case, they should send me to a specialized institution for learning how to interact with other kids, because I certainly wasn't learning any social skills in school. (4). In retrospect, I would still have to say that I was right about this (5). EDIT Things directly from Yud's bio appearing in HPMoR: -Physicist father -Bit teacher -Screwed up sleep cycle -Homeschooled -Bitter about gifted children's math testing Recommend reading the bio, particularly section 4.6: What's it like to be you? in the strongest possible terms. http://web.archive.org/web/20010205221413/http://sysopmind.com/eliezer.html Opening paragraph: quote:I am sufficiently intelligent to have completely avoided most or all of the pitfalls of youth, and I've cleaned enough dirt out of my mind that the thought of living in a completely open telepathic society doesn't disturb me. And yet I still fall short of moral perfection, because I have far less mental energy than an ordinary human. i81icu812 fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
LowellDND posted:Weird, its like reading my mentality when I was 12. 'I'm smarter then you and I know it, but if it takes effort I don't want to show it.' Right. But that was him as a 21 year old, not a 12 year old. Incidentally the page was up for under a year before Yud had a fit after someone quoted it and took it down.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Well I was expecting something weird and arrogant based off everything else, but instead that's really sad. I dunno, I can recognize the pain there, but at a certain point you need to rise above and not be a complete poo poo like he is as an adult I think it definitely counts as weird. Sad yes. But definitely very weird. I'm sure some actual developmental psyc person could help make sense of it all, but it is a fascinating glimpse into the mind that wrote this. http://web.archive.org/web/20010205221413/http://sysopmind.com/eliezer.html#timeline_the RE raising smart children and reinforcement: Northwestern's Center for Talent Development, Hopkins's Center for Talented Youth, and other gifted and talented programs run testing programs to administer standardized tests to children typically around middle school when students can be sent off for summer programs. Ostensibly this is to identify smart children and offer them opportunities to attend advanced classes amongst their peers. Less charitable wags would note that the programs are primarily funded through tuition from the classes that it offers all students who take their screening tests and that enrollment has increased year-over-year for decades. IDK. Gifted education is kinda a mess. Regardless, the programs exist to tell people their kids are smart and should be around other smart kids. Let's see what taking the test (and some practice tests!) did to Yud: quote:I obtained a couple of SAT preparation books - one targeted specifically on Math, and one targeted on the whole SAT (Math and Verbal). I took a few practice tests from the Math book, and with each additional test, my scores went down. I got a 570, then a 530, then a 460 (9). "Huh?" I said to myself. I think, parentally this is where you try to talk about standardized test's poor behavior on bell curve edges and test repeatability/teachability and try to keep a kid grounded.... IDK. Gifted education is really a mess and Yud's childhood case is sadly not uncommon. Anecdotally, I took the SAT around the same time as Yud in a similar gifted screening/summer school salesmanship exercise. I'm pretty sure I scored about the same as Yud did. The top ~30ish scorers from my state got certificates and they all turned out more or less normal by the time high school graduation rolled around (small state, most ended up in the same 2 high schools). But for the grace of God... i81icu812 fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
Luna Was Here posted:If you are in the 99.9999th percentile of loving anything, you do not go on in life to write Harry potter fan fics and logical fallacies. gently caress,I know people who got 10s and 12s on the act and even they get the basic concept of prisoner dilemmas Tunicate posted:Also, like ten people at my middle school got perfect 1600s on the SAT. Admittedly, that's across sixth-through-eighth, but I strongly suspect Yud fell for a scam. Yeah, the old 1600 scale SATs are wonderfully teachable tests. Take a few dozen old tests, memorize a list of vocab words, and your scores will go up. SATs are really, really, lovely at differentiating the top end of the scale though. Too teachable and way too many people can max out the test for it to be very meaningful. And even if you are one in a million, there's 7,000 people smarter than you. But it's the perfect scam for the colleges running the gifted and talented summer school programs--all data are real and truthful and everything they tell the students is completely accurate social science! They administer actual SATs for that year in a special middle school students only session and simply add an informational paper to the results reported by College Board saying how your results scale to the study run years ago for other kids your age, confidence levels, error bars and everything. Add award ceremonies for high scorers and some cheap recognition certificates and suburban parents can't throw money at your summer school programs fast enough. Though perhaps I'm less than charitable, I'm sure some kids benefit tremendously from being around other smart kids and that it looks good on college applications. Legacyspy posted:position of ignorance And since Legacyspy is doing such a wonderful job of getting people to respond--like SolTerrasa and su3su2u1 I'm not mocking from a position of ignorance. I've actually coded simulations and built robotic systems using Bayesian networks/Markov chains. They work well for very specific tasks (classic example is training robots to walk) and are terrible inefficient for others. But an AI with some sort of agency? Yud is crazy, not in our lifetimes. The mock thread goes into far more detail if you want. Beside, I claimed a good score on a middle school SAT--the exact same credentials Yud has attained in his academic career. Clearly I am the most qualified person to mock him.