Regardless of the precise mechanism, Tinder almost certainly shows more attractive people more often. If it didn't, it would have a retention problem because there are lots of people who swipe tinder to fantasize about matching with hot people, and they wouldn't get enough hot people to keep them going. Most likely, Tinder has determined a precise ratio of "hot people" and "people in your league" to show you, in order to keep you swiping.
Given the existence of the incentive and likelihood that Tinder et al. would follow such an incentive, it makes sense to try to have your profile be more generally attractive so you get shown to more people.
Use the table of contents / "summary of the language" section.
For your project I would recommend skipping to 28 and then going from there, and skipping patterns which don't seem relevant.
Yes: A far higher % of OpenAI reads this forum than the other orgs you mentioned. In some sense OpenAI is friends with LW, in a way that is not true for the others.
What should be done instead of a public forum? I don't necessarily think there needs to be a "conspiracy", but I do think that it's a heck of a lot better to have one-on-one meetings with people to convince them of things. At my company, when sensitive things need to be decided or acted on, a bunch of slack DMs fly around until one person is clearly the owner of the problem; they end up in charge of having the necessary private conversations (and keeping stakeholders in the loop). Could this work with LW and OpenAI? I'm not sure.
Ineffective, because the people arguing on the forum are lacking knowledge about the situation. They don't understand OpenAI's incentive structure, plan, etc. Thus any plans they put forward will be in all likelihood useless to OpenAI.
Risky, because (some combination of):
I want to state for the record that I think OpenAI is sincerely trying to make the world a better place, and I appreciate their efforts. I don't have a settled opinion on the sign of their impact so far.
I'd like to put in my vote for "this should not be discussed in public forums". Whatever is happening, the public forum debate will have no impact on it; but it does create the circumstances for a culture war that seems quite bad.
When I learned it from Geoff in 2011, they were recommending yEd Graph Editor. The process is to generally write things you do or want to do as nodes, and then connect them to each other using "achieves or helps to achieve" edges (i.e., if you go to work, that achieves making money, which achieves other things you want).
I believe this. Aversion factoring is a separate insight from goal factoring.
XKCD says that the dental X-ray (5 μSv) is half the average daily background radiation dose (10 μSv), and 1/8th of a cross country flight (40 μSv). To me this means that the radiation exposure is quite irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. (https://xkcd.com/radiation/)
If this were false, it would presumably be because dental X-rays are especially harmful in some way that isn't just "because of radiation".
I didn't read Scout Mindset yet, but I've listened to Julia's interviews on podcasts about it, and I have read the other books that Rob mentions in that paragraph.
The reason I nodded when Rob wrote that was that Julia's memetics are better. Her ideas are written in a way which stick in one's mind, and thus spread more easily. I don't think any of those other sources are bad -- in fact I get more from them than I expect to from Scout Mindset -- but Scout Mindset is more practically oriented (and optimized for today's political climate) in a way which those other books are not.
It also operates at a different, earlier level in the "EA Funnel": the level at which you can make people realize that more is possible. Those other books already require someone to be asking "how can I Do Good Better?" before they'll pick it up.