Just this guy, you know?
I'm skeptical that this has much practical value. It's useful to point out the information differential in positive and negative statements, thank you for that. But there's a reason that almost all human languages contain that mechanism, and it's very convenient.
I predict that it mostly gets worked around, by using only a few extra words.
"The sky is something other than blue" and "I will be somewhere else tomorrow" are both semantically-equivalent to the forbidden forms. Even "I deny that the sky is blue" is a positive-form negation of the object-level statement.
Note that patent and copyright limit different kinds of use, and apply to different things, so there's no reason to compare them, and no real reason they should have similar terms. In both cases, though, there are very different circumstances, different investment levels, and different re-use (and expansion) possibilities for the idea or expression, and there should be variable terms. Oh, and variable enforced-licensing and fair-use regimes.
Yup. It's just stupid not to AT LEAST contribute the matched or otherwise-incented amount. This is free money. As for longer-term amounts and planning, the key question is "what is the alternative use?"
Thus, I'd separate the aspects of this advice. "the chance that you'll want money at retirement is large enough to be worth planning for." will depend on specific estimates, and the foregone uses for money that "planning for" entails. "The money is less restricted than it sounds" is very important, and true.
Copyright, both in the US and internationally, is JUSTIFIED as protecting creators and ensuring they get some of the value they bring to the world. It's ACTUALLY standard politics and balancing what big lobbyist corporations want and what lawmakers think won't get them recalled by the public.
If it were possible to have a sane system, it would NOT be one-size-fits-all. The duration would be variable based on multiple dimensions of legible value given and received. Everything gets, say, 5 years. Then perhaps a bidding process to extend 5 or 20 years (with additional later bids if the full term isn't bought), with some discount or advantage to the current holder.
Yes, most of them do have an inverse, but rarely is that inverse as common or as necessary to guard against. Also, reversed stupidity is not intelligence - a lot of things are multidimensional enough that truth is just in a different quadrant than the line implied by the fallacy and it's reverse.
Thanks. I guess it's just more evidence that I am not a rationalist. I did get 13/18 when I took it as best I could. There was no option for "don't care", so I picked the middle one for things I just didn't connect with, or where it was a conjunction and I agreed with one half and disagreed with the other half. This was a majority of the "X because Y" questions.
I wish the scoring were a lot more precise - like standard deviations from mean, or log-distance from mode. I also wish you'd show the "correct" range for the ones I was in-range, just so I could see how close to the edge I was. But really, I wish there were more discussion of the analytics and interpretation of questions - I currently don't see how/whether I should change my views on the cult based on this.
Specific disagreements with your scoring, likely because of phrasing or misunderstanding of question:
You should believe your friends if they tell you they've seen ghosts.
Unless they're known to lie/exaggerate, you should believe that they've seen things which they feel "ghosts" is the best description. Believe your friends, and liars aren't friends.
Charity organizations should...
Ok, likely a real disagreement with other poll-takers. I don't think all or most charity organizations (or non-charity organizations, for that matter) "should" bundle lifestyle choices with employment compensation and mission alignment. SOME organizations do so, and successfully, but it doesn't generalize AT ALL.
Driving cars gives you a lot of independence.
Maybe an interpretation thing. "Driving cars", as in the ability to drive a car when useful, CLEARLY expands one's options for independent transportation and location choices. "Driving cars", as in the societal assumption that it's the only or primary way for people to move about, and that it's necessary for most people to spend a lot of time isolated in their car is far less desirable. But it DOES increase independence, just not the good kind of independence.
It is bad to buy and destroy expensive products in the name of "art".
Genuinely surprised that people think it's not bad to intentionally destroy value. I wonder if there's a different availability heuristic being used for WHICH expensive products are being destroyed.
I get a different justification for the incorrect answer from ChatGPT-3.5. If I precede the question with "optimize for mathematical precision", I get the right answer. ChatGPT-4 gets it right the first time, for me. Even if I ask it "explain why 2023 is a prime number", it says it's not prime.
Do you have a link to an explanation of what you're hoping to learn? "how much of a rationalist you are" is ... a strange thing to poll about. "How rational you are" would make sense, bu would have very different questions.
I looked out of curiosity, and I am a bit uncertain what framing I should use for "ought" and "should". My modal preference (it'll vary, of course, with circumstances, but there's a "most common" answer I can pick)? My prediction of the LW median? My prediction of your weighting of "rationalist" answers?
The very first question "Movie protagonists ought to be physically attractive." stumped me. Movie protagonists tend to be visually distinct, most often attractive. As a consumer, I don't have an "ought" to apply. If I were making a movie, it'd be a point of debate to figure out the main reasons for different presentations of protagonist, and pick someone who fits well with the vision.
I had addiitonal problem with things like "Curiosity is for boring nerds. ". Using two dimensions of description, and not including the other endpoint ("curiosity is not for exciting jocks"?) made it hard to give a linear answer. Curiosity IS for more for interesting nerds than boring nerds, but it's also for everyone else.
I gave up and did not answer. Sorry.
I give a fair chance that with additional scaling (a few orders of magnitude, perhaps), and multimodal training data (especially visual and haptic), it could cross the threshold of consciousness, and be part of (or most of) what will call itself AGI (ok, really they'll just call itself "The People") after the human era ends.
But I also give a lot of weight to "this is an impressive dead-end". I don't know how to narrow my very wide error bars on these possibilities.
This seems to apply to plans/intents more than it does for advice per se. Perhaps you model a consideration of action as self-advice? Or you're talking about implementation of advice? I tend to think of evaluation of advice in terms of "what goals does the advisor think I have?" and "what does the advisor know about those goals or my situation that I don't (or haven't noticed)?"
I think in terms of your framing, I'd use different dimensions than underfit/overfit. I'd focus on completeness and specificity. "work hard" is almost always correct. It's not very complete, without some description of what kind of work, and how to work hard. It's not very specific, since it doesn't specify how to change from how hard you're already working.