Author
|
Topic: You have lost (Read 11774 times)
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
 Offline
Posts: 941
|
I work as a technical consultant / programmer in internet advertising, but I don't really have experience with the algorithms that you mention (though I know that in my sector htere are companies working with such algorithms).
Here is a link I found http://fastml.com/bayesian-machine-learning/, but I think you need to have a course in machine learning, or something like that to be able to understand it. Death999 or onpon666 might have experience with these things.
I also found a link to this book in one of the comments: https://www.amazon.com/Doing-Bayesian-Data-Analysis-Second/dp/0124058884
And here is another book I found at amazon https://www.amazon.com/Bayes-Rule-Tutorial-Introduction-Bayesian/dp/0956372848/
I should mention though that european laws prohibit you from collecting such data about users unless they have agreed to it. And people already inclined to believe in free press are also more likely of the mindset that this info shouldn't be stored. So there you have a tough one.
Sure, but doesn't lots of software now ask you to agree to such things? I don't think the people we want to convince about these things are the ones that are eager to click no on the user agreements.
Also, how do you determine if the ad is succesful in making people believe in free press? Because a lot of ads like the ones in the US presedential campaigns make you believe that they do care about free press.. but they likely have ulterior motives..
I guess the bayesian algorithm could use the collected user data to determine if a person has changed attitude in these matters. But the first challenge is not to convince a person. The first challenge is just to make a person click on the ad, and that we can easily measure.
Anyhow, since we want the users to click on the ads, every ad needs to have 2 parts. 1 part that is showed in facebook (or wherever), and the other part which the user comes to when they click on the advertisement.
This is going to be quite a lot of work, especially if it is going to be in multiple languages. I suggest you make 5 teams, where each team works with a specific color.
Additionally, how do you know what defines free press? I don't think anybody knows.
If journalists are scared of writing about certain topics, then they have issues with freedom of press. If journalists feel like they can write about anything, I guess you could say that society has freedom of the press. Media bias is not the same as lack of press freedom. We have lots of media bias in the US and western Europe, but journalists are generally not scared of writing about certain topics. An exception might be psychedelics drugs. I think many journalists in the US and western Europe are scared of writing positively about psychedelic drugs. In China, Russia, and Turkey however, journalists are much more scared. There a journalist might get shot or arrested just for criticizing the government. So they have much less press freedom there. But as I said, there might be a lot of media bias in western Europe and USA. That is something else.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 12:59:10 am by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 245
|
Zanthius, I don't think I understand what you want to accomplish and how you will measure that you have accomplished it?
I think you're holding a hammer and see everything as a nail by providing solutions to a problem which you have not clearly defined yet  .
I think it's best not to touch your graph painting tools until you understand what your problem is exactly 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 245
|
Zanthius, I don't think I understand what you want to accomplish and how you will measure that you have accomplished it? I think you're holding a hammer and see everything as a nail by providing solutions to a problem which you have not clearly defined yet . I think it's best not to touch your graph painting tools until you understand what your problem is exactly I think the best way to fight against dictatorships and authoritarian regimes is by spreading ideas about freedom of the press. If the people in these countries start to demand freedom of press, I believe these authoritarian regimes will be in trouble.
But how will they know that they have no freedom of press? Indoctrination is a very powerful tool. Or just plain lies on a wikipedia page with a map where coutnries are ranked to freedom of press indexes which you assume are right, but are they?
Spreading ideas about civil rights might help against racist ideologies and terrorist organizations, but there is also more to it. A strong belief in modern civil rights seems necessary to achieve world peace.
That's absolutely true, but I think it's more deeply rooted in the way we think about ourselves. We think of ourselfves as higher, better than people from other countries or people from different beliefs. When we see a muslim we have our judgements ready about how they are different than us, instead of focussing on the similarities between muslims and christians we immediately focus on how they treat women and gay people for example.
Also. If for example a dictatorship falls, but the population doesn't have a strong belief in civil rights, the next regime is likely to be equally bad.
Do they really believe that on such a level? It's really hard for people who have no housing, no food, no education and no healthcare to even start to think about free press. They have no access to the internet, if they could even read at all. And if they could, they would likely be living in an indoctrinating facebook or google bubble, which automatically shields you from things they expect you to not like (or are bought by the powers that be to indoctrinate you).
The most recent example of free press not being what you want for your own political goals is wikileaks in regards to hillary clinton.
