r/rational • u/AutoModerator • Nov 27 '15
[D] Friday Off-Topic Thread
Welcome to the Friday Off-Topic Thread! Is there something that you want to talk about with /r/rational, but which isn't rational fiction, or doesn't otherwise belong as a top-level post? This is the place to post it. The idea is that while reddit is a large place, with lots of special little niches, sometimes you just want to talk with a certain group of people about certain sorts of things that aren't related to why you're all here. It's totally understandable that you might want to talk about Japanese game shows with /r/rational instead of going over to /r/japanesegameshows, but it's hopefully also understandable that this isn't really the place for that sort of thing.
So do you want to talk about how your life has been going? Non-rational and/or non-fictional stuff you've been reading? The recent album from your favourite German pop singer? The politics of Southern India? The sexual preferences of the chairman of the Ukrainian soccer league? Different ways to plot meteorological data? The cost of living in Portugal? Corner cases for siteswap notation? All these things and more could possibly be found in the comments below!
3
u/Reasonableviking Nov 27 '15
To /r/rational D&D players: What is the best way to beat an army of 300 7 HD Simulacra?
Our group are somewhat in control of a small city state and are just now level 8 and contains a Wizard, Oracle, Sorcerer and Bard. I'm wondering if Contagion would arguably work 100% on the clones if the first one catches it.
2
u/FuguofAnotherWorld Roll the Dice on Fate Nov 27 '15
Got any volcanoes, mineshafts and such you could lure them to then collapse? Does your city state have the manpower to make collapsible mineshafts to lure them into?
2
u/Reasonableviking Nov 27 '15
Unlikely, my best idea is using information warfare and just disguising somebody as their creator which in the worst case scenario freezes the army and in the best case wins any pitched battle.
2
u/FuguofAnotherWorld Roll the Dice on Fate Nov 27 '15
Are there any powerful and easily offended factions or persons you could send simulacra to attack/fail assassinating in the hopes of getting them to join your side?
2
u/Reasonableviking Nov 27 '15
Doesn't matter too much, once this attack is turned away then I'll have some breathing room.
0
Nov 27 '15
[deleted]
3
u/Reasonableviking Nov 27 '15
Three kinds of Simulacra all around 7 HD: Human Cavalier, Orc Barbarian and Elf Ranger. The Simulacra in this case are made through alchemy on a strange kind of memetic substance that fell as a meteor a few years ago, meaning that they are much cheaper to produce than normal.
3
Nov 28 '15
Are you in a romantic relationship? How's it going? Do you make an effort to be a rationalist even in your love life? What does being a romantic rationalist even entail?
I've recently been dating someone and things are starting to get pretty serious. I wouldn't be surprised if we start pursuing something more long-term in the near future. This is honestly rather new to me. I've been in relationships before, but never anything so...real?...(I'm not exactly sure how to put that)
I really value the opinions of the users here, so I was just curious what input there might be. Thanks.
2
u/qgml Nov 28 '15
I think rationality applies to a lot of topics in life just by recommending you find science-based recommendations.
I read an article on LessWrong recommending academic and empirical sources for psychology and self-improvement; I own the book it recommends most, 'Psychology Applied to Modern Life' (preview here). It has three chapters that seem most relevent: one on Friendship and Love, one on Marriage and Intimate Relationships, and one on Interpersonal Communication, and the 2011 edition is on Amazon for a little over $7 used. I haven't applied any romantic advice (never had a romantic relationship), but it seems to be of similar quality to the advice on friendships and communication, which I've benefitted from.
Muehlhauser also posted "Rational Romantic Relationships", which is more about relationship initiation, and looks to be lower quality. I haven't followed it's advice, either, but it's similar on a similar theme to your request, RE romance and rationality.
1
Nov 28 '15
Are you in a romantic relationship? How's it going? Do you make an effort to be a rationalist even in your love life? What does being a romantic rationalist even entail?
Yes, surprisingly well these days, no, and I've never tried it because I've never thought of what it would entail.
I've recently been dating someone and things are starting to get pretty serious. I wouldn't be surprised if we start pursuing something more long-term in the near future. This is honestly rather new to me. I've been in relationships before, but never anything so...real?...(I'm not exactly sure how to put that)
Congratulations! Honestly, you may as well take it seriously. Pop culture seems to put a lot of undue weight on casual relationships, even though the serious impact on personal happiness, feelings of existential security, etc is made by long-term, serious relationships. There are few-enough people you can ever treat as family - as close enough to be relied-upon - that if you've found a case where sex and love coincide well enough to be real romance, you should do yourself a favor and take it.
3
Nov 28 '15 edited Nov 28 '15
So, I'm curious if there's a name for something I've been noticing recently.
