Running Lightcone Infrastructure, which runs LessWrong. You can reach me at firstname.lastname@example.org
I asked Ajeya, Daniel, and Ege to input their predictions for the two operationalizations into the UI for a random Metaculus market without submitting, and send me screenshots of the UI. Then I traced it over with Adobe Illustrator, combined the different predictions, and then made the final images.
Sure, yeah, though like, I don't super understand. My model will probably make the same predictions as your model in the short term. So we both get equal Bayes points. The evidence that distinguishes our models seems further out, and in a territory where there is a decent chance that we will be dead, which sucks, but isn't in any way contradictory with Bayes rule. I don't think I would have put that much probability on us being dead at this point, so I don't think that loses much of any bayes points. I agree that if we are still alive in 20-30 years, then that's definitely bayes points, and I am happy to take that into account then, but I've never had timelines or models that predicted things to look that different from now (or like, where there were other world models that clearly predicted things much better).
Sorry, but that's a totally different query that has nothing to do with what I said? What I said is let's add posts with at least two reviews, whether positive or negative? So you should compare "has at least 2 positive votes" to "has at least 2 non-zero votes".
Negative votes have a ton of information in them! It means someone thought it was worth spending points sending an active signal that they thought the post was bad. For example, if everyone who votes thinks the Waluigi post, or the Simulators post, is bad, it would be terrible for us to not review them, given the importance they had in the discourse nevertheless.
I would be really surprised if it added more than 4 posts to the review, and I am confident that at least 2 of those posts would seem really important for you and me to indeed be reviewed.
(I am currently planning to change that before the start of the review phase, unless it turns out to be hard for some reason)
Hmm, I don't know how that works. If you go to LessWrong.com/feed.xml you can see the RSS feed working.
Can you say more about the RSS feed not working? I just checked the basics and they still seem to work.
Huh, I learned something today about the name of my own Forum. Thank you!
Lol, no, but that is kind of hilarious.
I think it's a reference to Francis Bacons' "Instauratio Magna" ("The Great Instauration"), though I am not sure why we would have chosen "Magnum" instead of "Magna" as the spelling.
Inline agree/disagree reacts are trying to do the equivalent. Comments are short enough that usually you can summarize your epistemic state with regards to their contents into a single "agree or disagree", but for posts I feel like it really mostly sets things up for polarization and misunderstandings to have a bunch of people "agree" and "disagree" to a huge bundle of claims and statements.
I think it's better for people to highlight specific passages of text and then react to those.