Working memory deficit (symptom of ADHD) is similar and maybe sufficient. But this isn't necessary: I've seen reduced/differently calibrated salience sense in autistic people as well. 

Seeing dementia up-close has prompted some reflection. I see a person with several deficits, the most striking is that they're unable to perceive salience (what does this mean to me?). No perception is unimportant, everything is relevant. This makes them vulnerable to the modern internet, where websites are ad-funded thus attention-optimised. Unable to see something and think 

"why am I being shown this? should I pay attention to it? hmm, no, not important"

One's ability to perceive [what's being said] alongside [intent behind the action of saying] helps us communicate more effectively with salience-perceptive people. 

People less salience-perceptive are both harder to communicate with, and more vulnerable to manipulation. 

Is this a well-represented trait in LW?

Thanks for clarifying! that terminology seems clear now I've seen it spelled out

 what if? implications are implied, for sure. But they're relevant iff it's likely. why should we consider your hypothesis?

Thanks for your reply. I have some more questions.

I think the claim you make in this comment is that differences in [author's definition] is sufficient to cause conflict. But I took your post to imply it was necessary. 

But that's not what you intended me to think? You're thinking about a particular kind of conflict, not about humans generally hurting each other?

terminology: what is a "basis of knowledge"? Is it "things a person knows" or maybe "epistemics"?

How attached are you to the terminology you're using? We have "map and territory" to discuss how people can disagree without having to say "alternative truth" (which smells). It almost seems like the conflicts you refer to are about map-territory confusion itself!

They will reliably emit sentences that, in humans, correspond to signals of affection for cat. What does it correspond to in a language model? How does text prediction generalise to actions in meatspace? 

Why does differing knowledge necassarily cause conflict? I suppose if you lack strategic information, you might make a strategic mistake, (as I've heard applied to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, or when young male grizzlies don't know their place and start trying to assert themselves over obviously superior opponents). But I don't see justification for the general case and I think it's wrong.

I think conflict is caused by goals that conflict.

I want more land, you have more land. Give it to me, I'm not asking. Why are you resisting? Is there something you don't understand?

From solving the problems I gained a better understanding of energy and momentum

Thinking Physics 

Idea: mechanics, optics, electromagnetism, fluids

Creator: Lewis Carrol Epstein

Reason: focuses on physical reasoning and intuition rather than computation. Isolating a skill is the best way to improve it. 

People have limited capacity for empathy. Knowing this, they might be thinking "If this kind of sentiment enters the mainstream, limited empathy budget (and thereby resources) would be divided amongst humans (which I care about) and LLMs. This possibility frightens me."