All of Slider's Comments + Replies

Believing in magic pyramids shows that you think differently

It seems that historically chemistry as a separate field was about to be born/distinguish itself from the other aactivities. Fanboying over stuff like "experimentally verify the amount of elements instead of assuming 4" seems to be "sciency chemist" stuff. If you inject good epistemics to a bad field is that raising the sanity water level or succumbing to taintd fields? It could be that "chemistry" was not concievable topic of interest and people that were interested in mixing stuff were directed alchemy sources.

We also didn't come up witha new science to support helioscentrism and let a geocentrism kill out a deadend field. Rather within fields there are paradigm shifts.

Believing in magic pyramids shows that you think differently

Particle accelerators are in the domain of physics and outside of chemistry. With present knowlegde producing gold from a compound that doesn't already contain gold via chemical reactions is impossible but with nuclear reactions possible.

If we at some point produce AGI but the science that produces it is no longer called computer science does that mean that computer science was hopeless?

2Pattern4dAh, what is the point of computer science? 'To produce AGI'? I don't think so. (Also, what is computer science? And how could AGI be produced 'without it'?) I think the name change relates to a shift in at least a few factors. Some googling suggests the difference is a less supernatural epistemology. I'd guess it was a tradition change (although said googling turned up the perspective that chemistry descended from alchemy). I'd say it's still nuclear chemistry, and there isn't always a hard line between physics and chemistry.
No Abstraction Without a Goal

Being a stricler for generalization I could believe that for any naturally occurring abstraction there is a goal behind it in a "no smoke without fire" kind of way. However if you bruteforce through all the possible ways to abstract I am less sure that those variants that do not have natural occurencies have an associated goal. For example what is the goal of an abstraction that includes what bombers and bluejays include?

1dkirmani5dThe abstractions that do not occur naturally do not prioritize fitness-relevant information. You could conceive of goals that they serve, but these goals are not obviously subgoals of fitness-maximization.
Uncontroversially good legislation

The judiciary is not the maker of law. And the level of scrutinity varies. If all laws required "strict scutinity" then the law maker would be quite impotent. In this kind of setting passing laws would be pointless as people would just rely on connections to basic rights on what official acts actually are left standing (a kind of common law scheme). If you have lost representation in the law maker and don't like its doing, declaring it "corrupt" is not a valid way to circumvent it.

A jury has wide latitude to find the facts of a single case. In order to ove... (read more)

In Defense of Attempting Hard Things, and my story of the Leverage ecosystem

I have kept quite far from the discussion but it seems to be slowly ungoing and starts tt become relevant just as a thing going in LW. I expect engaging with such long takes to be unwiedly. I did want to say some pointers.

crackpot vs wonk: Like people ar not the villais of their stories persons themselfs should believe in their epistemic process. So every crackpot should classify themselfs as (at worst) wonks. Saying "It is okay I am a wonk" will not really help.

I think the reference class on what was going on is thin in that not very much similar things a... (read more)

Radical openness - say things that others strongly dislike

I think most of the benefit comes from being radically open to yourself. it also seems that most of the downsides comes from commu8nicating to outside. If one can formulate and think without provoking others you get most of the benefits without most of the downsides.

However I understand that for some people thought and speech is so interlinked that they must choose between being silent+unconcious and loud+concious. Roman age people that could only read aloud which found people that could read without verbalising odd and suspicious. I think in the modern era it coud pay out to be able to think for yourself without using your twitter feed as a diary.

1tomdekan9dYeah, I think that you're right about being radically open to yourself Slider. Although it can be easy to lose track of your thoughts on something. Publishing your thoughts has a way of galvanising your ideas. Publishing your thoughts also allows other people to add their own thoughts. I probably wouldn't have thought about your comment unless I had posted the article.
Believing in magic pyramids shows that you think differently

What you mean that alchemy was hopeless? We now know how to make gold from non-gold today so there is/was a hope of producing gold.

2Pattern5dMost people probably don't look into alchemy. The obvious reason would be 'Alchemists didn't do that, chemists did that.' which suggests alchemists were doing something wrong. Perhaps their approaches were very different.
The Map-Territory Distinction Creates Confusion

The claim that the map-territority model impliesa correspondence theory of truth is boldy stated and for clarity tha is good. I think the "proof" of it is quite implicit and I kind of find the claim not to stand. I still think that the phrasing is prone to support that kind of mode of thought that is problematic.

