Another analogy is that Bayesianism = decision theory and frequentism = game theory. Bayesians play the best response to a particular mixed strategy of nature (prior), while frequentists try to achieve "frequentist guarantees" which is like minimaxing against nature.
One possible problem with the scheme is that level N assistants will have access to a lot of power, in the form of level N-1 assistants. If they have even a little desire for personal happiness, they might be tempted to trade. Such trade can make the whole bureaucracy corrupt or even harmful.
Sure, a stereotypical "shy frustrated geek" would benefit from moving in the direction of "tough confident warrior". But that's not the only direction and maybe not even the best. How about this one: "speaks ten languages, talks fast, loves to haggle?" The world is so wide! A nice writing exercise i...(read more)
I'm firmly on the side of guess culture on this. If you're good enough at reading my nonverbal signals that you can punch me without making me feel defensive or creeped out, go for it. If you aren't good enough, you aren't good enough, and I won't hesitate to tell you as much.
Our rules don't draw that boundary at the moment, and I'm not even sure how it could be phrased. Do you have any suggestions?
The prize isn't affiliated with MIRI or any other organization, it's just us. But maybe we can figure something out. Can you email me (vladimir.slepnev at gmail)?
We accept them all as your entry :-)
Are you entering this round BTW?
Accepted, gave some feedback in the comments