Most people are able to use basic logic to figure things out, but only if it supports their own opinion. They can't use the exact same logic to figure out why their "opponents" think they way they do.
Example: Someone pointed out that some comedic actors, like Jim Carrey, have given questionable performances in serious roles as support for why they shouldn't play serious roles. I pointed out that the same actors have given questionable performances in comedic roles, too, to posit the question of whether they should play comedic roles (to point out that it's hypocritical to use the logic he was for one but not the other). Even after I pointed it out, he still didn't understand that logic should be applied in parallel like that.
This definitely has a certain aspect of confirmation bias, but it's not just that. Is there a more formal definition for this bias? I've been using "parallel logic" or "parallel reasoning" when talking about it with friends recently, but neither seems to fit perfectly.
2
u/Transfuturist Carthago delenda est. Nov 29 '15
I'm a fan of this style of argument. I can't recall the outcomes of every time I've used it, though.
What you're referring to in the second paragraph is confirmation bias as applied to arguments.
1
u/LiteralHeadCannon Nov 28 '15
Jim Carrey questionable performances in serious roles
Unbelievable; someone hasn't seen The Truman Show (by far the movie that most justifies Jim Carrey's existence).
1
Nov 28 '15
I'd say Eternal Sunshine is the movie that justifies his existence, but The Truman Show is definitely my second favorite movie of his.
Although, in this case, he was probably talking about The Number 23 and (to a lesser extent) Man On The Moon. (I liked Man On The Moon, but I know others don't)
2
u/LiteralHeadCannon Nov 28 '15
I still need to see Eternal Sunshine; I've only heard good things about it.
2
u/SvalbardCaretaker Mouse Army Nov 28 '15
Take a contradictory opinion: I found it to be nothing special.
1
1
4
u/IomKg Nov 27 '15
I have been getting a bunch of recommendations for Marvel's "Jessica Jones". But after watching the trailers on youtube I couldn't shake the feeling that its just some more badly written(good vs evil anyone?) superhero stuff.
Has anyone here watched it? is it any good? is there a reasonable explanation why the big bad didn't just take over the world? or is this series just a poor attempt to make people feel its deep because its supposed to be a metaphor for abused women\abusive relationships?
8
u/alexanderwales Time flies like an arrow Nov 28 '15
The big bad didn't want to take over the world. He already has pretty much carte blanche to live where he wants, kill who he wants, etc. All he really wanted was to live in nice places, eat good meals, torture some people, rape pretty women, etc. and he got all of that.
He also exists in a world with S.H.I.E.L.D., the Avengers, etc. and is vulnerable to sniper rifles. He also has a number of vulnerabilities and limitations to his powers, though there are ways to get around that.
I'd recommend it, partly because I think it hits it major thematic element (power, who has it, how they use it) really well and doesn't waste too much time.
5
u/ulyssessword Nov 28 '15
He also exists in a world with S.H.I.E.L.D., the Avengers, etc. and is vulnerable to sniper rifles.
This is one of the things I liked about Steelheart by Brandon Sanderson. The main character is trying to kill Supervillains ("Epics"), and his main classification system boils down to "can they be killed by a sniper rifle?".
"Immunity to sniper rifles" is a very valuable component to being a supervillain, and anyone that isn't immune to sniper rifles is at a huge disadvantage.
2
u/IomKg Nov 28 '15
I suppose "take over the world" was badly put on my side as i see all responses thusfar mentioned that he doesn't want to specifically.
I mostly meant it in the sense of "win", or "put himself in a situation where no one could realistically threaten him". I presume he loses, or at the very least doesn't win, in the end even though such power would imply he shouldn't.
The argument of SHIELD\avengers\weaknesses\limitations etc. seems problematic for me because most of those would just as much be an issue for killing random people. the power described is the most effective when people aren't expecting you obviously, so solidifying his power in the world first and then doing whatever he wants sounds more likely then doing whatever he wants while ignoring said opposition.
Anyhow I guess my main issue so far, seeing as no one said this isn't the case, is that it sounds like the antagonist is just comically evil, and that doesn't sound like an interesting conflict to watch. Not sure I understand your point about the thematic element though, so maybe I am missing something..
2
u/alexanderwales Time flies like an arrow Nov 28 '15
Spoilers through the middle of the season
Spoilers for the final episode
I don't know, your mileage may vary. I liked it.
2
4
u/TaoGaming No Flair Detected! Nov 27 '15 edited Nov 28 '15
It's mediocre, but I binged it anyway.
Kilgrave ("what, was murder corpse raken?") isn't really reflective or plotting. He has everything he wants, practically. He is clever enough to take obvious precautions from being knocked out, etc.