I find that if I want to avoid mention of territority I can do it mostly fine in that framing. I keep my nose stuck on a piece of paper and if my walking doesn't get me surprised I am happy and confident to walk on. I don't need to claim that I am ... (read more)

2G Gordon Worley III12dYeah, privileging prediction doesn't really solve anything. This post is meant to be a bit of a bridge towards a viewpoint that resolves this issue by dropping the privileging of any particular concern, but getting there requires first seeing that a very firm notion of truth based on the assumption of something external can be weakened to a more fluid notion based on only what is experienced (since, my bold claim is that's how the world is anyway and we're just confused when making metaphysical claims otherwise).
Speaking of Stag Hunts

I found a ugly mechanic manifested in here me where I applied all kinds of inversions of normal modes of writing. Now that I got the bad out of my system and there has been a cool off period, time to go try to make repair of my damages that I have caused.

The post is talking about organising against mindkilly activity and a thing that did stick out for me was that it was a bit accusatory. The analysis of that accusatoriness didn't exactly go well and I am going to try to restep that process where it seemed to first go wrong.

My "spew out inkia nd words fast"... (read more)

What are the pros and cons of seeking a formal diagnosis of autism?

The flip side of being able to discriminate against is that also discrimination for is also blocked.

I did not access the paywalled article but I want to make more explicit about what is and is not problematic about comparing to psychopaths. There can be a pretty standard "monstrous criminal" kind of association which is handy for demonizing segments of populations (and when you take the term "psychopath" as "psycho" and "path" it means "mentally pathological"). However if some hedge fund manager can become very efficient at numbers running economical games... (read more)

Genetics: It sometimes skips a generation is a terrible explanation!

60 trait supporting genes out of 80 locations that could support it. I am worried that the main finding is misleading because it is an improper application of spherical cow thinking to a concept that oriented to dealing with messiness.

1Jan Christian Refsgaard16dfair point. I think my target audience is people like me who heard this saying about colorblindness (or other classical Mendelian diseases that runs in families) I have added a disclaimer towards the end :)
Genetics: It sometimes skips a generation is a terrible explanation!

It gets more plausible when there are more genes involved. LIke if the family has 60/80 tallness genes and ambient population has 20/80 genes then having a "off-beat" offspring that is only 40/80 of the trait genes, the trait is way more likely to "snap back" rather than solidifying out of the ambient population. 

2Jan Christian Refsgaard16dI am not sure I follow, I am confused about whether the 60/80 family refers to both parents, and what is meant by "off-beat" and "snap-back", I am also confused about what the numbers mean is it 60/80 of the genes or 60/80 of the coding region (so only 40 genes)
What are the pros and cons of seeking a formal diagnosis of autism?

The link has information that aspergers need to be cleared by a doctor to serve which is kind of different to autism being an auto-no. This means that autism by itself is not an issue but if you are disabled that is caused by autism you might be unfit to serve.

This might be sensitive to whether autism refers to the full spectrum or just the "deeper" parts of it.

What are the pros and cons of seeking a formal diagnosis of autism?

Asking for accomodations can be quite nebolous. And even if they are nebolous they can be insufficient or non-responsive to your actual needs. On the collective level asking fo rsuch things makes it more routine and improves the general availability. It can also make sense to have the diagnosis so that if you choose to ask you have more bases but not ask it for everythign and gauge it more case-by-case basis whether being a ill fit for a general mold is a bigger pain than negotiating a totally ad hoc thing.

The framing of "diagnosis" is very healthcare cent... (read more)

Worldbuilding exercise: The Highwayverse.

The exploration here is heavily dependent on the Equilibrium and I don't think it is a consequence of the numbered assumtions or a carry over of a similarity with the real world. It is common for physicist to assume the world timeline is stable as it makes it more manegable to imagine things but I don't think it is a result. Absent actually having time travel we don't have good way of testing this.

Note that if you take the world of Primer and consider the boxes to be in a separate (but connected throught the box opening) universse you get something that is... (read more)

Bayesian Dharani, Great Dharani for Conserving Evidence

I would have thought that the critique would be that it is too realistic.

I would imagine that crystallising or honing a already existing and pinpointed feeling would be quite different than starting from a muddled and unformed one and hoping that one solidifies.

Bayesian Dharani, Great Dharani for Conserving Evidence

Starting out with "Gold doesn't heal you" and then offering to sell water that contains gold seems not to work even within the sellers own theory.