Wikileaks is an excellent example of free press, but they only had info on Hillary to leak (provided to them by Russian hackers which were hired by Russia to further Russia's goals, ie. elect Trump).
So Wikileaks leaked perfectly objective information, but they didn't do so fairly. They didn't leak info on trump because they didn't have it.
Then again, can objective news agencies really be expected to weigh what they leak against their personal beliefs of fairness? I don't think so.
But there you have a perfect example on how free press can be abused to further your own goals.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
But there you have a perfect example on how free press can be abused to further your own goals.
Ok, but if you don't have freedom of the press, the potential for abuse is infinitely bigger. And in general, I agree with you that there are many issues with this, but we need to start from somewhere, and spreading ideas about freedom of the press and civil rights seems like a good place to start.
Especially since the natural evolution of things now, seems to be increased nationalism in Europe, increased hostilities between Europeans/Americans and Muslims, and that both Putin and Trump want more nuclear weapons. I think Trump even has said that he doesn't understand why they aren't using more nuclear weapons.
Anyhow, I made this illustration to clarify a bit why I think we should focus on spreading ideas about freedom of the press and civil rights.
And btw, we are never going to find any common solution to the ecological challenges we face, or the global economic inequality, unless we dissolve the authoritarian regimes first. Because authoritarian regimes don't necessarily care about international agreements, or international law.
I have put everything together in a pdf-file now:
http://archania.org/chmmr-avatar.pdf
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 10:56:16 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
I know the general principles of Bayes, but I would be starting from scratch on implementing a Bayesian induction engine. Don't count on me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
I have made these 4 ad groups in google. Any comments, or proposals for improvements?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 04, 2017, 06:29:32 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
You're kind of overselling it, aren't you?
This is politics. Loud people are out there, and you're some guy with a tract. Other solutions with varying degrees of similarity to your proposed solutions exist, and they're more likely to be actualized because the people backing them already have power.
Most critically, your ideas, while good, are not particularly new and interesting. You're not pulling in a direction that others aren't already pulling.
This is good and bad. It's bad in that we can already tell that the idea isn't going to spread like wildfire and change the world rapidly. Chances weren't good to begin with on that. But it's good news in that you don't need to start all over from the beginning. I'd do a survey of existing groups that do things you approve of and see what you can do to help them.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 05, 2017, 06:34:39 pm by Death 999 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
This is good and bad. It's bad in that we can already tell that the idea isn't going to spread like wildfire and change the world rapidly. Chances weren't good to begin with on that. But it's good news in that you don't need to start all over from the beginning. I'd do a survey of existing groups that do things you approve of and see what you can do to help them.
Well, the whole point was kinda to integrate all the good ideas into one agenda, and get people to follow that agenda. I could join a bunch of different organizations, for example a civil rights movement, an environmentalism organization, and a political organization that wants a more progressive tax system, and so on. But most people have more than enough difficulties keeping one idea (or agenda) in their head. That is why I think it is important to have an agenda that incorporates all the good ideas. So that people don't need to focus upon all of them themselves.
Just think about how much better it is to join a civil rights movement, than to join a feminist organization. If you join the civil rights movement, you also support the rights of homosexuals, black people, and other ethnic minorities. Of course all these groups of people should have the same rights as other people. So I think you will accomplish much more by joining a civil rights movement, than by joining a feminist organization. The only way to accomplish as much without joining a civil rights movement, would be by joining several organizations. One feminist organization, one for homosexual rights, and another for the rights of black people and other minorities. Unfortunately, that would be a bit too much for most people, since most people have more than enough with keeping one idea/agenda in their head.
Of course, the UN might already have incorporated many of the same ideas, and I might have more success by joining the UN. But there are many things I don't like about the UN. Their leader is not democratically elected by the world population, and I am not convinced that they actually care so much about increasing taxes for the rich, since many of the people working high up in the UN belong to the rich elite that benefits from the huge income inequality we have today. They might however care about environmentalism, civil rights and global peace(less military), but since national leaders aren't subordinate to the UN, they haven't been overly successful with these things, and there is little hope that they will be any more successful in the near future.
Other than that, I am sure that Bernie Sanders wants many of the same things as me. I wish he was running for world president (not just to become the American president). I would vote for him. But it seems like your country preferred a narcissistic sociopathic demagogue / con artist. And similar candidates are becoming more popular in Europe.
