I would say that, if-and-only-if it's still alive for Alex, I'd enjoy him just writing down the basic things he said in his talk in like a couple of paragraphs, both the preamble at the top and his 4 slides or so.
If we make strong claims driven by emotions, then we should make sure to also defend them in less emotionally loaded ways, in a way which makes them compelling to someone who doesn't share these particular emotions.
Restating this in the first person, this reads to me as ”On the topics where we strongly disagree, you’re not supposed to say how you feel emotionally about the topic if it’s not compelling to me.” This is a bid you get to make and it will be accepted/denied based on the local social contract and social norms, but it’s not a “core skill of ratio... (read more)
At this point, my plan is try to consolidate what I think the are main confusions in the comments of this post, into one or more new concepts to form the topic of a new post.
Sounds great! I was thinking myself about setting aside some time to write a summary of this comment section (as I see it).
I don’t know why you want ‘disspassion’, emotions are central to how I think and act and reason, and this is true for most rationalists I know. I mean, you say it’s mindkilling, and of course there’s that risk, but you can’t just cut off the domain of emotion, and I will not pander to readers who cannot deal with their own basic emotions.
When I say Facebook is evil, I straightforwardly mean that it is trying to hurt people. It is intentionally aiming to give millions of people an addiction that makes their lives worse and their communities worse. Zuckerber... (read more)
I had an interesting conversation with Zvi about in which societies it was easiest to figure out whether the major societal narratives were false. It seemed like there was only a few major global narratives in times back then, whereas today I feel like there’s a lot more narratives flying around me.
"Constant vigilance, eh, lad?" said the man."It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you," Harry recited the proverb.The man turned fully toward Harry; and insofar as Harry could read any expression on the scarred face, the man now looked interested.
"Constant vigilance, eh, lad?" said the man.
"It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you," Harry recited the proverb.
The man turned fully toward Harry; and insofar as Harry could read any expression on the scarred face, the man now looked interested.
Though, my point is that just like Moody, a person who is (correctly) constantly looking out for power-plays and traps, and will end up seeing many that aren’t there, because it’s a genuinely hard problem to figure out whether specific people are plotting against you.
I like this suggestion.
You should totally be less careful. On Twitter, if you say something that can be misinterpreted, sometimes over a million people see it and someone famous tells them you're an awful person. I say sometimes, I more mean "this is the constant state and is happening thousands of times per day". Yes, if you're not with your friends and allies and community, if you're in a system designed to take the worst interpretation of what you say and amplify it in the broader culture with all morality set aside, be careful.
Here on LW, I don't exercise that care to anythi... (read more)
I think we're talking past each other a little, because we're using "careful" in two different senses. Let's say careful1 is being careful to avoid reputational damage or harassment. Careful2 is being careful not to phrase claims in ways that make it harder for you or your readers to be rational about the topic (even assuming a smart, good-faith audience).
It seems like you're mainly talking about careful1. In the current context, I am not worried about backlash or other consequences from failure to be careful1. I'm talking about careful2. When you "aim to ... (read more)
(I have some disagreements with this. I think there's a virtue Ben is pointing at (and which Zvi and others are pointing at), which is important, but I don't think we have the luxury of living in the world where you get to execute that virtue without also worrying about the failure modes Richard is worried about)
There are many forces and causes that lead use of deontology and virtue ethics to be misunderstood and punished on Twitter, and this is part of the reason that I have not participated in Twitter these past 3-5 years. But don't confuse these with the standards for longer form discussions and essays. Trying to hold your discussions to Twitter standards is a recipe for great damage to one's ability to talk, and ability to think.
I wanted to convey (my feeling of) the standard use of the word.
(of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment."the rather naive young man had been totally misled"
(of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment.
"the rather naive young man had been totally misled"
I actually can imagine a LWer making that same argument but not out of naivete, because LWers argue earnestly for all sorts of wacky ideas. But what I meant was it also feels to me like the sort of thing I might've said in the past when I had not truly seen the mazes in the world, not had my hard work thrown in my face, or some other experience like that where my standard tools had failed me.
I hadn't thought of that. Not sure whether it's the same thing, but thanks for the comment.
That's a good summary.