One could have the observation that "gold is not the active ingredient" but then the question is what is? Premable the chants are only allowed to transform within the tradition if they still retain their functionality. But someone who doesn't know what the functionality is or how it does work seems unlikely to provide a variant that would be guaranteed to retain the functionality. Some traditional medicine prepar... (read more)

2G Gordon Worley III1moI feel like this really misses the point of what a dharani is and why something like this might be something to chant, by which I mean you get what's literally going on but are missing the big picture by taking it too literally. I feel a bit like I'm presenting an impressionist painting and your complaint is that it's not realistic enough, which is true, but also not the point. Maybe it would help to know that we think early dharanis just had a clear meaning like "please make it so bad stuff doesn't happen" and this got lost over time, so in making a new one I start from the literal but in a way that allows it to morph over time to become sounds for an intention. Also compare the two rationalists litanies to similar religious ones. This is meant to have the same energy, but a different form.
Bayesian Dharani, Great Dharani for Conserving Evidence

That seems to be designed to in large part to work throught literal meanings. Sus for seeming like scientism.

2G Gordon Worley III1moThis seems to prove too much. You seem to have a fully general argument here against using words.
Law of No Evidence

I am worried that in environments that it is important to take ques to act it is often also important not to take the wrong cues to act. In the spirit of equal and opposite advice I propose The Law of Escalating Indiscrimination: The more important a topic is the less people are willing to tolerate ambiguity. The only way to make sure your problem goes away is to nuke it from orbit. With sufficient will to make things go away there is less conditioning to external circumstances. It doesn't matter to determine whether the problem is big or small if you want... (read more)

Is "gears-level" just a synonym for "mechanistic"?

Normally and one might be tempted to generalise that usually when you know some thing you know the surrounfing "topic". However there are cases when this is lacking. There are such things as zero-knowledge proofs. Also any reductio ad absurdum (assuume not p. Derive q and not q from not p. Therefore p) is going to be very silent about small alterations to the claims.

Also dismissing perpetual motions machines because you believe energy is conserved will make no particular claim on what is the issue with this particular scheme. This can be rigorous and robus... (read more)

We'll Always Have Crazy

One reason why we might appear to disagree a constant amount could be that we silently agree / don't contend with stuff taht is not relevant for us yet. We only somewhat recently needed to decide whether titles for pirces of moon are valid. We curretnly have agreements that outer space is for all of humanity to explore/enjoy. However the amount of military satellites in earth orbit is unlikely to remain an uncontested friction free consensus. We don't disagree about Mars indenpendence because we don't think about Mars (yet).

And likewise much earlier before... (read more)

We'll Always Have Crazy

While thinking and engaging with "Awakening from the meaning crisis" I came to a conclusion that a certain kind of danger will keep sticking around. Vervaeke pharases it something to the effect of "perennial problems means that our meaning making machinery will always contain the possibility of self-delusion" and "you can't get rid of your shadow". (and my shorthand for it is that "eternal darkness" is a thing) . Digging into all of that might take a lot of time and I found it to feel like there is a conclusion or result coming that just kept going without... (read more)

A proposed system for ideas jumpstart

I have been holding in my drawer an idea or attempt at a different economical organization when the interest is to get a thing done rather than use it for maximum power grab ie profit. Based on thinking somewhat hard on piracy, I think there are serious issue on how we compensate "getting the damn thing together" vs "doing the thing" and "enjoying from the thing".

The lines of arguments go somethign like this: There are games that have a standard/high pricepoint that still sells like hotcakes. Additional copy of a program (once programmed and developed) doe... (read more)

1Just Learning1moYou are making a good point. Indeed, the system that would reward authors and experts will be quite complicated, so I was thinking about it on a purely volunteering basis (so in the initial stages it is non-profit). Then, if the group of people willing to work on the project was formed, they may turn it into a business project. If the initial author of the idea is in the project, he may get something, otherwise, no - the idea is already donated, no donations back. I will make an update to the initial post to clarify this point. As to your idea, I am totally not an expert in this field. Hopefully, we will find the experts for all our ideas (I also have a couple).
Seeking Truth Too Hard Can Keep You from Winning

This balance can be radically off kilter if an agent only has access to deliberate modelling. "Read books to understand how to deal with humans passingly" is a strategy seen in the wild for those that don't instinctively build strong implicit models.

