I object that we need to weigh the cost of everything is a quite important thing to mention in this post. Weighing the cost of everything is a very important thing, but it is another topic on its own; It is a whole different skill to hone (I think Duncan actually wrote a post about this in the CFAR handbook).
(nitpick: 6400 + the diagrams is closer to 20-25 pages at font size 12 on Word)
I cannot access www.lesswrong.com/rejectedcontent (404 error). I suspect you guys forgot to give access to non-moderators, or you meant www.lesswrong.com/moderation (But there are no rejected posts there, only comments)
I think i'm going to unite all my online identities. Starting to get tired of all my wasted efforts that only a single person or two will see.
And a good teacher will try to do as much it as possible
Missing word: And a good teacher will try to do as much of it as possible
I am mainly just curious how other people live their lives. It is interesting to know diverse humans really are. Also I may just be stuck in a local optimum, then it would be at least nice to know there are better local optimums, even if it would take me too much effort to change my way of life.
I am probably some of the less emotional connections needing people out there, and I can really go on my life just the same without talking to my close friends for weeks. So while I think this is a good way of making close friends (I will definitely try to apply it on a small amount of people at least), I'm not too convinced on making a lot of close friends, because I think I already have enough close friends (4 or so - close friends is a fuzzy term), and more close friends feels like it would dilute my time too much. What do you guys think?
You probably gave me too much credit for how deep I have thought about morality. Still, I appreciate your effort in leading me to a higher resolution model. (Long reply will come when I have thought more about it)
So you can't adequately explain "should" using only a descriptive account.
I don't think I am ready to argue about "should"/descriptive/normative, so this is my view stated out without intent to justify it super rigorously. I already think there is no objective morality, no "should" (in its common usage), and both are in reality a socially constructed thing that will shift over time (relativism I think?, not sure). Any sentence like "You should do X" really just have a consequentialistic meaning of "If you have terminal value V (which the speaker assumed yo...
That's descriptive, not normative.
what's the issue with a descriptive statement here? It doesn't feel wrong to me so it would be nice if you can elaborate slightly.
Also, I never found objective morality to be a reasonable possibility (<1%), are you suggesting that it is quite possible (>5%) that objective morality exists, or just playing devil's advocate here?
In that case, tabooing the word is probably better than bringing the dictionary to show that the other person's use of words are against common sense (assuming you want to actually reach a consensus, but if youre more about winning the argument then bring the dictionary is probably better?)
Documenting a specific need of mine: LaTeX OCR software
tl;dr: use Mathpix if you use it <10 times per month or you are willing to pay $4.99 per month. Otherwise use SimpleTex
So I have been using Obsidian for note taking for a while now and I eventually decided to stop using screenshots but instead learn about LaTeX so the formulas look better. At first I was relying on the website to show the original LaTeX commands but some websites (wiki :/) doesn't do that, and also I started reading math textbooks as PDF. Thus started my adventure to find a good and...
You may be interested to hear that there are real pet owners doing this nowadays. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zbqLuTgTCu365MNu9/your-dog-is-even-smarter-than-you-think
(I am currently on the path of learning how values actually work and figuring out what I should really do.)
It has been a few days since I read this post so I may be misrepresenting you, but I think this post committed a similar mistake to people who think that arguing with another person to change their mind is meaningless given that we don't have free will, because given a deterministic future, that person will just automatically change their mind. But it doesn't work like that, because the act of arguing is part of the deterministic process that eventual...
Cooperation may incur different costs on different participants.
Related: The Schelling Choice is "Rabbit", not "Stag"
It does not apply to this game where punishing cooperators are purely worse off for everyone, but it does talk about how for poor people the best choice may be to do the low risk, low reward action.
It is really annoying that if you use footnotes from the LW Docs Editor, and then switches to the Markdown editor, the footnotes get irrevertably messed up like this[[1]](#fnhqkg4lye79s)
**[^](#fnrefhqkg4lye79s)**
this is an example footnote
^the above is a reply to a slightly previous version
Agree with everything here, and all the points the first paragraph I have not thought about. I'm curious if you have a higher resolution model to different dimensions of learning though, feels like I can improve my post if I have a clearer picture.
