All of Ziz's Comments + Replies

Please give your links speaking names!

I prefer oppositely, to not break the flow of reading. Not to have a hypothetical vocalization of the text switch its moment-to-moment purpose to being a bibliography, let me compress to, "the author linked an article they claimed said shrimping was a fundamental drill for grappling", and move on. Often, I'd even prefer to leave out the "according to this article", and make the statement itself link text.

1rmoehn2yDo you read in the browser or on paper?
Terrorism, Tylenol, and dangerous information

If this doubled such attacks, it would not be a feather on the scales, and you know that.

6Raemon3y(rambly thoughts about my interior thought process incoming) So, I don't endorse the actual algorithm I was running here. (i.e "notice dangerous information --> speak out about dangerous information" rather than "make even a crude attempt to reflect on the overall stakes", which I do think I should do more often) I think the algorithm Davis followed was basically correct (as I understand it, "start writing a post on dangerous info --> reflect on overall risk of using a particular example / check for less dangerous examples --> publish article with less dangerous examples and/or decide the risk is acceptable") It's particularly salient to me that Ziz is correct to call me out here because I had recently noticed an inconsistency in myself: If I saw someone make a dangerous-seeming-decision, and they already double checked their reasoning, and the triple-checked their reasoning seeking out someone with different priors... I would probably demand that they quadruple-check their reasoning. Which is maybe fine, except that if they had only doublechecked their math... I'm aware that I'd be satisfied if I demanded that they triplecheck in. And if they had quadruplechecked it, I'd probably demand that they check it a 5th time. I lean towards "it's better to have this algorithm to not have it to make sure people are doublechecking their dangerous decisions at all, but it's definitely better to actually have a principled take on how much danger is reasonable." And this post was the first instance of me running into this behavior pattern since reflecting on it. That all said... In this particular post, which is literally about being careful with information hazards, which includes a potential information hazard... it seems sort of amiss to not at least address where to draw the line?
Aliveness

Hmm. Problem with crossposting is that in-text links aren't really visible here. Last time I tried it, at least one person didn't notice a link to a post, without which they misunderstood my post. Have discussed this with some devs, and remain convinced I need visible links. Y'all go your way, I'll go mine.

Edit: Actually I have more reason not to want automatic crossposting than that.

Aliveness

Upvoted for minding long-term evolution of the structure. On the fence about whether it's worth it. Maybe "livingness"? (Would that help much or be almost as confusing?) I don't think I could pick anything but a synonym and not obscure the concept.

Aliveness

This sounds like it was written for one of my draft posts to be a response to. Excellent.

Edit: summary is, your conception of productive is probably distorted by your refusal to engage the circuits that a reframing like this turns off. If you refuse a gate, you end up in a parallel universe where the actions you take seem correct and the gate seems unusuable anyway. If you go through, it feels like there's nothing you can do about it and you've destroyed hope for nothing, until you start to rebuild your mind in the more complete view of the world.

The O'Brien Technique

Nope. That's just a process this thing is calling into. See this for more info on the context for this technique. (And the primary use case for this is where neither of the belifs/aliefs is wrong, and you end up grokking they are separate instead.)

1Matt Goldenberg4yAhh I see, so the important thing I was missing is something like "This is about disentangeling social reality from predictive reality?"
Schelling Orders

Thanks for linking that. From shallow accesses to caches because I'm in the middle of something, "side-taking" morality is too specific. I call this component "trade morality".

Schelling Orders

Oh shit, I was gonna write that up before I published this and then I forgot. Will fix later. (Edit: posted with slightly more detail [here](https://www.lesserwrong.com/posts/XYzKEic8CovkWNwtb/the-o-brien-technique))

I'm naming it after the character from 1984, it's a way of disentangling social reality / reality buckets errors in system 1, by holding two different contradicting verbal statements in your head, "2+2=4", "2+2=5", and contrasting them and their uses and anticipations until they split apart into not seeming to be t... (read more)

3Raemon4yThis was a helpful encapsulation of a concept, thanks. (I have a vague feeling I might be missing something subtle about in, more due to priors than any specific information about this example)
Mana

Yes, something like that.

I also mean to imply the consequence of severing yourself from the Khala is profoundly disturbing isolation. It is done by deciding that no one is your ingroup or something like that, resulting in a feeling of stepping outside of a game containing all social interactions.

1Chris_Leong4yYou still haven't defined Khala.
Mana

Thanks. I have considered and tried to implement strategies like that, and I think it's better for me to do what I'm doing because:

I do model-building primarily for my purposes of using models to decide things in real life. This kind of content, with a bunch of dependencies because it was made based on pulling from my entire worldview, is the content which already exists. The subset which I can link something to explain the dependencies is what I can write in the course of my life which is mostly not about writing, without spending time generatin... (read more)

1spiralingintocontrol4yYeah, ok, "I don't have time for that" is definitely a valid response to this.
Mana

I just added a link to the OP, apparently the original wasn't working even though it was a public post. Have not reviewed the utility of giving a how-to-mind-control guide here. But light on technique, heavy on direct consequences of having much higher mana than someone and not giving up.

An Equilibrium of No Free Energy

> At one point during the 2016 presidential election, the PredictIt prediction market—the only one legally open to US citizens (and only US citizens)—had Hillary Clinton at a 60% probability of winning the general election. The bigger, international prediction market BetFair had Clinton at 80% at that time.

Is it just that there is percentage-income-taxed error in prediction markets' guesses, and this 20% discrepancy falls under this, or are markets unable to Aumann agree if they can only watch each other and can't arbitrage?

5Vaniver4yI'm pretty sure income-tax doesn't affect arbitrage bounds in the absence of other obstacles. (It does multiply the effective height of those obstacles.) That is, if PredictIt and BetFair had no caps, no user restrictions, and charged no fees, but you had to pay income tax on aggregate winnings, you would expect the prices to be the same. But if a profit opportunity had to be worth $100 to justify putting in the effort, then an income tax of 50% means $100 opportunities will be passed up and only $200 opportunities will be taken. Markets with friction will have their error bounded by the friction. Even if you could legally buy contracts on both PredictIt and BetFair, a withdrawal fee of 5% will mean that seeing a price of 45 on one site and 50 on the other site wouldn't justify buying the cheaper options to try to drive the prices together, because when you pulled your guaranteed dollar out you would only get 95 cents, which is what that guaranteed dollar cost you. (The withdrawal fee's effects are muted if there are lots of markets that close serially, as you can collect lots of arbitrage and then only pay the 5% once, but for rare high-volume events like presidential elections this isn't that relevant.) You would expect those prices to slowly drift together over time because of new entrants (who would buy the cheaper option if comparing them), but it wouldn't be the immediate price-correction that you see in efficient markets.
Inadequacy and Modesty

I once found a $20 bill on a sidewalk at a marina. I searched the surrouning sidewalk, grass, and bushes and found 3 more. It reminded me of the mentioned talk from Eliezer and I was thinking, "this event would make really good propaganda for the boat startup I'm in, too bad I don't believe in omens no wait believing in them doesn't make them real."