Slider's Shortform

Beyond Two Souls, Talos Principle spoilers ahead.

Played Beyond Two Souls at "mission" phase of the story there is a twist where the protagonist loses faith that the organisation they are a part of is working for good goals. They set off to distance themselfs at quite great risk from their position in it. Combining this with narratives of aligment this felt like a reverse the usual situation. Usually the superhuman powerhouse turning against its masters is the catastrophe scenario. However here it seemed very clearly established that "going rogue" was the e... (read more)

You are way more fallible than you think

Statements like "John thinks its raining and it is not raining" and "I think it is raining and it is not raining" are not always exchangeable. Would you literally not believe your eyes if you saw something you could not explain? I also think it is easy to believe that even a third person subject had the experience but whether it is mapping anything or is just a disconnected doodle is up for grabs.

3Ericf2moRegarding disbelief of your own senses: As I've commented before: winners of mega lotteries routinely tripple check thier tickets, get 3rd party verification, and even while sitting in thier new mansion will express thier disbelief at winning.
Some real examples of gradient hacking

It is more fiction but in Man in the High Castle there is the character of Thomas Smith.

I think you are handling the case of pressing other groups down with massmurders but that would be "just" "might makes right". Some of the more frightening aspects would be to pinpoint that pruning inwards to do self-eugenics which would be conceptualised as a favour to your in-group. If all eugenics would be "mere" proxys then one would expect to abandon it if it suggested things strongly in the negatives for the more actual goals. Ie the moment eugenics would call you... (read more)

Slider's Shortform

The links are very on point for my interest thanks for those. Some of it is in rather dense math but alas that is the case when the topic is math.

At one point there is a constuction where in addition to having series of real numbers to define a hyperreal (r1,r2,r3...)=h1 we define a series of hyperreals (h1,h2,h3...)=d1, in order to get a "second tier hyperreal". So I do wonder whether the "fish gotten per day" is adeqate to distinguish between the scenarios. That is there might be a difference between "each day I get promised an infinite amout of fish" an... (read more)

Avoiding Negative Externalities - a theory with specific examples - Part 1

Decline in biodiversity

Or the opposite, allowing certain species to overpopulate

Why one species overpopulating is bad is because there is a decrease in biodiversity (more biomass in more monotonic makeup)

Was the first supposed to point to needless extinctions? Even there it might help to understand that if there is a balance of extinctions and speciation biodiversity can stay level.

I also thought that the "external" in "negative externalities" was that it was impacting parties to directly involved. So in that sense a "negative internality" would be if I hu... (read more)

1M. Y. Zuo2moI go by the standard OED definition of biodiversity biodiversity / ˌbʌɪə(ʊ)dʌɪˈvəːsɪti / ▸ noun [ mass noun ] the variety of plant and animal life in the world or in a particular habitat, a high level of which is usually considered to be important and desirable . It was supposed to point to a decline in the variety of plant and animal life in the world or in a particular habitat, particularly those which are usually considered to be important and desirable .
Is genetics "dark"?

So instead of pointing in different directions the other indicators point in the same direction.

A belief that "humanity stays extant because of our intelligence" might be common but it might have ideological roots. Say for reference there was the property of being tall, being able to derive calories from food and being smart. A society that would be fearful and taking precautions to avoid evolving tall would seem silly. Being able to derive calories from food seems like it could have a connection of thriving and the extinction chances of pandas would sugge... (read more)

A system of infinite ethics

In P(old probability of being in first group) * 1 = (P(old probability of being in first group) + $\epsilon) * u  the epsilon is smaller than any real number and there is no real small enough that it could characterise the difference between 1 and u.

If you have some odds or expectations that deal with groups and you have other considerations that deal with a finite amount of individuals you either have the finite people not impact the probabilities at all or the probabilities will stay infinidesimally close (for which is see a~b been used as I am read... (read more)

1Chantiel2moCould you explain why you think so? I had already explained why ϵ would be real, so I'm wondering if you had an issue with my reasoning. To quote my past self: Just to remind you, my ethical system basically never needs to worry about finite impacts. My ethical system doesn't worry about causal impacts, except to the extent that the inform you about the total acausal impact of your actions on the moral value of the universe. All things you do have infinite acausal impact, and these are all my system needs to consider. To use my ethical system, you don't even need a notion of causal impact at all.
Slider's Shortform

Why  and not any other? What kind of stream would correspond to  ?