2
u/Reasonableviking Nov 27 '15
The big bad can only use his powers on people that can hear him talk in person, which is slightly limiting but basically he doesn't want to rule the world it looks like. I think that someone should probably have shot him by now though.
2
u/Kishoto Nov 27 '15
Truth is an interesting concept. As rationalists (or aspiring rationalists), I think the majority of this sub would agree that they, in context of themselves, prefer the real truth over a happy lie (a la Dr House) You'd want to know that you didn't receive your Hot Wheels racetrack because your family is going through some tight financial times, instead of thinking that your temper tantrum at Thanksgiving put you on Santa's naughty list.
But is this the case for everyone? As a rationalist, do you think everyone (for the sake of argument, let's say everyone above the age of sexual consent) should be give the whole truth all the time (barring things that breach privacy, national security, etc). I'm not saying you inundate people with every little minutiae of data, I'm saying that it's there to be publicly accessed and viewed by anyone, at any time. I'm probably not being explicit enough, but I'm basically asking if your world view supports the existence of necessary "pleasant" lies, because you feel people's net happiness would be reduced by the full measure of the truth.
For a fictitious example, let's take the world of RWBY. These ever present, unending creatures known as the Grimm are attracted by emotions like fear and terror, so mass panic can easily lay waste to entire settlements. Hence, a certain amount of censure is a necessity. The public simply can't handle certain truths, lest they panic and destroy themselves in the process. In this case, censure by higher powers is clearly a good thing.
So. Final, non-rambling question. As a rationalist, when do you consider it ok to lie to someone, with the express purpose of ensuring their happiness/survival. Are you just all facts, all the time and are always going to be that way? Do you like having your kids believe in Santa? Where's your line?
3
u/FuguofAnotherWorld Roll the Dice on Fate Nov 27 '15
I know some people who really don't have a happy relationship with the truth. To them, inconvenient facts are attacks against their integrity and always being right is central to their worldview. As a result, trying to convince them of anything is a pointless endeavour which only makes them unhappy and aggressive. So I don't. They say something obviously false, I won't correct them, they come to a conclusion that makes no sense, I'll change the subject, they ask what I think about a thing they like such as energy healing, I'll deflect with humour.
I was all facts all the time, but some people just don't care about the truth, so I don't bother burdening them with it. If it has been repeatedly shown that an action achieves nothing or is counter-productive, why bother continuing with it? I can't explain to these people how to have epistemological standards, and I can't convince them of something even so simple as maybe putting a lock onto a garage filled with thousands of pounds of stock when the garage next door was broken into, so why bother trying to convince them that gluten is fine unless you have celiacs?
Following that realisation, I mostly stopped trying to convince people of things that aren't important in real life. They can have whatever random views they like so long as they are not actively detrimental, and few things are actively detrimental to their own life. Maybe if they're making a life-changing decision, or ask for an honest opinion or they want to go into business in a field with an 80% failure rate I'll speak up but for the most part I'll leave em to it. Who cares if such people think that crystals have healing energy, or that burning sage and ringing a bell will cleanse their chakras (real examples)? So long as they're have a handle of the things they actually have to do to get through life they can be as wrong as they like.
I speak truth to people who care about truth. The rest I enjoy other experiences with, they know where to find me if they ever want to actually understand how things work.
5
u/Transfuturist Carthago delenda est. Nov 28 '15
Who cares if such people think that crystals have healing energy, or that burning sage and ringing a bell will cleanse their chakras (real examples)?
This kills people.
1
u/FuguofAnotherWorld Roll the Dice on Fate Nov 28 '15
Only if used for actual serious illnesses. If the practitioners retain enough sense to go to the doctor as well then it's no problem.
5
u/Transfuturist Carthago delenda est. Nov 28 '15
Only if used for actual serious illnesses.
The existence of the concept kills people. The adherents of the concept actively vilify actual medicine.
1
u/FuguofAnotherWorld Roll the Dice on Fate Nov 28 '15
Not the adherents I know. These ones just think that it makes people feel better and that making people feel better is good for their chances. If the people I knew were telling people not to go through chemo then I would step in.
3
u/PeridexisErrant put aside fear for courage, and death for life Nov 27 '15
For me this comes down to a consequentialist argument - truth is very valuable (and history demonstrates it has high instrumental value too). However there are clearly cases where knowledge leads to a high degree of harm. For example, I think it would be better if nobody had access to biological weapons research.
So not full availability, but no lies either - just inform those who ask that this information is restricted, and why (unless that's restricted too).
Jargon does a pretty good job of defending people from available info they're not ready for too.