If the election of Donald Trump has taught us anything, it is that most people want it simple. And in order to have it simple, we need to consolidate around one ideology and one candidate.
What we need is for people to believe in one ideology that incorporates all the good ideas, and one candidate that believes in all the good ideas (like Bernie Sanders).
If all the good people are split into different organizations/agendas, the wolf (Donald Trump) eats you. But if all the sheep stand together, you might easily kill the wolf.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 12:45:12 am by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
I don't see magic mushrooms being a method of effecting political change because I can't see them becoming widely used either in the general population or the political classes.
Another issue is, reaction kinetics is a poor model of opinion shifts and governments. Or if it is, the dominant force is usually friction.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
I don't see magic mushrooms being a method of effecting political change because I can't see them becoming widely used either in the general population or the political classes.
But why do you think the American civil rights movement emerged at the same time as the hippies were ingesting large amounts of psychedelics? There was lots of opposition against the Vietnam war then, lots of civil rights activists, and so on. If the hippies had the Internet we have today at their disposal, I am sure they would have spread their peaceful agenda across the globe. But unfortunately they didn't, and as you say, psychedelics are not widely used today. Drugs that make you more stupid seems to be the choice of today, while nationalism and xenophobia seems to be popular in politics.
We have Internet though.... and I agree with you that it probably is our best option.
Edit: You just gave me a great idea! What you say about magic mushrooms consumption doesn't necessarily apply to the entire world. In Gabon (mid-western Africa), they are consuming a lot of Ibogaine, which is an even more powerful psychedelic than magic mushrooms, while in Peru (latin America) they are consuming a lot of Ayahuasca which is another psychedelic with similar properties to magic mushrooms. I believe the main language of Gabon is French, while the main language of Peru is Spanish. I am already working on translating my manuscript into different languages, and when I am done I should of course target advertisement traffic to Gabon and Peru, because people living there might be much more susceptible to these ideas since consumption of psychedelics is much more common there. The revolution doesn't need to start in Europe/USA. It can just as well start in Gabon and Peru.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 07, 2017, 11:01:45 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
Another issue is, reaction kinetics is a poor model of opinion shifts and governments. Or if it is, the dominant force is usually friction.
I have changed it from "tension between countries" to "friction between countries" now, and included the graph in my manuscript in the end of concluding remarks.
It might not be so accurate to describe this with reaction kinetics, since in chemical reactions you use energy to break molecular bonds, and get energy with the formation of new molecular bonds. Even if we are not breaking and forming molecular bonds here, we are using energy to break nationalistic beliefs (the force that holds a country together), and getting energy from forming a belief in a world government. So I think it is a good analogy, and these local and global minima are used in optimization theory to describe a wide variety of phenomena.
Edit: What is a belief, if not molecular bonds in the synapses in the brain? Maybe breaking a belief is not so different from breaking a molecular bond after all..... the brain is composed of molecules....
Edit 8 jan: It is intuitive that in requires energy to break a belief. If somebody proves to us that we are wrong, it hurts us, and we feel emotional pain. This seems to be in accordance with breaking a molecular bond. Atoms prefer to be in molecules because they get to lower energy levels when they are joined together in molecules. So it takes energy to break molecular bonds, and we feel emotional pain when our cherished beliefs are proven wrong. But shouldn't this be symmetrical? If it hurts to break a belief, shouldn't we also feel pleasure during the formation of a belief, just like atoms release energy during the formation of molecular bonds? This seems less intuitive to me.
I have made this theory into a more generalized form now: http://www.archania.org/falsified_beliefs_and_5ht2a_receptor agonists.pdf
Do you think they might be interested in discussing this at the lesswrong website?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 12:29:55 am by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
I'm not sure that bringing this there would work well. Politics are something that site tries to avoid. Perhaps you can keep it narrowly to the topic of spreading rationality, eschewing reference to your political goals. That seems like it would be tough.
Also, your theories tend cover a lot more ground than you thoroughly justify. That makes sense in a political tract, as you're mostly speaking to people who know what you mean, you just try to organize them. On LW, it's best to be considerably narrower and controlled. If you speculate, label it as such.
Also, it might be wise to read some of the 'sequences', which are some base material for the site. There is quite a lot there, so don't worry about finishing it all before posting! But it would make sense to get an idea of the overall idea. I'd start with How to Actually Change Your Mind, one of the original sequences.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
