Running Lightcone Infrastructure, which runs LessWrong and Lighthaven.space. You can reach me at habryka@lesswrong.com.
(I have signed no contracts or agreements whose existence I cannot mention, which I am mentioning here as a canary)
What happened to the previous CEO?
(Confirming that the author of this reached out to us to get help with making this wiki. We happened to be working on some new wiki/tag features that seemed like a good fit, so we helped them get set up. This is all very much an experiment and we might delete it later, but it seemed locally helpful.)
I think nudges towards feedback might make sense, especially if anonymous. I do think feedback is good!
This post is definitely not site policy, and at least I as the site admin disagree with any kind of "should" here.
People are already too hesitant to downvote content on the site. Explaining your downvote is good, but do not feel any obligation to do so. The voting system is anonymous for a reason. Use it for expressing what your values are, approximately whatever they may be, even if you cannot put them into words.
(I like it, seems like a cool idea and maybe worth a try, and indeed a common thing that people mess up)
(I would not work on LessWrong if that was the case and think it would be very harmful for the world)
I understand the motivation behind this, but there is little warning that this is how the forum works.
The New User Guide, which gets DMd to every user I feel like does get it across pretty well that we have high and particular standards:
LessWrong is a pretty particular place. We strive to maintain a culture that's uncommon for web forums[1] and to stay true to our values. Recently, many more people have been finding their way here, so I (lead admin and moderator) put together this intro to what we're about.
My hope is that if LessWrong resonates with your values and interests, this guide will help you become a valued member of community. And if LessWrong isn't the place for you, this guide will help you have a good "visit" or simply seek other pastures.
See this discussion: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3P8WBwLyfPBEkbG3c/proveably-safe-self-driving-cars-modulo-assumptions?commentId=kBAub9SRGn3FEj6Kv
I looked at a bunch of the articles and rules listed on the website but didn't review the paper in-depth. The rules don't mention pedestrians, but you are right that the paper does has an extremely cursory treatment of them. It basically says "assume the pedestrians are also following RSS", which of course, is in direct contradiction to your statement that if all cars on the road follow RSS, that there will be no accidents, since pedestrians are of course part of the road environment, and they do not follow RSS in-reality (and as such RSS cannot prove that no collisions with pedestrians will occur, or that the only way to do a reasonable thing when interfacing with pedestrians will require some collision with another vehicle).
@Martin Randall You reacted that you would be happy to bet! Would love to take your money. Is there any third-party adjudicator who you would trust to adjudicate whether the following statement is true:
In the case of RSS, it’s provable that if other cars follow the law, and/or all cars on the road abide by the rules, those cars will only have accidents if their sensors are incorrect.
That's a pretty recent thing! Agree that it has become more used recently (in the last 1-2 years) for practicalreasons.
I mean, someone must have been running it somehow. In case that has been done by some group of people, I feel like saying why they now want a boss would also answer my question.