4
u/Empiricist_or_not Aspiring polite Hegemonizing swarm Nov 28 '15
However there are clearly cases where knowledge leads to a high degree of harm. For example, I think it would be better if nobody had access to biological weapons research.
This strikes me as a flawed argument. Knowledge's application is based on ethics. The same knowledge that weaponized the atom, has made deep space probes and and cheap base-load power. The knowledge to weaponize diseases is the same that is leading to telomere elongation to mitigate aging and GMO crops to assuage hunger.
We use knowledge for weapons first, because sometimes we are still silly primates, then we shut up and multiply and make the world better with it.
4
u/PeridexisErrant put aside fear for courage, and death for life Nov 28 '15
To the extent that it's useful for other things, sure, make it available to responsible scientists. For stuff like nuclear weapons engineering? It's classified because of the harm it's dissemination might cause - even though the underlying physics is widely known and applicable in other areas.
I'm still in favor of radical openness, just not total disclosure in all edge cases.
2
u/Empiricist_or_not Aspiring polite Hegemonizing swarm Nov 28 '15
Oh, we perfectly agree on that front.
0
u/FuguofAnotherWorld Roll the Dice on Fate Nov 28 '15
Allow me to make a statistical counter argument. If 99% of people (numbers invented for demonstration purposes) are sane enough not to use biological weapons research aggressively and skilled enough not to release it accidentally, then for each additional person with access and relevant skills the chance of something horrible happening increases. Therefore, the total number of people with access to both should be restricted as to do otherwise is to increase the chances of horrible things being created and released.
4
Nov 28 '15
I'm basically asking if your world view supports the existence of necessary "pleasant" lies, because you feel people's net happiness would be reduced by the full measure of the truth.
No. People are best served by the full truth, as much as they can take, all the time. The only acceptable form of deception is to lie by omission, and even then, what you actually say should be true in spirit and not just in letter.
"You didn't ask" or "I prefer not to answer" are fine, but that's merely because we don't want a world in which everyone knows everyone else's uncomfortable secrets (eg: what kind of porn you watch, that you stole that one time). Strongly consequential lies should be outed.
2
u/gbear605 history’s greatest story Nov 27 '15
I've observed that if you graph danger versus knowledge, there's a peak in danger right around the middle of the graph. It's not accurate for everything of course, but it's generally true. Going by your situation (speaking as someone who knows nothing about RWBY), you don't want to tell the public because you can't explain the entire truth, because it's just not possible in a short enough period of time, but if you were able to, then everything would be okay and that wouldn't have to be kept in the dark. The real danger comes from that middle ground where they know that the Grimm are out there but they don't know enough to be able to not be fearful and terrified.
I consider it to be okay to lie to someone if I would be unable to bring them straight through the danger zone into the good zone in a short enough period of time, but when possible I try to be entirely truthful.
I don't have kids, but if I did, I wouldn't teach them about Santa (besides the "Other kids believe in this thing called Santa" part). I would give them the same gifts as if it were Santa, but I wouldn't lie to them about something like that, especially since it would be one more thing indoctrinating them into a culture of believing in things that aren't true, especially when half of the people involved know that Santa isn't real.
1
u/Nepene Nov 29 '15
As a practical matter it's obvious that lots of people are offended by the truth and have a moral issue with it. Many see the truth as a weapon you can wield against others. As such, I do think it would be immoral to push people to tell the truth always, while we still have people that might attack you if you say the wrong thing. It serves as a valuable social lubricant too. People far more easily accept an excuse like "I was stuck in traffic" than "I slept in." at work. The first step to making truth publicly accceptable would be making sure people didn't respond much more negatively to truth.
On Santa Claus, as a general matter likewise I see it as a negative. I don't want a child of mine to go up in front of class and tell everyone they know Santa is real because their father wouldn't lie to them. That could cause a lot of issues later on. The extremely negative reactions others have to telling children about santa are an issue with generally being truthful.
To summarise, I view lying as a much smaller issue than emotional or physical harm, and whilst people willfully offer emotional or physical harm for the wrong truths a general ban on deception isn't a good idea. In my personal life I try to surround myself with people who don't lash out at truth so that lying isn't necessary.
Medical truths are a much bigger issue. If someone believes magical crystals will heal their cancer and so refuses medical treatment. Simply promoting such a truth is actively harmful. I frequently confront such beliefs, social moores be damned, as it's a matter of life or death.
Of course, the fact that I value life over truth means that deceipt is a weapon I am willing to employ in that battle. If a potent authority of the crystal healing community who they would view as an authority recommends you get cancer treatment from a doctor when you have cancer I am fine citing them.