Just after posting this on "Context-Free Integrity", I checked Marginal Revolution and saw Tyler's latest post was on "Free-Floating Credibility". These two terms feel related...
The kabbles are strong tonight.
I reflected on it some more, and decided to change the title.
Welcome Max :) I hope you find deeply worthwhile things to read.
I've felt like the problem of counterfactuals is "mostly settled" for about a year, but I don't think I've really communicated this online.
Wow that's exciting! Very interesting that you think that.
Yes, all societies are identical except insofar as what the officials pretend about it. People in very religious societies are having just as much sex as in modern secular societies, they just do it in a way that allowed officials to pretend it didn’t exist.
Welcome! (For my part. Eliezer can say “you’re welcome” for the blessing.)
I've curated this essay.
Getting a sense of one's own history can be really great for having perspective. The primary reason I've curated this is because the post really helped give me perspective on the history of this intellectual community, and I imagine also for many other LWers.
I wouldn't have been able to split it into "General Semantics, analytic philosophy, science fiction, and Zen Buddhism" as directly as you did, nor would I know which details to pick out. (I would've been able to talk about sci-fi, but I wouldn't quite know how to relate the r... (read more)
I feel like the first two are enforceable with culture. For example I think many Muslim countries have a lot of success at preventing pornography (or at least, they did until the internet, which notably dath ilan seems to not quite have). I also have a sense that many people with severe mental/physical disabilities are implicitly treated as though they won't have children in our culture, and as a result often do not. But I agree it's hard to do it ethically, and both of the aforementioned ways aren't done very ethically in our civilization IMO.
For the latt... (read more)
(Here are some of my thoughts, reading through.)
Sometimes I would get a flash of light through the fog, or at least a sense that there were other people on the same lonely quest. A bit of that sense sometimes drifted over USENET, an early precursor of today's Internet fora.
It's strange, I don't feel the fog much in my life. I wonder if this a problem. It doesn't seem like I should feel like "I and everyone around me basically know what's going on".
I can imagine certain people for whom talking to them would feel like a flash of light in the fog. I probably ... (read more)
The rules say we must use consequentialism, but good people are deontologists, and virtue ethics is what actually works.—Eliezer Yudkowsky, Twitter
The rules say we must use consequentialism, but good people are deontologists, and virtue ethics is what actually works.
—Eliezer Yudkowsky, Twitter
"We have trained GPT-3 on all of reddit, and unleashed it for the population to use. Here are the freaking weird and beautiful and terrifying things that happened." vs "No we didn't do that because we're more careful and sensible."
Yeah, I'm confused to think about who has got the weirder society. dath ilan has more global guardrails yet invests more into experiments. We've got fewer guardrails, but also a load of random "you can't sell that" rules. I think (?) that reddit doesn't exist in their world, or the free sex movement you mention, etc. So in some ways we're less ethically constrained, allowing us to find weird niches.
Curated. This was an accessible yet technically precise overview of the evidence surrounding an open research area in physics / cosmology, and I'd like to see more of this sort of post on LW. I think had almost anyone tried this they would have made a really long post with lots of hard technical math and it wouldn't have been understood by many, so thanks.
LessWrong IPO... nice idea.
<puts it in a folder for safekeeping>
(and brilliant point about cell phone bills)
(absolutely great use of that link)
Tut tut. It seems SubStack is in on the collusion too.
Where is the CAPTCHA?
Let’s see where we are in 24 hours.
It's April 2nd now. What was actually in the posts?
(And did anyone actually pay the 1 BTC?)
I’m glad to hear that we’re such reliable executors :)
Thank you. I would greatly enjoy more people sharing their takeaways from reading the posts.
I'm deeply confused by the cycle of references. What order were these written in?
In the HPMOR epilogue, Dobby (and Harry to a lesser extent) solve most of the worlds' problems using the 7 step method Scott Alexander outlines in "Killing Moloch" (ending with of course with the "war to end all wars"). This strongly suggests that the HPMOR epilogue was written after "Killing Moloch".
However, "Killing Moloch" extensively quotes Muehlhauser's "Solution to the Hard Problem of Consciousness". (Very extensively. Yes Scott, you solved coordination problems, and des... (read more)
I only read the HPMOR epilogue because - let's be honest - HPMOR is what LessWrong is really for.