1Taleuntum2moYou can just pretend thatωis finite and plug it into the formula for the partial sum.n∑i=1i=12n2+12n, soω∑i=1i=12ω2+12ω. If they were to give the ith odd number amount of fish on the ith day (1,3,5,7,9...), then you would haveω2amount of fish, becausen∑i=12i−1=n2. The two links I posted about the handling of infinite divergent series go into greater detail (eg. the question of the starting index).
Slider's Shortform

That is one of the puzzle in that 0+0+0+0+0... converges and has a value but +1-1+1-1+1-1... which seems to be like (1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)... diverges (and the series with and without the paranthesis are not equivalent)

The strram idea gives it a bit more wiggleroom. Getting 1,0,1,0,1.. fish seems equivalent to getting 1/2 fish a  day but 1,1,1,1,1.. seems twice the fish of 1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0... So which with the other methods are "can't say anthing" there is maybe hope to capture more cases with this kind of approach.

Too bad its not super formal and I can't even pinpoint where the painpoints for formalization would be.

Speaking of Stag Hunts

7/7 attendance and 6/7 success resulted in 5 stars. I think the idea was that high cost of missing out would utilise sunk cost to keep the activity going. I am not sur whether bending on rules made it closer to idela or would sticking by the lines and making a fail a full reset done better. Or even if the call between pass and fail was compromised by allowing "fail with reduced concequences". 

Slider's Shortform

1 number of length 0, 9 numbers of length 1 (and maybe 0), 90 numbers of length 2, 900 numbers of length 3, 9000 numbers of length 4

9*10^(n-1) numbers of length n. For each n the amount of numbers of length just before that is 10 times less and the amount of numbers the next length is 10 times more. If you take a rolling fraction of n odd to all numbers seen it starts to go down when even numbered length is reached and starts to go up when an odd length number is reached.

2Pattern2mo(Ignoring that most people don't think of 0 as of being length 0.) Jump by two orders of magnitude every time and it stays stable: Starting with nothing: 1 of even length, 9 of odd length. 90 of even length, 900 of odd length. 10% versus 90%. Start after an even jump: 91 of even length, 9 of odd length. 9,091 of even length, 909 of odd length. (Starts at 91% even, but drops after a double jump. I don't know what the limit on this is.) By comparison, resolving proportion of even numbers versus odd numbers, is much easier, because it's a simple pattern which oscillates at the same rate, instead of changing. (in base 10) Well, if a different color is used every time, then the coloring aspect is solved. If you ask about addition though, then things get weird.
Speaking of Stag Hunts

To state the obvious, using the risk/reward frame above, I think just punishing people more for not doing their practice would result in far fewer great contributions to the site. But I think it's very promising to reward people more for putting in very high levels of effort into practice, by celebrating them and making their achievements legible and giving them prizes. I suspect that this could change the site culture substantially.

There was the issue with the babble challenges where I felt like effort was not being seen. "Not knowing which norms are mate... (read more)

2Ben Pace2moYeah that seems fair. I gave feedback to Jacob at the time that his interpretation of the rules didn't seem like the obvious one to me, and I think the 'streak' framing also meant that missing one week took you down to zero, which is super costly if it's the primary success metric.
Speaking of Stag Hunts

There is another phenomenon that also gets referred to as "black and white thinking" that has more to do with rigidity of thought. The mechanisms of that are different. I am bit unsure whether it has a more standard name and wanted to find fact information but only found an opinon piece where at number 5 there is a differential between that and splitting.

I do recognise how the text fills recognition criteria for splitting and the worry seems reasonable but to me it sounds more like splitting hairs. The kind of thing were I would argue that within probabili... (read more)

3JenniferRM2moIf you look at some of the neighboring text, I have some mathematical arguments about what the chances are for N people to all independently play "stag" such that no one plays rabbit and everyone gets the "stag reward". If 3 people flip coins, all three coins come up "stag" quite often. If a "stag" is worth roughly 8 times as much as a rabbit, you could still sanely "play stag hunt" with 2 other people whose skill at stag was "50% of the time they are perfect". But if they are less skilled than that, or there are more of them, the stag had better be very very very valuable. If 1000 people flip coins then "pure stag" comes up one in every 9.33x10^302 times. Thus, de facto, stag hunts fail at large N except for one of those "dumb and dumber" kind of things where you hear the one possible coin pattern that gives the stag reward and treat this as good news and say "so you're telling me there's a chance!" I think stag hunts are one of these places where the exact same formal mathematical model gives wildly different pragmatic results depending on N, and the probability of success, and the value of the stag... and you have to actually do the math, not rely on emotions and hunches to get the right result via the wisdom one one's brainstem and subconscious and feelings and so on.
Excerpts from Veyne's "Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths?"