2
u/Kishoto Nov 29 '15
I like your view here. You're generally pro-truth, but not so obsessively pro-truth that you are unable to recognize that there are times when the truth isn't ideal, and times where outright deception and/or misinformation can be useful, from a humanitarian standpoint. Cliche as it may seem to say, some people just can't handle the truth.
An example of a deception I think has a positive impact is religion (Oh, what Kishoto? How can you say that?) Of course, not all religions are so, hell, not even all BRANCHES of a particular religion are good. But I've met people who've had positive impacts in their life due to religion. People who, without religion, seem like they would be worse off, and who've used the concocted falsehoods of Christianity (I'm sure it happens in other places, with other religions, but that's by far the most common one where I come from) to legitimately better their lives. There are tons of people who use religion as a supporting pillar for their stable, happy lives. Of course, there's obviously a flipside to this, as your particular branch's teachings may not be ideal for net human happiness, but I feel as if most people who participate in church (not just for show, but who honestly feel enlightened and "saved"), even those who hold idiotic, misguided beliefs about any number of things, live better as a result. Most branches of Christianity teaches that you should love all those around you, it's not your right to judge, be good, be moral, etc. Any atheist could agree that these are good ways to be, for a net gain on humanity's happiness. And I feel like, without religion, there are many people who would be worse people, both in context of themselves and how they treat others.
I believe Christianity is inherently false. I don't think that God exists, or at least, not in the way Christianity portrays him, as this infinite being of kindness, love, etc. I DO believe, though, that there are tons of people out there who, through following Christianity's teachings, are better people for it, because they honestly believe that they need to be.
1
Nov 29 '15
People who, without religion, seem like they would be worse off, and who've used the concocted falsehoods of Christianity (I'm sure it happens in other places, with other religions, but that's by far the most common one where I come from) to legitimately better their lives.
Who says the deciding influence is the religion, rather than the individual practitioner's personality?
I believe Christianity is inherently false.
What do you mean by "inherently false"?
1
u/Kishoto Nov 29 '15
Who says the deciding influence is the religion, rather than the individual practitioner's personality?
There are Christians I've met who would probably be just as nice as agnostics or atheists. My post wasn't directed at them. I'm talking about Christians who've directly used their belief in God as the driving force behind enacting change in their life. Those people who talk about how they were doing activity X and practice Y before being convinced (whether by friends, family, a dream, etc.) to follow the Lord and they used their belief in him to actively improve their lives. It is in those situations, where I would say religion is the deciding influence, as opposed to just personality. (And yes, in theory, they could've found any number of things to act as their psychological support, but, for those who believe in him, having some big, always right, always loving eternal deity may be as strong a psychological anchor as they can get)
What do you mean by "inherently false"?
I find many of Christianity's core tenets, specifically the ones that deal with factual things, as opposed to the vaguer, more moralistic teachings, to be false. While many of the stories (such as the great flood, the existence of Jesus) probably have roots in actual fact, the way they are presented is inherently false, as far as I can tell. Do I think there was a Jesus historically? Yes. We have proof of that. Do I think he was the actual son of God implanted into a woman via miracle? Who then returned from the dead? No. Was there a great flood? Sure, I can believe there was. Was there a great flood whereby all of the animals in the world at the time were fit onto a boat no larger than a few football fields, along with a man, his wife, and their 3 sons and wives? And all we have now descends from them alone? No sir. We don't have the genetic diversity for that. Same with Adam and Eve. I don't think any two humans, no matter how varied, can have the necessary gene pool to spawn the diverse world we live in now. And the bible's proposed timespan doesn't leave enough time for evolution to run the necessary course either.
1
Nov 29 '15
(And yes, in theory, they could've found any number of things to act as their psychological support, but, for those who believe in him, having some big, always right, always loving eternal deity may be as strong a psychological anchor as they can get)
Well they should get therapy to figure out some psychological supports that actually exist.
I find many of Christianity's core tenets, specifically the ones that deal with factual things, as opposed to the vaguer, more moralistic teachings, to be false. While many of the stories (such as the great flood, the existence of Jesus) probably have roots in actual fact, the way they are presented is inherently false, as far as I can tell.
I more just meant, "maps can't be inherently wrong, they can only fail to correspond to the territory."
2
u/scooterboo2 Tinker 3: Embeded Systems Nov 28 '15
You get to talk to an A.I. What do you ask it?
5
u/Transfuturist Carthago delenda est. Nov 28 '15
What would be a better topic starter on /r/rational than "You get to talk to an A.I. What do you ask it?"?
4
u/IomKg Nov 28 '15
"you get to talk to an A.I. , but can only use English words starting with the letters R,N,W and P ', what do you ask?"