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
SolTerrasa posted:
This was for an AI-generated poetry anthology right?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Oh good! Now you know how Yud feels all the time! http://web.archive.org/web/20010205221413/http://sysopmind.com/eliezer.html#timeline_the posted:There's a single emotional tone - an emotional tone is a modular component of the emotional symphonies we have English words for - common to sorrow, despair, and frustration. The tone is invoked by an effort failing to produce the expected reward ("frustration"), or by the anticipation of something going wrong ("despair"), or by watching something go wrong ("sorrow"). The message of this tone can be summarized as: "This isn't working. Stop what you're doing, try to figure out what you're doing wrong, and try something else." The cognitive methods activated by this tone (21) include what I would now call "causal analysis", "combinatorial design", and "reflectivity". The motivational effect of the tone includes, of course, low mental energy. Are you smarter than everyone you know, but unable to force yourself to get stuff done? If so I have this great fanfic you should read! i81icu812 fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:I'd define it primarily as people who are actual contributors to his institute (financial ones), and who are members of the Less Wrong community. I have no idea if you're a member. You're pretty obviously a fan of the work, but that has no real bearing on if you self identify as a member of the community or of Yudkowsky or similar 'rationalist' orbits. My primary academic interest is in the fact that this fiction, and the Sequences, and many of his theories, have a cast very similar to a lot of Christian religious and apocalyptic dogma, despite their avowed atheism. I'm currently beginning to gather data and do reading on his work because of the fascinating parallels between the Cryonics stuff and the Christian resurrection of the Dead, the similarities between AI Go Foom and classic apocalypse, etc, because I have approval and support from my old advisers from my master's program that there might be a productive bit of work to be done on singularity and science fetish cults, and on the sort of cross pollination between commonplace religious ideas in the larger culture and the texture of what they end up believing. Would be very interested to read what you come up with. To that end, MIRI posts their annual 990 tax docs online! https://intelligence.org/transparency/ Despite what our friend Legacyspy says, Yud's cult is doing better than ever financially. $1.3M in contributions in 2013! Up from $600k in 2011 and $400k in 2009. They also sold the old singularity related webaddress to Kurzweil to avoid confusion for $300k, or something. Looking at the donor list, the vast majority of the money is contributions from a handful of silicon valley millionaires https://intelligence.org/topdonors/ Yud is the only person doing 'research', and has been paying himself about $88k/year since 2007. Hosting the Singularity Summit in 2006 was really the turning point for funding and recognition. Kurzweil's name and $350k of paypal guy Peter Thiel's money really got things going. Well, the number of donors doesn't look like it really increased but the handful of big donors started then. Thiel alone has donated over $1.6M so far. The top 10 donors donated $4.3M, roughly 80-90% of all donations in the last 5 years. This guy did a writeup but is a few years old http://lesswrong.com/lw/5il/siai_an_examination/ EDIT Back to the actual fanfic after the wonderful Legacyspy derail. Watson's 2-4-6 Task is an example of confirmation bias not positive bias. Confirmation bias is an accepted term in psychology and other sciences. Positive bias is a meaningless neologism Yud invented and propagated on LW and HPMoR. i81icu812 fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
JosephWongKS posted:I just Googled and it is indeed named "confirmation bias" and not "positive bias". Does Eliezer just call it by his own invented name, or does he also claim to have come up with the concept himself? What's his purpose for calling it by a different name? Yud coined a neologism! He even wrote a whole blog post about it. http://lesswrong.com/lw/iw/positive_bias_look_into_the_dark/ Actual distinction between confirmation bias and Yud's thinking? Who knows. Why does he do this? Who knows. Perhaps it makes him feel special? Per his autobiography, he also made up Algernic, Unrationalization, Countersphexist, and Singularitarianist. Plus neruohacking, his anime power of rewiring his brain (to avoid those unpleasant teenage emotions you see). He likes making up terms. See also AI go foom. i81icu812 fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