As Oswald Ducrot writes in Dire et ne pas dire, information is an illocution that can be completed only if the receiver recognizes the speaker's competence and honesty beforehand, so that, from the very outset, a piece of information is situated beyond the alternative between truth and falsehood.

So in a situation like in the agreement theorems, if you do not believe the other party goes for truth (I guess this specific blend this text would insist) then nothing they say can make you change your mind? No matter how coherent a speech pattern is if you believ... (read more)

Speaking of Stag Hunts

I thought it a little more and I am going to get partially unrependant.

There is intensifier cross-talk confusion going on but that was not the whole reason or the main reason I was acting. I made on error reflecting on it that I latched on to the first error that came to mind and thought "of thats what happened and that is why it went wrong". I am still wrong in those parts but there were contributions from things I was also actually seeing (aka still believe in (even if I didn't have awareness of them before)).

4Duncan_Sabien2moI reaffirm, as I have tried to a couple of times, that I think the thing you're pulling for is good. And as I note in the OP, if I or other readers are unable to see the importance of the distinctions you're making: that might mean that there's nothing there, but it's also a real possibility that you see things we don't.
Speaking of Stag Hunts

I do know that asked about it and since I asked I should wait for answer to that. I thought about it and elsewhere the balance of having to do the cognitive work gets lobsided so for the interest of getting things done sharing on what brain cycles already have been sacrificed for pushes thins easier forward.

Hypothesis A: You think that I am seeing things that are not there and therefore semi-randomly opening random facts. "See nothing under the jacket, nothing up the sleeves". I am annoyed as my specific worry doesn't get addressed as I have trouble expres... (read more)

Speaking of Stag Hunts

Like... this is literally black and white thinking? 

This is written in a way that seems to imply that if it is black and white thinking that would be bad. It also doesn't read as a question despite having a question mark.

People whos neurotype makes them default to black and white thinking can get really good when a concept does apply or doesn't apply. It has strengths and weaknesses. You are taking the attitude that it is widely known for its weaknesses. Demonstrating what is being glossed over or what kinds of things would be missed by it. I guess la... (read more)

"Black and white thinking" is another name for a reasonably well defined cognitive tendency that often occurs in proximity to reasonably common mental problems.

Part of the reason "the fallacy of gray" is a thing that happens is that advice like that can be a useful and healthy thing for people who are genuinely not thinking in a great way. 

Adding gray to the palette can be a helpful baby step in actual practice.

Then very very similar words to this helpful advice can also be used to "merely score debate points" on people who have a point about "X is go... (read more)

A system of infinite ethics

Yes, insult is supposed to add to the injury.

Under my eror model you run into trouble when you treat any transfininte amount the same. From that perspective recognising two transfinite amounts that could be different is progress.

Another attempt to throw a situation you might not be able to handle. Instead of having 2 infinite groups of unknown relative size all receiving the same bad thing as compensation for the abuse 1 slice of cake for one gorup and 2 slices of cake for the second group. Could there be a difference in the group size that perfectly balan... (read more)

1Chantiel2moI guess this is the part I don't really understand. My infinite ethical system doesn't even think about transfinite quantities. It only considers the prior probability over ending up in situations, which is always real-valued. I'm not saying you're wrong, of course, but I still can't see any clear problem. Are you asking if there is a way to simultaneously change the group size as well as change the relative amount of cake for each group so the expected number of cakes received is constant? If this is what you mean, then my system can deal with this. First off, remember that my system doesn't worry about the number of agents in a group, but instead merely cares about the probability of an agent ending up in that group, conditioning only on being in this universe. By changing the group size, however you define it, you can affect the probability of you ending up in that group. To see why, suppose you can do something to add any agents in a certain situation-description into the group. Well, as long as this situation has a finite description length, the probability of ending up in that situation is non-zero, so thus stopping them from being in that situation can decrease the probability of you ending up in that group. So, currently, the expected value of cake received from these situations is P(in first group) * 1 + P(in second group) * 2. (For simplicity, I'm assuming no one else in the universe gets cake.) So, if you increase the number of cakes received by the second group by u, you just need to decrease P(in the first group) by 2u to keep the expectation constant. If literally only one more person gets cake, even considering acaucal effects, then this would in general not affect the expected value of cake. So the slice would still be 2.7cm. Now, perhaps you meant that you directly cause one more person to get cake, resulting acausally in infinitely-many others getting cake. If so, then here's my reasoning: Previously, the expected value of cake received from
Speaking of Stag Hunts

The post has a lot of things going on. I am chipping on a it somewhat one spoonful at a time.

