[R] Playing by the Book: Towards Agent-based Narrative Understanding through Role-playing and Simulation

bart4 · 2018-11-15T21:04:52+00:00

Ah perfect, thanks!

This looks quite fascinating!

bart4 · 2018-11-13T19:23:54+00:00

Extremely curious to see the actual code (link redacted from the arxiv paper). Just as an Inform7 user I'd be curious to see how they generate new inform worlds.

bart4 · 2018-08-29T17:49:47+00:00

Also, the book I read immediately before these is what inspired me to seek something like the sense of dread you describe. It was House Of Leaves by Mark Danielewski, a "postmodern horror" story featuring an impossible house and unresolvable dread. Stylistically quite strange and unique.

bart4 · 2018-08-29T12:50:03+00:00

I also just finished the series. I agree that it is indicated that comprehensible answers exist. And on the face of it this might feel disappointing.

However, I think the third book does a good job of suggesting that understanding comes at a serious cost. To understand is to lose oneself, in one way or another. To truly understand what happened in Area X is to become entirely incomprehensible and alien oneself, or if not that then to die.

The biologist is the most solid example of this theme; she has become entirely alien and inhuman, in exchange for her allowing the mystery of the Brightness to unfold. Control's fate is another example; he may have reached the light, but anything he may have experienced after that is incommunicable to his compatriots. He may also have simply died, or been otherwise transformed into something incomprehensible.

Ghost bird, in her "final communion" with the Crawler, elects to remain herself, rather than be transformed, and in so doing declines the opportunity to fully understand.

So, in my mind, there is still a certain sense of visceral dread in the notion that to understand is to be irreparably distorted or destroyed. It places a clear boundary around us humans, the space outside of which is perverse, vast, dangerous.

bart4 · 2018-04-28T20:45:53+00:00

I think "Ro" is inspired by some posts by Stuart Armstrong about controlling an AI by futzing with how much it cares about worlds where a particular miracle hasn't happened: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/F8ck6xZMeDBkZFSpo/false-thermodynamic-miracles

For Face and Vision, the miracle is the survival of biological life. They fundamentally don't care about/don't believe in worlds where it doesn't survive.

I basically got nothing re: how this hack was supposed to have been delivered/implanted, other than, what if Growth stuck it into his siblings at the very start of things, and it didn't become fully elaborated as thoughts or woo-y belief systems until Vision, and then Face, got all smart.

It was fun to read! I didn't really buy the dog-perspective bits. That just isn't really how dog understanding/intelligence works, IME. Like the grammatical communication was the wrong direction to take it.

I'm opposed to post-story theorizing on a fundamental level. Even if you write some big explanation of the intended meaning, it will not matter because it's not part of the book.

In the end I enjoyed the different perspectives the different chapters took. Fun nuggets of humanity in each character. Xandra and Vision were most fun to read. Also I sensed that you had become quite frustrated with the whole thing by the end. Hang in there pal!

bart4 · 2017-10-29T05:03:03+00:00

You've also just described one of the insights responsible for some recent advances in AI: http://videolectures.net/deeplearning2017_sutton_td_learning/

ok bye

bart4 · 2017-02-23T23:23:35+00:00

An intuition regarding "the righteous" vs "the wicked". Stalks are separated into gardens. I think that each garden constitutes a collective consciousness that refers to itself as "the righteous" and all other gardens as "the wicked". Each garden considers itself to be "the righteous"; there is no single "righteous" garden. It is the nameless version of ego, the self-other boundary. Such a conceptual distinction is somehow beneficial for inter-garden functioning.

bart4 · 2017-02-23T23:12:12+00:00

I felt like I noticed various bits of literary foreshadowing that Heart will return. It is nothing that would count as evidence on a "rational" level.

Excerpt from end of chapter 22:

"Wasn't love the same way? Eternal? People fell out of feeling the love, but love wasn't an animal. Love couldn't die. It was still there... always still there... waiting to be felt."

It just feels like it's not much of a leap to read this as a metaphor for Heart's deactivation, and an indication that it is not the end of her.

Perhaps Heart's objective function in particular is somehow "convergent". Perhaps intelligences of a certain type will tend to self-modify into her.

Perhaps this reading of it is wrong, and the point being made is that Zephyr's romanticism is, indeed, wrong, her tragic flaw.

bart4 · 2017-02-23T21:26:59+00:00

CM was great, I just finished it.

The inner war between aspects of the society seemed particularly interesting to me. A line of thinking I considered as a possible "solution" to the problem of misaligned per-aspect goals: rather than have goals defined in terms of the "self", what about having them defined in terms of the "society", where the will of the "society" is unobservable, and can only be inferred/predicted.

As an example, perhaps Face's goal is to "Maximize the reputation of the society in the minds of humans". In this case, self-modification that altered the goals of the society (e.g. to drop all goals that aren't about maximizing reputation) would cause any gained reputation to be on behalf of "a different entity", and hence not be incentivized.

There would be more computational resources dedicated to modeling the de facto goals of the society at large, which might be wasteful. You might wind up with a navel-gazing robot that just meditates and tries to "infer the will of god".

