All of descent's Comments + Replies

I have to say that I've become quite unreasonably attached to a GPT-2 bot born from a body of tumblr posts, so I suspect the sensationalization, while hyperbolic, does certainly come from a real place.

I fail to see what this system fixes for people who don't already have enough money to make their preferences actionable

Lower rent is what I'm hearing, which you can already relocate to if you have the luxury of remote work

How does paying lost bids disincentivize overbidding? You are literally wasting money to concede. I have to be reading that incorrectly

2mako yass2y
You might have to explain your position a bit more. If I gather what you're trying to say (I'm not sure I do) I touch on that in the longtermist significance section. If you're happy to move away and live outside of a dense city, you might not need proq very much, as rent/mortgages far away from the city center can potentially maybe in some circumstances compete down to a tiny proportion of mean income. If you care about mean QoL in city centers, though, there may be no alternative to proq, as rent cannot ever compete down to a tiny proportion of mean income in city centers due to the abundance of demand. Do you care about mean QoL in the city centers? I like that one the least. The other two are more promising aren't they? But the rationale is that it would incent people to hesitate and consider and negotiate with the other buyers a lot more before bidding, and that bids would generally decrease to account for unpredictable expected losses (causing them to decrease further in response to decreased expected competition?). Whether you should bid would depend a lot more on whether and how much others are going to bid, everyone would be induced to develop a clearer sense of that crucial information, and then in the end the item still gets allocated to someone.

Any ideas on quantifying previous levels of ignorance? Test scores don't seem even remotely close to necessarily correlative. Rationality tests and the like would be opt-in, and highly selective of sample. This looks like a fun opportunity for exorbitantly creative experimental design.

Possible A addendum: There is also more information than ever to be cognizant of, so modern basic literacy from primary schooling is increasingly concept-dense, which makes falling behind a larger drop than before. My mother is a 2nd grade teacher, and I would definitely ask her how the frequency of inconsolable kids has shifted, but at that age each student's largest barrier is typically uncomfortable home situations.

I agree that responsible policy is preferable to ecosystem stress testing

1ChristianKl2y
It seems like you ignore what the above exchange was about.

It's for heating up the water for greases and oil stains, you're absolutely right. I made a joke, but I've been doused in car oil before and I've had plenty of grease on my shirts from old farm machinery maintenance

By coincidence, my hot water heat recently broke. I expected the cold showers to be the worst part, but it was actually the difficulty cleaning dishes: grease, oil, and fat just wouldn't come off the dishes (or the scrubby doodle, for that matter), despite ample application of soap. Since most of my meals involve those things, I eventually resorted to cleaning what could be cleaned with running cold tap water & soap, and setting an electric kettle to boil to do a second pass to try to melt off the remnants.

It did take longer.

This analysis assumes that we will succeed in geoengineering without further deleterious externalities, which has less than no current basis

9ChristianKl2y
No, spending on adapting a country to be able to handle +2C warming doesn't help you with random deleterious externalities. 

If anyone feels like humoring me, I would actually take a bit of a response as to how washing machines are better than a basket in a river, other than river-rationing-issues (aqueducts? Pipes??)

3seed2y
They, um, save time? And also heat up the water?

I don't want to straw your view of abortion based on this post alone, but abortion certainly happened in more dangerous ways before current chemical abortions in industrial civilization, still does, and your view may or may not change if you yourself were pregnant against your own decision, none of which seems to be considered here.

but I do love to talk about how rational economic competition necessarily pits workers in a community against each other into competing for qualification, into a union, which all else has the utmost monetary incentive to eat alive (WV Coal Wars at the least charitable, gradually stemming to equally 'effective' social and legal action)

Contrarily, a vacuum cleaner is just in no way more automatic than a broom unless you design a floor to hold pieces of food and dirt, which people love. Hoping someone comes along to shove me with 5 studies that carpets reduce homicide and tax fraud, but I'm very sorry to say that people still have paid servants, and those cleaners drive the vacuum across the floor's square inches just like you and me, except they receive compensation ;^(

