EA Forum developer

jp's Comments

Raemon's Scratchpad

I intuitively think it's good, but have in fact noticed myself clicking to dismiss it despite not having read it or thought about whether I'd like to read it.

Honoring Petrov Day on LessWrong, in 2019

Rohin argues elsewhere for taking a vote (at least in principal). If 50% vote in favor, then he has successfully avoided "falling into the unilateralist's curse" and has gotten $1.6k for AMF. He even has some bonus for "solved the unilateralist's curse in a way that's not just "sit on his hands". Now, it's probably worth subtracting points for "the LW team asked them not to blow up the site and the community decided to anyway." But I'd consider it fair play.

Honoring Petrov Day on LessWrong, in 2019

It could partially motivated by lifesaving but they wouldn't have donated otherwise. Like, not if they're a perfectly rational agent, but hey.


I feel like I'd rather live in the world where I could leave slack unblocked and still focus on my codebase that takes 25 seconds to reload on file save.


I felt like this was a scarily accurate description of my focus situation. And then I read the part about the chocolate, and like, good lord, get out of my head.

Ruby's Public Drafts & Working Notes

I'm a complete newcomer to information on Bacon and his time. How much of his influence was due to Novum Organum itself vs other things he did? If significantly the latter, what were those things? Feel free to tell me to Google that.

Matthew Barnett's Shortform

Sometimes you need someone to give the naive view, but doing so hurts the reputation of the person stating it.

For example suppose X is the naive view and Y is a more sophisticated view of the same subject. For sake of argument suppose X is correct and contradicts Y.

Given 6 people, maybe 1 of them starts off believing Y. 2 people are uncertain, and 3 people think X. In the world where people have their usernames attached. The 3 people who believe X now have a coordination problem. They each face a local disincentive to state the case for X, although they definitely want _someone_ to say it. The equilibrium here is that no one makes the case for X and the two uncertain people get persuaded to view Y.

However if someone is anonymous and doesn't care that much about their reputation, they may just go ahead and state the case for X, providing much better information to the undecided people.

This makes me happy there are some smart people posting under pseudonyms. I claim it is a positive factor for the epistemics of LessWrong.

jp's Shortform

I'm really glad to have this comment! It seems much more valuable to know that something passes a first attempt by a second party than to just hear a recommendation from one person's experience.

Is competition good?

FWIW I dramatically misinterpreted what the "people" disagreed with and did not think "AMF is better than a restaurant" was the claim that would be contested.

Load More