Has anyone written stories happening in Hanson's em world?

The Amazon show Uploads is partway there. They didn't depict 'clans' tho (in the first season) and the 'tech' is almost certainly very wrong.

I liked the show overall too, even if it was a little too silly for my tastes at some points.

Design thoughts for building a better kind of social space with many webs of trust

There were no explicit webs of trust in Google Reader. (I think that might be better, actually.) But 'following' someone else would give you access to everything they 'shared' (on Google Reader), including things shared by other people they followed (after which you could follow that third person), and so on recursively.

tag jokes

Wouldn't be tolerated, generally. Arborists would simply not have weed in their curation nets.

I'm sort of open to using subjective processes to assign tags their names. In this case, communities would tend to name their own tags, but outsiders, who find the name opaque or ambiguous, wouldn't have to put up with it. One thing that would enable is translating tags into different languages.

I can't tell if you're assuming/expecting 'arborists' will entirely volunteer their services or whether they'd be officially and explicitly recognized by your proposed system.

I think 'tag translation' would be very interesting – not just between languages ('with an army') but between jargon and plain language too.

automatic generation of tags

I think how this will happen is, if a curation web splits, or forms an isolated component, some mostly automated ministry process will detect that, issue a recommendation to define a new tag or split a tag into more specific subgenres. Votes are taken, and the community decides whether they want to do that based on the results.


Meaning, degree of applicability? No. Tags would generally be predicates with clear meanings. Where different gradations of a quality need to be registered, multiple tags should be made along a continuum. I kind of want to write a lot about why taking the average of big crowds of error-ridden scores isn't usually (unless you're estimating the weight of a cow at a county fair) a great way of getting at an underlying truth about any real objective score they're supposed to reflect.

how tags are protected

When someone tags incorrectly, the people who endorsed them are supposed to unendorse them. If they fail to do that, their endorsers may unendorse them in turn.

There would emerge a few components in the scholarly consensus web that are dens of horseshit, but the presences in the (we hope) largest one will proactively disconnect themselves from those. The people who have real uses for a scholarly consensus clique would have little use for liars on the fringes, so once identified they'd mostly end up being ignored.

I'm skeptical that this is feasible with tags intended to be "predicates with clear meanings". I just don't think that's generally how people use tags/words/concepts. I'd think it'd be both easier for you, or the system implementor, and the system's users, if tags were entirely 'open ended'. I think the killer feature of what you've outlined is the explicit 'web of trust/taste/curation/consensus'. I don't think trying to pin tags to fixed static meanings can work even over the 'medium term'.

Design thoughts for building a better kind of social space with many webs of trust

This reminds me very much of Google Reader. I can't remember what kind of tag features it had (if any), and they were certainly not as complex as your outline, but it did very much have an implicit/'emergent' web of trust that worked wonderfully for finding good content.

What are you thoughts on 'tag space'?

Can there, or should there, be possibilities for 'tag jokes', like how the 'trees' subreddit is for marijuana (and, of course, the 'marijuanaenthusiasts' sub is for trees)?

Will some tags be 'pre-created' by the system? Will others be generated statistically or via ML (or AI)?

Can tags have weights? Can users re-weigh tags others have added?

Can tags be merged? (Or split?) Tag 'remodeling'/'refactoring' seems necessary for this to work long-term.

I don't get (yet) how scholarly consensus can be protected from, e.g. vandalism, 'drift', plain inaccuracy. What's to stop it from becoming about anything else? 'Partisans' are going to want to seize this 'real estate' (like they already do IRL).

Is Wirecutter still good?

I concur with romeostevensit's answer that they are (and always have been) good – I'd say more than good-enough – for things for which you're not a 'power user'. But I've been happy with their picks even for some of those things for which I am a power user.

I haven't noticed their quality declining since their acquisition by the NYT tho I find it plausible that that might happen.

Property as Coordination Minimization

This is a great post!

It reminded me (IIRC) of something in a Mencius Moldbug post (or maybe something more recently, under his given name) along the lines of 'property rights are peace treaties'.

Why isn't there a LessWrong App? Is a "blog-app" sustainable/useful for a community?

I think, for both iOS and Android devices, you can add a link to a web page as an 'app' icon.

Maybe a better focus is what you want to better "browse this particular community", independent of whether it's via web pages in a web browser or a (mobile device) 'app'.

Rereading Atlas Shrugged

I'm a big fan of Rand, and I liked her Objectivism work too, but exposure to a lot more philosophy, LW, and college-level math ruined a lot of her non-fiction work for me.

I once dated a 'card-carrying' Objectivist and it was, sadly, too much of a 'religion' for them and their fellows. They were very upset that I mentioned reading about Rand's alleged abuse of diet pills or of her 'reluctantly' accepting the fact of evolution via natural selection.

But, subject to the law of equal and opposite advice, I still think her 'message' or 'vision' is important for a lot of people. She is the prime example, to me, of a 'Kegan level 4' (fiction) author.

Covid 7/23: The Second Summit

That seems entirely clear in what Zvi wrote tho:

We like to say There is No Fire Alarm for Artificial General Intelligence but let’s raise the possibility that the alarm is there and it’s working fine and it’s us that are the problem.

Covid 7/23: The Second Summit

I thought Zvi was pretty clear that his point is that, in a sense, 'we' (humanity) are not smart enough to respond to the 'fire alarms' that already do exist; not that they're actually already a socially acceptable alarm.

Load More