Btw, your whole reply seem to be a great example of what do you mean by "it's probably best to acknowledge it and give the details that go into your beliefs, rather than the posterior belief itself."
A real conversation gives me 1 datapoint that people use the word wisdom for the concept intelligence
I think people (myself included) really underestimated this rather trivial statement that people don't really learn about something when they don't spend the time doing it/thinking about it. People even measure mastery by hours practiced and not years practiced, but I still couldn't engrave this idea deep enough into my mind.
I currently don't have much writable evidence about why I think people underestimated this fact, but I think it is true. Below are some things that I have changed my mind/realised after noticing this fact.
[Draft] It is really hard to communicate the level/strength of basically anything on a sliding scale, but especially things that could not make any intuitive sense even if you stated a percentage. One recent example I encountered is expressing what is in my mind the optimal tradeoff between reading quickly and thinking deeply to achieve the best learning efficiency.
Not sure what is the best way to deal with the above example, and other situations where percentage doesn't make sense.
But where percentage makes sense, there are still two annoying problems. 1....
Thanks for the datapoint. Also links serving as indicator of effort rather than actually expanding on the amount of information on the passage is a good point. If links are mainly indicator of effort, I think this imply that people should not try as hard to make sure the relevance of the links.
FWIW: My click through rate is probably <5%.
How likely are people actually clicking through links of related materials in a post, seems unlikely to me, actually unlikely to the point that I am thinking about whether it is actually useful.
My comment at the point of time of his reply:
Many people are too unselective on what they read, causing them to spend a lot of time reading worthless material (This applies to this shortform).
Clarifications:
Additionally:
I also think I have the tendency of trying to read everything in a textbook, even if it is quite low in information density, with many filler stories or sentences served as conjunctions. I probably should be trying to skip sentences, paragraphs and sections where I have sufficient confidence of either 1. I have already learned it and don't need a refresh...
For others who also havent heard of Cade Metz: he seems to be a news reporter (for the lack of a better word) writing mostly about AI. see https://www.nytimes.com/by/cade-metz.
[Draft] Are memorisation techniques still useful in this age where you can offload your memory to digital storage?
I am thinking about using anki for spaced repetition, and the memory palace thing also seem (from the surface level) interesting, but I am not sure whether the investments will be worth it. (2023/02/21: Trying out Anki)
I am increasingly finding it more useful to remember your previous work so that you don't need to repeat the effort. Remembering workflow is important. (This means remembering things somewhere is very important, but im still not ...
[Draft]
Note: Long post usually mean the post is very well thought out and serious, but this comment is not quite there yet.
Many people are too unselective on what they read, causing them to waste time reading low value material[1].
2 Personal Examples: 1. I am reading through rationality: A-Z and there are way too many comments that are just bad, and even the average quality of the top comments may not even be worth it to read, because I can probably spend the time better with reading more EY p...
Thanks for your clarifications! It cleared up all of my written confusions. Though I have one major confusion that I am only able to pinpoint after your reply: from wiki, I understand syllogism as the 24 out of 256 2-premise deductions that are always true, but you seem to be saying that syllogism is not what I think it is. You said "... a fundamental misunderstanding of the fact that syllogisms work by being generally true across specific categories of arguments", so syllogisms does not work universally with any words substituted into it, and only work when a specific category of words are used? If so, then can you provide an example of syllogism generating a false proposition when the wrong category of words are used?
I also found it a good practice to generate your own answers to how you would escape the happy death spiral, before reading the next article.
My answer:
Remember that powerful theories are the ones that eliminates many options, not ones that explains everything.
I think it is a reasonably good answer as it somewhat contains 3/5 of the points
What is the mathematical basis for people doing stuff at their own "free will"? I would appreciate some keywords or links.
Yes, but some estimates are clearly false, while your examples are estimates that may be true, may be false.