Who's to say even the value positive automations benefit workers, who make up the majority? Post-'trickle down economics', everything seems to become more nebulous in developing capitalism.

conversely, as a born pedant american christian who has raised countless prayers in the absolute good faith of childhood, god should know that only needlessly statistical tests would ultimately save me, and that any measurable manifestation of the divine would immediately cause me to pledge my life and the highest degree of propaganda / violence I could affect to any awful cause that (s)he could imagine. Unfortunately, YHWH turns away every chance he has at my safely partitioned acolytic fervor.

Old testament lord was not above showy miracles, but so much changes between the two that I have a hard time even seeing it as an allegory or reformation. I can only imagine that it was a pretty steep reform.

What I love is that "Increasing your social status with rationalists" almost necessitates giving them new and relevant information that gives them more perspectives to work from on current problems. I cherish friendly incentives

LessWronging exclusively replaces time I used to spend on Tumblr, a comedy-based forum in which recently I accidentally discovered several lovely bloggers that enjoyed the rationalist body of work, leading me here- and most explicitly to the more popular and relevant formal texts. It has real value and even more potential in the ability to reform that this post implies.

I also enjoy the theocracy of free market's ideals taken for granted in this post- nothing admirable has ever been done without massive amounts of extortion, and we should all aspire to labo... (read more)

I think Eliezer realizes and is textually discussing how having a group named the Bayesian Conspiracy based on withholding scientific information is the best and most certain way to be publically hung as a religious bonding experience for right-wing nationalists, centrists, and leftists alike. Truly healing America!

If only every professor was as fun and enrapturing as the "Learned Aesthete" type that I remember so fondly. Modern schooling is still banal and sickly, but every once in a while an exciting and beautiful soul accidentally wanders into an education major (somewhat unlike my own mother, creationist of 2nd grade creationists, the Tiamat of the Future)

I had seen a comment denigrating Card's Ender relying on appeals to authority, but I notice that MORHarry also likes to bargain with his Lived Boy Status. You use what you have! I have a problem with neither.

It would also be trivial to do any permutation of unrealistic, clever plans with the time turner (A succession of remotely launched pies to Snape, the resulting implied hanging anvil, and complete lack of culpability would have done incalculable damage- A pie based Death Note resolution seems alarmingly Yudkowskian, now that I consider it) but I'm very... (read more)

Fascist!Quirrel is delightful. What an awful little man.

I read these comments first, so I knew that the assumed pattern would be incorrect (without which, it would still be naive of me to expect a non-lateral question from Eliezer). However without being able to test my own inputs I'm not able to reason with any more evidence, so I still couldn't say if I would have been capable of getting any further. (1 2 5, .3 .2 0 were my reasonable test cases, before I would start being a jackass about complexes and infinities (and indefinities? undefinities? Towers of Babel*)

But I did indeed notice that without a single negative case, she would have been incapable of eliminating "all sets valid", and am delighted that the next paragraph addresses that.

Oh, my god- I can't believe you're already setting up for Harry Potter and the Colonization of the Other

The framing of the first sentence gives me a desperately unfair expectation for the discussion inside HPMOR- I'm excited.

If it also states that the participants must be rationalists as Yudkowski specifies, you'll be sorely disappointed to find out how many people would identify as a rationalist

While I understand the absolute primal urge to stomp on religious texts used to propagate compulsory heterosexuality, I do think this exchange ended up a bit of a poor game, when it seems like he'd be mostly interested in discussing how the emotions of programmed thought might differ from ours (and that's a fun well to splash around in, for a while)(though deposing of cult-friendly rhetoric is valuable too, even if you have to get nasty).

I'm mildly concerned about the Reign Of Terror Precept, but I also understand it. It's just disappointing to know that t... (read more)