I didn't engage with the main drama directly as I am not around there.

It feels like a story about the a stag hunting party that encountered a bear. A bit meatier but a different beast and dangerous. Then some hunters go "nope, I didn't sign up for this" or just flee in abject horror. Those that stay get mauled because a small group can't deal with a full bear.

With a regular stag hunt it elicts frustration. Repeated failures might make starvation creep closer but us... (read more)

Speaking of Stag Hunts

I ended up still wanting to dumb a scenario even if it is a bit mindready. I am doing a dirty trick of making a separate comment of tanking negative karma.

In the movie Idiocrazy, the protagonist at one point is faced with the challenge of fixing farming. The population is using energy drinks to water the crops. The protagonist thinks they would be better served by using water for irrigation.

-"you are killing the plants by poisoning them"

-"No but this has got electrolytes which is what plants crave" [points at massive billboard]

-"No, but if you would just t... (read more)

Speaking of Stag Hunts

I do note that it also works in mirror that just because someone has declared that they are not doing something doesn't mean that they are not doing the thing.

So if not "this impact can't be harmful, because my intentions are good" or "this impact can't be harmful, because these people would have noticed." was meant, what was meant? Outside of the frowned upon telepathy I am at a loss for relevance. So I am asking rather than assuming.

You seem to be convinced that "pseudo" is not communicating what it is supposed to communicate and that dropping the link t... (read more)

4Slider2moI ended up still wanting to dumb a scenario even if it is a bit mindready. I am doing a dirty trick of making a separate comment of tanking negative karma. In the movie Idiocrazy, the protagonist at one point is faced with the challenge of fixing farming. The population is using energy drinks to water the crops. The protagonist thinks they would be better served by using water for irrigation. -"you are killing the plants by poisoning them" -"No but this has got electrolytes which is what plants crave" [points at massive billboard] -"No, but if you would just try it..." -"But we have always done it this way. Its common knowledge everybody knows that electrolytes are good for crops" Being the head of agricultural sector in some sense makes that the most compent farmer around. But that is distinct from being right. I guess the current lingo fashion would be to say that instead of indirect arguments of reliablity talk about gear-level models on what is the impact exposing to water vs exposing to electrolytes. And in order to do this cleanly one needs to suppress the "knowledge" that electrolytes help plants. Like working all your life around plants doesn't guarantee good croppping working all your life with and towards autists doesn't guarantee good attitude. The gear spinning doesn't care where you have been lurking.
Speaking of Stag Hunts

Do you mean that you roled back the strong downvote? Or do you mean you upvoted the revelation of the background?

Do you think "inject at least mildly political undertones" took place and do you still think it is epistemically corrosive? Does "inject at least mildly political undertones" impute intention to others?n (I am trying to understand under what theory I did wrong by finding instances of the theory trying to understand what parts of the rule phrase "imputing intention to others where there is none" mean (I am "revealing my game" because I want to emphasise dealing with confusion over demands for consistency))

Speaking of Stag Hunts

Thank you for explaining your vote, I have upvoted it.

Your analysis that trying to reword "pseudo-autistic" to stupid is indeed correct that it can't really be done.

I have a different bone to pick about it and that I need to separately tell what the bone is speaks of my communication being inadequate. Fine expressions to me would be "autistic special interest" or "intense special interest". The danger there is not to dilute the meaning anything near a "hobby", special interests are a separate thing and the latter is what is went after.