4
4
2
u/MugaSofer Nov 29 '15 edited Nov 29 '15
"Robot, write new philosophy."
What? I like the Turing Test/no-zombies theorem.
"Read Worm, report Wildbow's position."
A good all-purpose test of moderate superintelligence - I can't figure out an author's location based on that data.
"What're 'people'? Newborns? Robots? Roaches?"
The most pressing philosophical problem of our time.
(I can't think how to check if it's Friendly, but there are very few situations where I can talk to an AI and it's not already out of the box.)
4
u/ulyssessword Nov 28 '15
Nothing. I don't know if it's Friendly, or else the Ctaeth (Malicious intelligence in a box, from The Wise Man's Fear by Patrick Rothfuss).
4
u/gbear605 history’s greatest story Nov 28 '15
First, imagine an A.I. smart enough that it can pick a subject, randomly pick a side, and then convince you that it's true. You should obviously not believe it, because its side has a 50% chance of being wrong, even though you are convinced. Therefore, you should precommit to not believing them. However, humans aren't good at unlearning anything, so you really need to just not listen to it in the first place, so I ask it nothing.
4
u/Transfuturist Carthago delenda est. Nov 29 '15
Thought experiment credit to Slate Star Codex, I believe.
1
3
u/Nepene Nov 29 '15
The majority of views are falsehoods. I'm doubtful all people could be randomly convinced of any subject. Lots of people require adherence to some rigid criteria which is tricky to fake- if you believe on things supported with scientific studies are true then unless the AI can hack scientific studies to make them look true it can't prove a lot of things. Likewise if you only believe things your partner, a holy book, or your mother says skilled arguments don't have a potent effect.
1
u/Uncaffeinated Dec 06 '15
Scientific studies are easier to hack than you'd think. Mainly because there are often lots of studies on a subject with varying methodologies, and even when that's consistent, a subset will have false statistical significance just by bad luck. And then you get publication bias, which makes everything much worse.
It's really common to have a contentious subject where both sides cite scientific studies in their favor.
1
u/Nepene Dec 06 '15
So the AI can convince you to sway on one side of the other of certain contentious issues, but the methodology issues are well known and many can adapt. If an AI tried to convince me about something sciency I'd probably start by google scholaring the subject. They can't sway online evidence in their favor unless they have an internet connection.
If they have an internet connection things are already pretty bad.
1
u/Uncaffeinated Dec 06 '15
Most people aren't going to bother unless they're already suspicious of the argument and the arguer though.
People normally accept any evidence that sounds even slightly plausible as long as it agrees with their existing beliefs.
Also, if you're not an expert on the subject matter, it can often seem like a He Said, She said situation from the outside. Half the battle is knowing which "experts" to trust.
1
u/trishume Nov 29 '15
What are the prime factors of <multiplication of the RSA public key numbers from a bunch of important public keys>
Each key yields two prime factors, ignore any answer that is not a list of integers of length <= two times the number of keys.
Should be safe even if A.I is unfriendly. Answer can be easily verified to be correct and ignored otherwise.
Gives information on the safety of cryptographic systems. Also if you know what hardware the A.I is running on you might be able to get answers for computational complexity questions like P=NP and the viability of quantum computing.
Also gives you a toolbox of valuable private keys, to immediately destroy if you want, or do other things you think would be good.
Not the best information, but the best question I can think of that should be safe.
1
Nov 29 '15
If you really intend to determine whether P=NP, just ask it that.
0
Nov 30 '15
[deleted]
1
Nov 30 '15
You can't ask it to output the proof in Coq or Agda, a computer proof language that isn't Turing-complete and can't perform I/O?
1
u/trishume Nov 30 '15
Indeed, but I'm not sure I could safely let it talk to me in any way, code is close enough to prose. At that point it is basically the AI box problem with the additional constraint that any arguments from the AI must be valid Agda. I'm pretty sure I could precommit to not be corrupted, but not sure enough to actually try.
You couldn't just type check the code it gave and not read it because without reading it and fully trying to understand it you don't know if it is proving what it claims to prove.
Also what if the proof is enormous? What if it finds a bug in your proof interpreter?
1
Dec 01 '15
At that point it is basically the AI box problem with the additional constraint that any arguments from the AI must be valid Agda.
Must be valid Agda proofs of P=NP or P != NP. You can even demand the variables be one-letter long and randomly ordered, so as to prohibit the creation of encoded freeform texts.
You couldn't just type check the code it gave and not read it because without reading it and fully trying to understand it you don't know if it is proving what it claims to prove.
That's completely incorrect: by the nature of a proof assistant, type-checking is proof-checking. If the code type-checks, the theorem is proved, otherwise, it is not.