JosephWongKS posted:Those sound uncannily similar to Scientology or Mormonism jargon, or "New Age" beliefs in general. I can see where the cult leader comparisons are coming from. Ahem, the preferred LW term is phyg. No cults here, no sir.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
su3su2u1 posted:Umm no. Yud took a classic experiment designed around confirmation bias and decided that he wasn't going to call it confirmation bias, because reasons. Yeah. Pretty much. Yud likes doing this, look for it to continue! Moreover, the majority of people DON'T do what Hermione did and exclusively guess confirmatory sequences without ever changing their hypotheses. It is true that most sequences are confirmatory of the hypothesis being tested, it appears we are wired to think this way per classical confirmation bias. However, most people will change their hypothesis from one guess to another to narrow down the rule. Generally, roughly half of all guessed sequences are disconfirming examples of the hypothesis used for the previously guessed sequence. (e.g. Hypothesize even number: guess 4-6-8 -> Hypothesize odd numbers: guess 5-7-9 -> Hypothesize increasing numbers: guess 1-10-199 -> etc. All guesses confirmed the current hypothesis but disconfirmed the previous hypothesis as the hypothesis iteratively changed. It probably helps that the 2-4-6 protocol has the subject write down their hypothesis when they make a guess.) Most people still don't get the correct 2-4-6 rule, but Yud's Hermione does remarkably poorly. See: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...KkYuCvLa551olBg JWKS posted:A reasonably close-to-canon portrayal of Hermione so far. Can’t wait to see how she gets caricatured or straw-womanned in the service of showing off Eliezarry’s wit and wisdom. So here is example number 1. Hermione is lobotomized to illustrate i81icu812 fucked around with this message at 10:04 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
quote:"- and after we were done giving him all the sweets I'd bought, we were like, 'Let's give him some money! Ha ha ha! Have some Knuts, boy! Have a silver Sickle!' and dancing around him and laughing evilly and so on. I think there were some people in the crowd who wanted to interfere at first, but bystander apathy held them off at least until they saw what we were doing, and then I think they were all too confused to do anything. Finally he said in this tiny little whisper 'go away' so the three of us all screamed and ran off, shrieking something about the light burning us. Hopefully he won't be as scared of being bullied in the future. That's called desensitisation therapy, by the way." No. No it is not. Desensitization therapy is about training a practiced relaxation response in to the phobic stimulus and gradually increasing the stimulus hierarchy. The point of the therapy is to train a non-panic response to whatever the phobia is. Scaring the crap out of someone isn't useful if they aren't trying to control themselves and train another reaction. The most charitable you could be is to call this a sort of attempted classical conditioning. But really this is just bullying, whatever any consequentialist may want to call it. Also it is usually spelled with a 'z' in the US. I guess this is the UK localization? Bystander apathy and consequentialism are correctly used, so 2/4 on correct terminology for this chapter so far. 3/5 if you count naming quark flavors, though I have to say I haven't seen truth and beauty over top and bottom in years. i81icu812 fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:I think Yud is referring to flooding, but who the hell knows with Yud. Nah, the idea behind flooding is to keep going with the phobic stimulus till the patient's panic/adrenaline reaction has run its course and they are too tired to continue to respond. Theory being if you sit around not reacting to clowns or whatever because you're too tired to move for long enough you'll realize the phobia is irrational and clowns are actually harmless. Also does not work very well without patient consent. i81icu812 fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Aug 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
SolTerrasa posted:Almost all of Yudkowsky's good work is a popularization of Kahneman with the serial numbers filed off, so it wouldn't surprise me if that was true. With Yud there is a lot of 'serial numbers filed off'. But not just renaming stuff--there's a lot more. There's also using obscure terminology or spelling for the hell of it (Bayes's Theorem vs Bayes' Theorem, truth and beauty quarks vs top and bottom quarks). And then there's misusing technical terms with agreed definitions for something else entirely, like with desensitization therapy. And of course there's just plain wrong science (quantum Hamiltonian, faster than light signaling). So far the majority of the scientific or technical terms have been wrong in one way or another. i81icu812 fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Or ramen. Have to distinguish the oriental from the beef from the chicken i81icu812 fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Apr 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
