This is why I keep thinking the real bottleneck isn’t writing quality but attention constraints. Humans have a tiny RAM buffer and effortposts overflows it. There’s world saving information that simply costs too much attention to enter people’s heads.

There is only 2 ways out of this mess:
- increase people's attention ( which seems impossible)
- reducing the attention required to process knowledge ( this requires a different paradigm).

You won the reward for critisizing my article. Please DM me your bitcoin information.

Thank you for taking the time to review my post and comment.

Now that I've written the points above, I study again the "what if" part at the end and say, "oh, so the idea is that human language may not be the best way to transmit knowledge because what gets your attention often isn't what lets you learn easily, cool, then what"

So my core issue ( which resulted in the "Words make us Dumb" Series) is that you cannot just provide a document describing the Alien Language and expect people to appreciate its significance. People must be aware of the significant problems Human Languages cause in terms of Knowledge Routing, Politics, Trust, Misinformation, AI, Climate, etc... Once people are aware then they would be more receptive to the Alien Language.

Then... you claim that there might be a Better Language to cut through these issues. That would be extremely impressive. But then I scroll back up and I see the titles of the following posts. I'm afraid that you will only describe issues with human communication without suggesting techniques to overcome them (at least in specific contexts).

The last 3 posts describe the Alien Language and how it would solve all the issues described above. But to appreciate the Alien Language, I was hoping to have a discussion about all these issues.

For instance, you gave an example comparison in impression (asteroid vs. climate change). Could you provide a comparison for relevance? Something that, by your lights, gets processed easily

I am not sure I understand your question. Can you elaborate more?

Asteroids and Climate Change both cause Millions of Deaths, Billions of Displaced and Trillions of damage. But our psychology would result in significant action for Asteroids but not Climate Change since the former would cause a significant impression. 

But instead of using Human Languages, if we used a framework to objectively assess the significance of every event(Asteroid, Climate Change, AI, Car Accidents, Diseases, etc...) then the impact of impressions would be nullified.

I appreciate your response. You have to pick a claim and write something critical against it to count for the reward. Can you elaborate which claim is "total nonsense"?

The "Point"lessness of RiskiPedia. 

There is a lot of valuable knowledge in RiskiPedia since many of these risks will likely be encountered by many people. Many of these same risks will be encountered by many people such as a visit to the ER, a car accident, a house fire, a bankruptcy etc... 

The main problem is that these Risks will not be properly routed to the person whom they effect. For example, Risk X may be of significant concern to me, but if I am not aware of this risk due to my limited Attention Span, I will never query the website to become knowledgeable of it.

Another problem is that Risk is not the only type of information that a person would care about. The Risk of ending up in the ER may be 1 in a 1000, but the cost of that trip is also important. To evaluate the significance of the event, we may need to know Probability of it occurring, cost of event, mortality risk, time wasted and other information.

For a specific calculator such as ER risk, you assume that the input dimensions are X, Y and Z. Another researcher may claim dimension W is important. Sometimes dimension Y may not be available but dimensions X and Z are. RiskiPedia only offers YOUR perspective and not the perspective of other researchers.

Finally there is the problem of Trust. What integrity mechanisms are available to protect this valuable knowledge from misinformation or malicious intent. For Example, the risk of contracting Lung Cancer if your are a smoker may be X. But how do I know that the tobacco company did not corrupt you to modify the risk from X to X - delta.

Overall, this is valuable knowledge but your website is a suboptimal platform for the dissemination of it. What if there was a superior method to disseminate it?

I think the bigger problem is that A.I. Alarmism is being drowned out by other forms of Alarmism(of which there are many).  This topic can be summarized to a few key numbers:

1. What is the probabilitiy that the event "A.I. attempts to optimize humanity out of existence". This is fundamentally a time series since the probability today will differ than the probability 1 year or 10 years from now.
2. If the event occurs, what is the probability that it is successful and what is the cost in lives, resources, etc...

While I do not have the expertise on this, there are many people who do have this knowledge. But it is important to keep in mind that whether A.I. Alarmism is justified or not depends on these numbers. Also as a policy maker, there are many other issues (some are emperically severe) that may outweigh this issue and thus require their finite attention span.