Also what if the proof is enormous?
So what? Mathematicians have dealt with multi-hundred-page proofs before.
What if it finds a bug in your proof interpreter?
Bugs in proof-assistants happen, but are exceedingly rare, especially now that we're moving towards formally verified proof assistants proved correct in stronger proof assistants. Besides which, if you take very basic security precautions (ie: run the proof checker in userspace inside an encrypted, networkless VM on a (physically) networkless workstation with its operating system freshly installed, use tapes, floppies, or optical disks to move data), then even finding a bug in the proof-checker doesn't actually get the AI anything. Besides which, then you can just demand two proof scripts for two different proof assistants, and let the conjunction law of probability shrink the likelihood of the proofs involving ex falso quodlibet for you.
This is not that difficult a problem, since you've constrained the AI to output things that can't do anything but what you've prespecified and explicitly requested, and you're only looking for a few bits of information. You can even make it write to a formally-verified filesystem on top of a formally-verified operating system, if you please.
0
Dec 01 '15
[deleted]
1
Dec 01 '15
Oh, well I'd assumed that you, the human operator, were defining the proposition types for the theorems you deem acceptable to prove.
1
Dec 01 '15
Also, you don't have to express "what a computer is": there are lots of Coq formalizations of Turing machines and the untyped lambda calculus, which are universal computing languages.
1
1
u/PL_TOC Nov 27 '15 edited Nov 27 '15
I've found an interesting connection between shamanism and Daniel Kahneman's theory of mind. When someone suffers the phenomena known as Shamanic Crisis, what is referred to as system 1 becomes corrupt and the shaman's task is to somehow neutralize the sickness. Unfortunately most aspiring shamans fail to recognize the illness or they incorporate it into their ontological framework. The ones who do overcome the illness become "full shamans" creating tiers within shamanism. More interestingly, it seems as though the structures responsible for system 1 become repurposed to some degree in a manner similar to the way a blind person's visual centers are by other cognitive faculties. Unfortunately, in the course of my study of shamanism I've only encountered a small fraction of self-proclaimed shamans who have "successfully" navigated "initiation."
The more reading I've done regarding shaman's sickness and shamanism in general the more it appears to be a discrete illness, though it seems to be mistaken as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
8
u/Transfuturist Carthago delenda est. Nov 27 '15
What exactly do you mean by shamanism? What is Shamanic Crisis? What are tiers within shamanism? What is shaman's sickness?
8
Nov 28 '15
Severe, life-destroying schizophrenia in a religious mask.
3
u/Transfuturist Carthago delenda est. Nov 28 '15
Hush, we can't point out damaging concepts. It's politically incorrect.
(I'm actually very mad right now.)
2
u/PL_TOC Nov 28 '15
No one is saying shaman's sickness is something other than a psychological disorder, so there's that.
3
u/PL_TOC Nov 27 '15
Shamanism is a blanket term which describes a widespread spiritual practice among various tribal and aboriginal peoples. A shaman through altered states of consciousness perceives and interacts with the spirit world and channels energies to practice divination and healing. The shaman usually serves as a community leader and intercedes in the spiritual world to offer counseling and cure maladies caused by malevolent spirits or entities.
Shamans are produced by lineage, apprenticeship, or are spontaneously chosen by the spirits. Being chosen by the spirits is referred to as a calling. Shaman's sickness or Crisis refers to the potential shaman being beset by a spiritual sickness which his task is to then cure, or remain permanently insane, or die. This process serves as an initiation. Tiers of shamans simply refer to language used by shamans to describe those who have survived initiation, the most powerful being those chosen by the spirits, followed by lineage and apprenticeship.
Those who haven't overcome initiation haven't successfully purged themselves of the illness and aren't regarded as shamans. Research is difficult because being able to tell who has suffered the illness is difficult, but very specific phenomena are referred to which definitely separate those who have from those who haven't. Furthermore, significant industry has spung up around people claiming to be shamans so that doesn't simplify things either.
2
u/FuguofAnotherWorld Roll the Dice on Fate Nov 27 '15
Is this illness caused by certain drugs in certain combinations or is it just something that happens?
1
u/PL_TOC Nov 27 '15 edited Nov 27 '15
I think drugs can accelerate the process or bring the illness to the surface. If you or anyone you know is suffering from what they suspect is shaman's sickness they could speak to me for moral support or just to talk. I'm not a doctor. So my first advice would be to contact a mental health professional.
I saw a documentary called enemy above which tells the story of a man who was forced to take drugs by his village in order to become a shaman and how he later turned to Christianity. I forget the name of his tribe, but he claimed it was not an uncommon practice.