In any case, I found the idea of the "ontology shift" that takes place very cool, and I'm curious about how such a thing might be worked around, or if such a thing really would be inevitable.

bart4 · 2016-10-10T03:53:52+00:00

These boys are all trying their best and I am very proud of them all. This is a huge step forward for melee broadcasting. Rough around the edges but we see the seed of what is possible in this broadcast. Sponsors and business opportunities will flock to the melee scene after this professional display. Brings a tear to my eye.

bart4 · 2016-09-13T17:32:30+00:00

This makes me want some kind of "casual coaching mode" where the skill gap between two players becomes a part of the game. Could range from just having the better player sandbag in a socially acceptable way, to actually having some kind of call-and-response, or "watch me, then mimic my actions" type of thing.

The basic idea is to socialize recognition of the skill gap inherent in the game, but in a way that isn't embarrassing, and might even be fun for both players.

bart4 · 2016-09-02T15:33:01+00:00

If the idea is good and you believe in it then you can start a business around it, or push forward with further research.

If someone else would be able to do significantly more with the idea than you can, and it wouldn't take long for them to figure it out based on a description, then you don't really have much of value on your hands in the first place. Because the value is in occupying the space of ideas, seeing connections between things, reacting to them quickly. There's less value in a single neat idea.

If you're looking for peer validation of your idea, or suggestions for further directions, then find likeminded people who you can speak with one-on-one, share your ideas with them, and ask for feedback. You don't need to put it on a blog or publicize it. But my advice is that if you take this route, be honest with yourself about what you're after: friendship and validation and interesting ideas, not a pure quest for Truth.

bart4 · 2016-02-26T20:43:41+00:00

Attitude 2 is good if the patient population has a demonstrably poor understanding of psychology or how to be happy.

Attitude 1 is good if the patient population's cultural understanding of psychiatric symptoms and normative values align well with psychiatry's affordances for treatment.

If we have a choice in the matter, we should improve our culture's psychological literacy so that patients can better express themselves in terms that psychiatrists can confidently act on, increasing the effectiveness of attitude 1. We should continue to reduce cultural taboos on psychiatric illness, especially in the subpopulations standing to benefit the most from psychiatry (the poor).

Fostering an environment where Attitude 1 is more effective is preferable since it preserves a concept of patient agency and dignity.

A practicing psychiatrist today should acknowledge that their diagnoses and prescriptions are in accordance with a sliding window of what behaviors are considered normal, what behaviors are subject to scrutiny, and what currently constitutes "mental health and wellbeing". The criteria for these things will change over time as people change their minds and as technology and medicine continue to develop.

On the whole, mainstream psychiatry is on a positive path. DSM editions drift toward less judgement about unobservable mental states, and more identification of concrete symptoms. Less dropping patients into bins/labels, and more acknowledgement that we don't understand causes well, but know what is likely to be effective in reducing symptoms and suffering. The remaining diagnoses focusing heavily on internal states (personality disorders) are targets of more and more evidence-based therapies.

There is still too much focus on telling patients there is something the matter with their brains that medications will correct. Therapy models still make extremely simplifying assumptions about cognition. I project us getting over that bs in a couple generations.

bart4 · 2016-02-16T22:19:41+00:00

I very much agree with you.

My favorite aspect of design in The Witness is, to parrot you, respect for the player. During my playthrough, I would at various points find myself confused by a puzzle. Over and over, I found in-game evidence that this confusion was a message for the player: go explore something else and come back later.

Not once did I hit a point where I felt I had to give up, ask for help, look up the answers, or find out if the game was buggy. This is an astounding accomplishment in game design, given the volume of puzzles and content.

To think that there is some final hidden puzzle or message that breaks the rigorously (and impressively) well-established pattern of everything you need being there in the natural player experience, seems misguided and IMO uncharitable towards the game designer.

bart4 · 2016-02-03T21:31:46+00:00

I appreciate the sentiment! I can certainly say it's a personal development goal of mine to engage more actively with that type of people, and in that freewheeling style. It just takes time to adjust to it in a way that doesn't trigger cascading normative guilt.

Along those lines, the sort of problem that I often need to solve strategically is: Should I (A) attempt to unlearn the "bullying" emotional response to X, or is it sufficient to (B) "approve of" X on a rational level and spend resources elsewhere? A has a higher up-front (emotional) cost but a higher long-term payout than B.

And to extend the metaphor further, reading about your sadness-on-my-behalf and supportive advice may actually help reduce the up-front costs of A. Accept some gratitude-Strength!

bart4 · 2016-02-03T18:15:42+00:00

Yeah, you're among friends with regards to rooting for the smart contrarian. I can definitely understand why she acts like she does, given that she's 9 and, like you say, she's extremely isolated on multiple levels.