su3su2u1 posted:I won't link to my full review again, but yes, I read the whole drat thing and I think there are probably less than 5 unambiguously correct technical references in the entire story. Out of several dozen. I'm bored. Let's count! Chapter 1 No science Chapter 2 Violated Conservation of Energy via cat transformation- No. Not necessarily violating conservation of energy. Could be a very heavy cat. Or the mass energy turned into some other non-mass energy that you can't see. Etc. Conservation of energy implied by form of quantum Hamiltonian - No. Non energy conserving Hamiltonians can be computed just fine. Rejecting [Conservation of energy] destroys unitarity - No. Non energy conserving Hamiltonians can still preserve unitarity. and then [rejecting unitarity] you get FTL signalling - No. Faster than light signaling has nothing to do with this, as far as I can tell. Chapter 3 Bystander effect- Yes and no. Defined and example of original study noted correctly. Application of bystander effect to nation states less than clear. Chapter 4 Seigniorage - Yes. Defined. Arbitrage - Yes. Defined with example Fermi calculation - Yes. Defined with example Chapter 5 Fundamental attribution error - Yes. Defined with example Chapter 6 Natural language understanding - No. Bag does not demonstrate natural language understanding. The planning fallacy - Yes and no. Defined correctly. Context example of McGonagall saying a first aid kit is unneeded is not actually an example of the planning fallacy, since no duration planning takes place. Bayes's Theorem - Bayes' Theorem is the usual spelling for historical reasons. Chapter 7 Naming schema - No. Not a schema. Reciprocation theory - Yes. Defined with example Chapter 8 Truth and beauty quarks - Top and bottom typically used Positive bias - No. Example given but bizarre and inaccurate rename of confirmation bias Bystander apathy - Yes. Previously defined in bystander effect discussion from Chapter 3. Desensitisation therapy No. Example of bullying with a conventionalist view given but totally wrong. UK spelling. Consequentialism - Yes defined and example given. Huh. Pretty much any technical term is either explicitly or implicitly defined, sometime both. If no definition is given it is probably misused, but even seeing a definition or example isn't a guarantee that it is correct. Yud does pretty terrible on physical sciences but has a much better record for the social sciences. i81icu812 fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Apr 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
NeoAnjou posted:Don't assume that anything spelt with an 's' is British English, and a 'z' American. Technically correct is the best kind of correct! Or I saw red on the firefox spellcheck and stopped thinking. >.> In the spirit of nit-picking I welcome any and all corrections/comments/miscellaneous persnicketiness. Besides, its what Yud wants: a list of all the errors without reading the 'sneer culture' at somethingawful or on su3su2u1's blog. Or the sane people on the internet everywhere. i81icu812 fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Apr 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
NeoAnjou posted:I *think* (not being of South East Asian extraction) that it's not acquired the same offensive nature in the UK. But it's not a commonly used word - it definitely has an archaic feel or the Victorian times and 'Orientalism', the art movement. Yeah, I think you've got it. British English Asian = from the Indian subcontinent, so you need some other word for people from the rest of Asia therefore Oriental. Americans decide Oriental (as an ethnic group) is offensive, Brits remain confused. The bigger question is why Yud thinks Wise Old Men should be stereotypically Oriental/East Asian and not Merlin-clones. petrol blue posted:
 on display.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
platedlizard posted:There's actually a number of species that can produce fertilize hybrids, my favorite being the cross that produced the Red Factor Canary Yep. Also the best known example, mules, have been known to be fertile on extremely rare occasions since antiquity. From commentary going all the way back to Herodotus, literally the very beginning of the Western history. i81icu812 fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 06:53
|
|
) Not only are they different species, they are also different genera. Still made fertile Nazi hybrid birds for the Reich!
|
petrol blue posted:Yudd was the kid who bit the second grade teacher for not knowing what logarithms were. Fixed that for you! In other news, the illegal amazon listing of the first 17 chapters of this book has sold 3 copies in the last 20 days, for gross sales of some $24 minus shipping fees and printing costs. I really wonder who the hell is bothering with that. Selling all of their remaining copies may be a whole $20 of profit. http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00E640ZAG i81icu812 fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Apr 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 06:21 |
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:I wouldn't call it a core tension, exactly, since the decision's made in the first book and only referenced once afterwards. A lot of people seem to dismiss Slytherin as "the bad guy house" and forget that it's also the house that the main character was equally qualified to join, personality-wise. Well, it is a point that Rowling references multiple times in subsequent books
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 05:12
|
|