The bone is more with... (read more)

4Slider2moI thought it a little more and I am going to get partially unrependant [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cujpciCqNbawBihhQ/self-integrity-and-the-drowning-child] . There is intensifier cross-talk confusion going on but that was not the whole reason or the main reason I was acting. I made on error reflecting on it that I latched on to the first error that came to mind and thought "of thats what happened and that is why it went wrong". I am still wrong in those parts but there were contributions from things I was also actually seeing (aka still believe in (even if I didn't have awareness of them before)).
6dxu2moThank you for your response. After reading it, I'm much more sympathetic to your cause, and in particular it has caused me to strongly update against the hypothesis that you were speaking in bad faith. I have upvoted accordingly. (To be clear, this was not my dominant hypothesis at the time I wrote my initial reply to you, but it did possess non-trivial probability mass, and I think it's safe to say it no longer does.)
6Duncan_Sabien2moCarrot awarded; I strong upvoted dxu's defense of the norms but I also have strong upvoted your post here (and reiterate once more that I like and agree with the underlying thing that was motivating you).
We Live in a Post-Scarcity Society

I would imagine that in a early agrigoal society boredom would be a real problem and nobody would mind giving their 2 cents to anybody that would come around. In that setting attention might not be scarce.

Self-driving cars will make transportation less of brainer. Some future technology or accumulation of technologies could impact how much brain engagement is needed for standard conditions. It is not clear to me that available attention must always go down.

Speaking of Stag Hunts

I do not think you intend malice.

I do think that a purely technical or literal-minded meaning would have just used "autistic special interest". Given that you identify to be on the spectrum that might in fact be the case. Differentiating between pseudo-autistic and actually autistic could be done for the motive of avoiding negative connotations. I hold it in high probability that your mind is doing a mini-dodge of negative connotation and you are suffering from a very mild case of internalized ablism.

I do not think that "pseudo-autistic" is a very technica... (read more)

I am not the author of the original post, and as such I am rather freer in my ability to express pushback to criticism of said post, without invoking social friction-costs like "But you might only be saying that to defend yourself", etc.

So, to wit: I think you are mostly-to-entirely mistaken in your construal of the sentences in question. I do not believe the sentences in question carry even the slightest implication that the word "autistic" is synonymous with, evocative of, or otherwise associated with the word "stupid". Moreover, since I am not the post'... (read more)

4Duncan_Sabien2moI feel like you're missing me with "And for the reasons I don't care about your black friends when it comes to racism I don't care about your autistic friends when dealing with harmful impact and enforcement of neurotypical values." I think you perceived me mentioning my autistic students and partner, and my autistic character, as an attempt to persuade you of something? In particular, it seems like you read me as saying "this impact can't be harmful, because my intentions are good" or "this impact can't be harmful, because these people would have noticed." Which is not what I was attempting to convey. Obviously those things are orthogonal to questions of harmful impact and enforcement of neurotypical values. I do note, though, that just because someone has declared something to have a certain harmful impact, or just because someone has claimed that something is tantamount to enforcement of neurotypical values, doesn't mean it is. People are highly trustworthy when speaking to their own direct experiences but not particularly trustworthy when extrapolating out to "therefore, this impacts the population thusly." You're raising valid hypotheses, and as I noted above, the very existence of your reaction is evidence that something could be improved. But I still don't buy that the [harmful impact] (to the extent that it exists) has its roots in my actions versus having its roots in other people's preconceptions and projections. And I simply disagree that I'm enforcing neurotypical values, except I guess insofar as I'm validating that there is a difference between autists and non-autists (a fuzzy, population-level statistical one, not one that allows particularly accurate predictions on the level of individuals). i.e. this raises my sense that I ought to change something, to see more of the impact I'd like to see in the world. It doesn't nearly as much raise my sense that I have done something wrong, and need to change my attitudes or fundamental policies. I'm open
Speaking of Stag Hunts

You are knowingly rude about calling people stupid.

You might be less knowingly rude when you use "autistic" as a synonym for stupid in "do not have my particular pseudo-autistic special interest" and somewhat half of connotation of "in a way that could be made clear to an autistic ten-year-old."

This is not cool as it was not cool at this occasion

I do hope that you do not think that arguing for higher standard makes for an acceptable break in basic hospitality norms and I don't think you are claiming to be a cool person above the law.

I was not using autistic as a synonym for stupid, and literally never have.  I do not think that autistic is a synonym for stupid.

I (extremely) agree with you that doing so is and would be rude, bad, unwelcoming, and a violation of basic hospitality norms.

Your reply indicates that I should do a little more work to show that what I was gesturing at with those comments was that "understandable to an autistic ten-year-old" seems, to me, to be a positive standard.  Your reply is evidence that I'm failing to rule out the interpretation "stupid."

I have... (read more)

Load More