All of Jonas Hallgren's Comments + Replies

My experience at and around MIRI and CFAR (inspired by Zoe Curzi's writeup of experiences at Leverage)

It feels kind of weird that this post only has 50 upvotes and is hidden in the layers of lesswrong as some skeleton in the closet waiting to strike at an opportune time. A lot of big names commented on this post and even though it's not entirely true and misrepresenting what happened to an extent it would make sense to kind of promote this type of a post anyway. It's setting a bad example if we don't promote as we then show that we don't encourage criticism which seems very anti-rational. Maybe a summary article of this incident could be done and put on the main website? It doesn't make sense to me that a post with a whooping 900 comments should be this hidden and it sure doesn't look good from an outside perspective.

5Evenflair3moStrong upvoted. I disagree that there's an active attempt at suppression (I agree with the other comments) but the last time I tried to dig into "is miri/cfar a cult" it was nearly impossible to do more than verify a few minor claims. Some of that may just have been me being a few years late, but still. It would be nice if information on something so important was easier to find, rather than hidden (even if the hiding mechanism is the product of apathy instead of malice).

50 upvotes are more then the average post on LessWrong gets. If someone wants to write a summary of Jessica's post and the 900 comments I think there's a good chance that it will be well received. 

Part of why this post doesn't get more comments is because it's not just criticism but it was perceived to try to interfer with the Leverage debate. If all the references to Zoe and Leverage wouldn't be in this post it would likely be better received.

Note that the post had over 100 karma and then lost over half of it, probably because substantial criticism emerged in the comments. I've never seen that kind of a shift happen before, but it seems to show that people are thoughtful with their upvotes.

If someone has something new to say in a top-level post, they can say it; I would guess someone will make such a post in the next month or two. I don't think any top-down action is necessary, beyond people's natural interest in discussion.

Also—I would hardly call a post "hidden" if it has accrued 900 comments. It's been in "recently commented" almost the entire time since its posting, it was on the front page for several days, before naturally falling off due to lower karma + passage of time. 

Personally, I think it's good that people are starting to talk about other things. I don't find this interesting enough to occupy weeks of community attention. 

Where do your eyes go?

Maybe this isn't the most productive comment but I just wanted to say that this was a really good post. It's right down my alley with video games and academics at the same time and I would therefore like to declare it a certified hood classic. (apparently Grammarly thinks this comment is formal which is pretty funny.)

[Sponsored] Job Hunting in the Modern Economy

Wow, this changed my life! Never thought I would find something this mind-blowingly overpowered on LessWrong!

Saving Time

But the problem runs deeper than that. If we draw an arrow in the direction of the deterministic function, we will be drawing an arrow of time from the more refined version of the structure to the coarser version of that structure, which is in the opposite direction of all of our examples.

 As I currently understand this after thinking about it for a bit, we are talking about the coarseness of the model from the perspective of the model in the timeframe that it is in and not the time frame that we are in. It would make sense for our predictions of the ... (read more)

Good question, this is rather applied on a system scale level so for example, a democratic system is going to be inherently more reversible than a non-democratic system. An action that goes against the reversibility of a system could for example be the removal of freedom of speech as it would narrow down the potential pathways of future civilizations. Reversibility has an opportunity cost inherent to it as it asks us to take into consideration the possibility of other morals being correct. This is like Pascal's mugging but with the stakes that if we have t... (read more)

2Dagon8moI'm having trouble understanding what's reversible and what's not. Entropy increases, I think the universe generally is not reversible in that sense. I'd rather have real examples - I really don't think I understand what you're talking about. But for your last sentence: if we can turn things into hedonium, what keeps us from turning it back into whatever flawed configuration turns out to be preferable?