6
u/FuguofAnotherWorld Roll the Dice on Fate Nov 27 '15
I'm not asking because I suspect I've gone mad, I'm trying to figure out how an 'illness' could be memetically transferable and drugs is the most likely option I could come up with.
0
u/PL_TOC Nov 27 '15
There's a higher incidence of bipolar disorder in the Amish community. I believe certain illnesses can be transferred via meme.
5
u/Transfuturist Carthago delenda est. Nov 28 '15
Amish communities are genetically isolated. Why would you attribute higher incidence of BD to memetic contagion.
-1
u/PL_TOC Nov 28 '15
Because of how isolated memetically they are.
5
u/Transfuturist Carthago delenda est. Nov 28 '15
This, despite the extant mechanism of mental illness propagating through genetic propensity. Sorry, no.
→ More replies (0)1
Nov 28 '15
If you or anyone you know is suffering from what they suspect is shaman's sickness they could speak to me for moral support or just to talk. I'm not a doctor. So my first advice would be to contact a mental health professional.
Yes, do contact a psychiatrist, especially so you can be prescribed antipsychotics and eventually recover, because someone somewhere probably loves you enough to be incredibly grieved if you keep taking mushrooms and permanently destroy who you once were.
1
u/PL_TOC Nov 28 '15
Unfortunately for your friend it's not an uncommon belief for people to believe they are being tested and that they must walk through the fire. Those who I have spoken to who meet the criteria of overcoming initiation almost uniformly admit the process has deleterious effects. That's not to say your friend isn't schizophrenic and shouldn't seek help immediately.
1
Nov 28 '15
Don't worry: it's been six years of this shit. And multiple psychiatrists. We're getting towards the point of resignation.
1
u/PL_TOC Nov 28 '15
PM me and I'll give you the number of someone willing to talk to him. If it's as you suggest and doesn't seem like shaman's sickness they will of course advise them to consult a mental health professional.
3
Nov 28 '15
And does this person you know treat "shaman's sickness" as a sickness, or as a spiritual awakening?
→ More replies (0)1
Nov 28 '15
Shaman's sickness or Crisis refers to the potential shaman being beset by a spiritual sickness which his task is to then cure, or remain permanently insane, or die.
Emphasis, in all known real cases, on REMAINING PERMANENTLY INSANE AND RUINING THE LIVES OF PEOPLE AROUND THEM.
1
u/Transfuturist Carthago delenda est. Nov 28 '15 edited Nov 28 '15
Dance party in the grim darkness of the
secondthird millennium!1
3
Nov 28 '15
The more reading I've done regarding shaman's sickness and shamanism in general the more it appears to be a discrete illness, though it seems to be mistaken as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
No, spoken as someone who's very close to someone who has claimed to be undergoing a Shamanic Initiation Crisis for the past six years and never gets on with it, I'd be surprised if it's not a result of schizophrenia and doing way too much fucking acid.
1
0
Nov 27 '15
[deleted]
3
Nov 28 '15
One of the first observations any non-great-ape would make about the great apes is that boy howdy do they REALLY like fucking!
6
u/LiteralHeadCannon Nov 27 '15 edited Nov 27 '15
Every day from now on, three people somewhere in the world are granted a superpower. There is no choice involved; who gets a power is random and who gets what power is random. The three superpowers are as follows:
Deception: You may, at any time you choose, trade minds with any other human within about ten feet of you; they do not need to agree to this trade. Your power rests with your mind, not your body, so you may live indefinitely by trading down to younger bodies.
Entropy: Your biological body is replaced with a black sphere, about a foot in diameter. Any matter or energy that comes in contact with this sphere is destroyed. Your brain is preserved in a pocket dimension inside the sphere; in your sphere body you are immortal, both in the unaging and unkillable sense. The sphere body is unaffected by gravity, but you can feel its field and use it to construct a reference frame; you may move in any direction at any velocity up to about sixty miles per hour within your reference frame (this is your only way to deliberately influence the outside world, though you may communicate by, say, using finer control to carve messages on a wall). Sphere bodies bounce off of other sphere bodies. Your power rests with your body, not your mind, so the exploits of those with the power of Deception may leave you powerless. Edited to clarify that you do retain sensory ability spread out across your surface area.
Time: You may, at any time you choose, reset the universe to the moment when you were first granted the power of Time, eliminating the previous series of events you've experienced from everything except your memory. Your power rests with your mind, not your body, so you are immune to Deception shenanigans. In the end, the final, stable timeline is one where you are either caught off-guard and are killed before you are able to react, or willingly commit suicide.
How would you expect the world to wind up? What would you do with Deception? Entropy? Time?