(HPMOR spoilers ahead)
I had hoped the cheap price of bitcoin would allow everyone who wanted to to be a part of it, but I seem to have misjudged the situation!
You're welcome. Yeah "invented the concept" and "named the concept" are different (and both important!).
Here it is: https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10152443714699228?comment_id=10152445126604228
Rob Miles (May 2014):
Ok, I've given this some thought, and I'd call it:"Corrigible Reasoning"using the definition of corrigible as "capable of being corrected, rectified, or reformed". (And of course AIs that don't meet this criterion are "Incorrigible")
Ok, I've given this some thought, and I'd call it:
using the definition of corrigible as "capable of being corrected, rectified, or reformed". (And of course AIs that don't meet this criterion are "Incorrigible")
Thank you very much! It seems worth distinguishing the concept invention from the name brainstorming, in a case like this one, but I now agree that Rob Miles invented the word itself.
The technical term corrigibility, coined by Robert Miles, was introduced to the AGI safety/alignment community in the 2015 paper MIRI/FHI paper titled Corrigibility.
Eg I'd suggest that to avoid confusion this kind of language should be something like "The technical term corrigibility, a name suggested by Robert Miles to denote concepts previously discussed at MIRI, was introduced..." &c.
I'm 94% confident it came from a Facebook thread where you blegged for help naming the concept and Rob suggested it. I'll have a look now to find it and report back.
Edit: having a hard time finding it, though note that Paul repeats the claim at the top of his post on corrigibility in 2017.
Hah, I was thinking of replying to say I was largely just repeating things you said in that post.
Nonetheless, thanks both Kaj and Eric, I might turn it into a little post. It's not bad to have two posts saying the same thing (slightly differently).
The most important traits of the new humans are that... they prize rationality under all circumstances - to be accepted by them you have to retain clear thinking and problem-solving capability even when you're stressed, hungry, tired, cold, or in combat
Interestingly, as a LessWronger, I don't think of myself in quite this way. I think there's a key skill a rationalist should attain, which is knowing in which environments you will fail to be rational, and avoiding those environments. Knowing your limits, and using that knowledge when making plans.
One that I... (read more)
Great point. A few (related) examples come to mind:
The way I have set this up for writers in the past has been to setup crossposting from an RSS feed under a tag (e.g. crossposting all posts tagged 'lesswrong').
I spent a minute trying and failed to figure out how to make an RSS feed from your blog under a single category. But if you have such an rss feed, and you make a category like 'lesswrong' then I'll set up a simple crosspost, and hopefully save you a little time in expectation. This will work if you add the category old posts as well as new ones.
I'm pretty sure we back-dated it in a mass import at the start of LW 2.0, and that in never had its day on the frontpage (or its day on LW 1.0), and that's why it has low engagement. There's like 100 comments on the original.
Oh woops, I realize I ended the call for everyone when I left. I'm sorry.
I understand that Infra-Bayesianism wants to be able to talk about hypotheses that do not describe the entire environment. (Like logical induction.) Something that just says “I think this particular variable is going to go up, but I don’t know how the rest of the world works.”
To do this, somehow magically using intervals over probabilities helps us. I understand it's trying to define a measure over multiple probability distribution, but I don't know quite how that maps to these convex sets, and would be interested in the basic relationship being outlined, or a link to the section that does it. (The 8 posts of math were scary and I didn't read them.)
I am quite interested to get a first-person sense of what it feels like from the inside to be an Infra-Bayesian. In particular, is there a cognitive thing I already do, or should try, that maps to this process for dealing with having measure over different probability distributions?
Here are some questions and confusions we had during the event.
The Zoom Room is now open: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83554464688?pwd=UWkwaFpqVHdrQktMYU9zYlVQd3ZzUT09
(a quick experiment: wiggle your index finger for one second. Now wave your whole arm in the air for one second. Now jump up and down for one second. Now roll around on the floor for one second. If you're like me, you probably did the index finger one, maybe did the arm one, but the thought of getting up and jumping - let alone rolling on the floor - sounded like too much work, so you didn't. These didn't actually require different amounts of useful resources from you, like time or money or opportunity cost. But the last two required moving more and bigger
I’m sorry to hear that :(