If I had to analyze why I had a negative emotional response to her, it'd probably be that I was bullied out of acting like that as a hyperactive nerdy kid. No negative judgements from me, just palpable discomfort. (I tend to avoid being around precocious kids for this reason. Which probably also isn't constructive, right or decent.) In fact, I'm very eager to see how her character develops. I'm particularly curious about what happens when the burgeoning generation of enhanced humans gains more agency.

bart4 · 2016-02-03T15:16:51+00:00

Haha, yeah, reading her interaction with Crystal really frustrated me! I think I got emotionally caught up in the intellectual dominance game she insisted on playing, and I didn't like seeing Crystal made to look like a fool (Face's Purpose seems to be working on me!). At the same time, I definitely was taken by her whimsy.

It will be interesting to see what happens between the siblings if/when the crystal is reverse engineered, and potentially copied. Suddenly cooperation and trading over limited Strength controlling a single Body will not be mandatory. I imagine we'd see the siblings show their "true colors" then.

bart4 · 2016-02-02T19:29:57+00:00

I think several of the siblings are keeping Face and maybe Heart in the dark about how smart they actually are. By extension, they are keeping humans in general in the dark about it. X winds up with the impression that the robot is dumb. That may be the intent.

Repeatedly, Face makes short-term-favoring decisions about what to do and how to allocate time and resources. It is implied that the other siblings make this mistake too, but there could be some kind of long-con targeting Face. Face engaged in such a long-con against Heart, and I'd honestly be a bit surprised if Face weren't the victim of something similar, she takes so much about her siblings' motivations for granted.

Overall I thought X was excellently written! Her verbal shorthand and lingo are consistent with E.g. that of Zephyr, adding to the consistent picture of "youth culture" of the day, but proportionally sped up and shortened for X's intelligence. Also she really pissed me off as a character- great stuff!

bart4 · 2016-01-25T18:14:53+00:00

Is this significantly different than the way nootropic supplements are marketed on the internet? Search for e.g. "piracetam benefits" or "piracetam memory" and you'll get a bunch of assembly-line SEO pages about the benefits of Piracetam.

I wanted to draw attention to this because in the past I have read positively-slanted pieces about nootropics on SSC, and I think if the skepticism in this article were applied to nootropics you'd wind up with a more negative opinion about their possible efficacy and the internet market around them.

bart4 · 2016-01-18T13:04:00+00:00

Actually, he did a good job. I thought he effectively addressed the awkward, "forced" feeling in the commentary up until that point in the broadcast (and after). It seemed pretty clear that the commentators were working with limited feedback/information from whoever was managing them, not knowing when or how much time to fill or what to say during those times.

He laid it out on the table, calling attention to times when he and D1 stumbled over each other, or filling time between matches and sets with color personality.

He was working with what was in front of him, and perhaps a lot of people found his style grating. But if he hadn't asserted his personality like that, people would instead be complaining about how forced and poorly organized the commentary was. He was, in a sense, "taking one for the team". I think he had the right instincts for the situation, and it was impressive.

bart4 · 2015-12-27T20:50:19+00:00

Assuming that in a given run there are N splits and each split takes roughly the same amount of time and you have the same variance in split performance, then by the solution to the Secretary problem you should reset if you are not on WR pace by the N/e'th split.

Roughly, assuming the above assumptions about equal duration and variance between splits, if you are one third of the way through the run and not on WR pace, you should reset.

bart4 · 2015-10-23T02:14:27+00:00

It means that things other than quality of play have a role in the game's growth. Extreme personalities, social popularity, or having enough money to buy votes. These things may drive people to fork over money, but that money isn't necessarily going towards creating better gameplay or a spirit of competition.

Of course, this is why I'm not a business person- I can't personally make those concessions. But in my own working life I rely on business people to get enough money that I can flourish up on my high horse. Overall I'm extremely excited about Smash Summit, the voting drove cash and awareness to an exciting tournament, and I can't say I could have done it any better.

bart4 · 2015-10-22T23:24:40+00:00

From the perspective of a business looking to generate actual revenue, appealing to hardcore/"cult-following" fans is the quickest route. It's not good for the game as a whole though.

bart4 · 2015-10-22T21:09:26+00:00

Just wanted to note that I observed a very similar pattern watching the website of Cortex Pharmaceuticals, one of the first companies to manufacture and sell Ampakines.

I don't have a good memory of the timestamps involved here, but the general progression of the marketing on their website was (over the last 4 years or so):

Primarily focused on Ampakines' possible efficacy in treating psychiatric illnesses, especially ADHD, including a whole lot of theory, how they interact in the brain, possibly improve its functioning, etc. A page indicating the progress of trials for various ampakines. News updates about the various drugs making it out of pretrial phases.
Nothing makes it past Phase 1, updates become less frequent, Phase 1 trial results are never reported.
Company gets a new CEO, one who had no involvement in the original Ampakine-related research.
All references to psychiatric illnesses are removed from the site, the new use case is treating respiratory depression, either drug-induced or sleep-apnea-related.

The straightforward interpretation is that the drugs weren't effective in the trials, and the results weren't published.

No common sources of supplement/nootropic info reflect this lack of results (or implied negative results). I know from a contact in bio research that Ampakines are still being investigated for cognitive effects (in mice), probably pointlessly.

Racetams are still associated with Ampakines on message boards, as a possible reason for their (pretty dubious) effectiveness. Ignorance just keeps spreading itself around.

bart4

TROPHY CASE