I am extremely confused by your comment, probably due to my own lack of linguistic knowledge.
(This whole reply should be seen as a call for help)
What I got is that fabricated options came from people "playing with word salad to form propositions" without fully understanding the implication of the words involved.
(I tried to generate an example of "propositions derived using syllogisms over syntactic or semantic categories", but I am way too confused to write anything that makes sense)
Here are 2 questions: how does your model differ from/relate to johnswentw...
What possible advantages do you have in mind? I think it is just a bad, irrational thing to automatically assume attractive people to be smart or honest.
We aren't individually sentient, not really.
We do less thinking that we imagine, but we still think. However, I still argee (to a lesser extent) that (sub)cultures fixed many thoughts of many people.
The sad and funny thing is, we don't even try to understand the cognition of our subcultures, when we research cognition.
I find 2 possible meaning of "we" here, but the sentence is false in both senses:
I argee that finding the truth and winning arguments are not disjoint by definition, but debate and finding the truth are mostly disjoint (I would not expect the optimal way to debate and the optimal way to seek truth to align much).
Also, I did not think you would mean "debate" as in "an activity where 2+ people trying to find the truth together by honestly sharing all the information"; what I think "debate" means is "an activity where 2+ people form opposing teams with preassigned side and try to use all means to win the argument". In a debate, I expect t...
I would make the assumption that we are talking about communication situations where all parties want to find out the truth, not to 'win' an argument. Rambling that makes 0 points is worse than making 1 point, but making 2+ "two-sided" points that accurately communicates your uncertainty on the topic is better than selectively giving out only one-sided points from all the points that you have.
Just read free will, really disappointed.
That quote doesn't come from the passage and it is not obvious to me how it relates to the passage. What are you trying to talk about?
I would not say that maximizing happiness is a higher goal than perceiving reality correctly.
I think maximizing happiness is a goal related to instrumental rationality, while perceiving reality correctly IS epistemic rationality. And epistemic rationality is a fundamental requirement for any intrumental goals.
But it doesnt mean perceiving reality correctly is a lower goal than other intrumental goals right? How do you even rank goals in the first place?
I don't disagree that humans can do actions that only benefits others, and that altruism exists. I think there is a better theory than both pleasure-maximizing and "humans are intrinsically nice to others", and that is Evolution. Also, Evolution can be understood as "gene-spread chance maximizing", so I think humans are still better modelled as internal counter maximizer.
Donating to charity can be explained by Signaling, it lets others know that you have an excess of money. Pure altruism alone cannot explain donations because we donate more when we’re being watched. (More detailed explanation of charity can be found in The Elephant in the Brain Chapter 12: Charity.)
No for either of my interpretations of your question
If you mean "does a test for randomness exists", I believe there isn't, but there are statistical tests that can catch non random sequences.
If you mean "can a rational agent 100% believe the someone is random", then no, because 100% certainty is impossible for anything.
The subjects that were told "the goose hangs high" mean the future looks gloomy believe the standard interpretation is the future looks gloomy. So no, it is not evidence that the most subjects were being rational. In fact it shows that most people are fallible to this bias.
If we were given more information though, such as 80% of 'looks good' subjects think that the standard interpretation is 'look good', while only 60% of 'looks gloomy' subjects think the standard interpretation is 'looks gloomy', then it is an evidence that SOME subjects are rational.
I don't have a clear answer either, but it seems like the nodes in model 1 have a shorter causal link to reality.
For whatever reason, it is apparent that the conscious part of our brain is not fully aware of everything that our brain does.
I believe the conscious-unconscious separation have an advantage in human-human interaction (in the sense of game theory). It is easier for the conscious you to lie when you know less.
Only responding to this part.
Also, for more complicated problems such as following a distribution around in dynamic system: You also have to have a model of what the system is doing - that is also an assumption, not a certainty!
I'm sure you have multiple possible model of the system. If you have accounted for the possibility that your model is incorrect, then it will not be an assumption, it will be something that can be approximated into a distribution of confidence.
You should link this post on the top of your old one