alkjash

• alkjash 7 Jan 2025 1:27 UTC

  4 points

  0

  in reply to: nim’s comment on: Meal Re­place­ments in 2025?

  I appreciate the effort but am hoping to solve this problem in an afternoon (if not five minutes) and forget about it, instead of acquiring the correct language to think about things or a full theory of diet and nutrition.

• alkjash 6 Jan 2025 22:21 UTC

  3 points

  0

  in reply to: nim’s comment on: Meal Re­place­ments in 2025?

  My thought process goes like: on most weekdays I sure wish I could skip breakfast and/​or lunch and only have one sit-down meal with my family in the evening. Time savings and convenience are the main concerns I suppose.

  The first solution that came to mind was to try Soylent/​Mealsquares/​Huel for a month and cross my fingers, ⁵⁰⁄₅₀ it just goes well and solves the problem. I posted to see if there were any obvious considerations I was missing, or clear standout options to try first.

  Pre-made frozen meals and protein bars are also plausibly acceptable meal replacement options.

  On a first pass frozen meals register as bulky and hard to store a month of at a time, and not something I’d bring to work. I’ve also never had an item I can imagine stomaching every day.

  Protein bars seem mostly fine, but my vibe check is that meal replacements are basically enlightened protein bars? Like, maybe the nutrition profile is better and they are packaged in sizes more suitable for full meals?

[Question] Meal Re­place­ments in 2025?

• alkjash 30 Dec 2024 17:17 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: Peter Berggren’s comment on: Ham­mer­time Day 8: Sunk Cost Faith

  I don’t disagree with what you’re saying about theoretically rational agents. I think the content of my post was [there are a bunch of circumstances in which humans are systematically irrational, sunk cost fallacy is on net a useful corrective heuristic in those circumstances. Attempting to make rational decisions via explicit legible calculations will in practice underperform just following the heuristic.]

  To spell out a bit more, imagine my mood swings cause a large random error term to be added to all explicit calculations. Then if the decision process is to drop a project altogether at any point where my calculations say the project is doomed, then I will drop a lot of projects that are not actually doomed.

• alkjash 30 Dec 2024 14:16 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: Peter Berggren’s comment on: Ham­mer­time Day 8: Sunk Cost Faith

  I still don’t understand. Your valuation of the project will still change over time as information actually gets revealed though. The probability the project will turn out worthwhile can fluctuate.

• alkjash 30 Dec 2024 2:25 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: Peter Berggren’s comment on: Ham­mer­time Day 8: Sunk Cost Faith

  I don’t follow. As a project progresses it seems common to acquire new information and continuously update your valuation of the project.

• alkjash 12 Dec 2024 13:53 UTC

  3 points

  1

  on: Un­der­stand­ing Shap­ley Values with Venn Diagrams

  I taught game theory at Princeton and wish I’d seen this explanation beforehand, excellent framing.

On “Geeks, MOPs, and So­ciopaths”

Through­put vs. Latency

• alkjash 11 Jan 2024 13:44 UTC

  11 points

  6

  in reply to: Raemon’s comment on: Set­ting the Zero Point

  In the territory, bad event happens [husband hits wife, missile hits child, car hits pedestrian]. There is no confusion about the territory: everyone understands the trajectories of particles that led to the catastrophe. But somehow there is a long and tortuous debate about who is responsible/​to blame [“She was wearing a dark hoodie that night,” “He should have come to a complete stop at the stop sign”, “Why did she jaywalk when the crosswalk was just 10 feet away!”].
  
  The problem is that we mean a bunch of different things simultaneously by blame/​responsibility:

  1. Causality. The actual causal structure of the event. [“If she’d worn a reflective vest this wouldn’t have happened,” “If your left headlight wasn’t broken you’d have seen her.”]

  2. Blame. Who should be punished/​shamed in this situation. This question already branches into a bunch of cruxes about the purpose and effectiveness of punishment.

  3. Responsibility. What is the most effective way of preventing such events in the future? [“If we passed a law that all pedestrians wear reflective vests it would halve incidents like this”, “How about we institute mandatory pedestrian-sighting courses for drivers, and not blame the victim?”]

  People argue about the same event with different causal models, different definitions of blame, and different notions of responsibility, and the conversation collapses. Fill in your own politically-charged example.
  
  Setting the zero point seems to be one “move” in this blame game [if the default is that all drivers take pedestrian-sighting courses, then you’re to blame if you skipped it. if the default is that all pedestrians must wear reflective vests, then you’re to blame if you didn’t wear one.]

• alkjash 6 Dec 2023 21:50 UTC

  11 points

  3

  in reply to: Ben Pace’s comment on: Origi­nal­ity vs. Correctness

  I don’t have a complete reply to this yet, but wanted to clarify if it was not clear that the position in this dialogue was written with the audience (a particularly circumspect broad-map-building audience) in mind. I certainly think that the vast majority of young people outside this community would benefit from spending more time building broad maps of reality before committing to career/​identity/​community choices. So I certainly don’t prescribe giving up entirely.

  ETA: Maybe a useful analogy is that for Amazon shopping I have found doing serious research into products (past looking at purchase volume and average ratings) largely unhelpful. Usually if I read reviews carefully, I end up more confused than anything else as a large list of tail risks and second-order considerations are brought to my attention. Career choice I suspect is similar with much higher stakes.

Origi­nal­ity vs. Correctness

• alkjash 20 Sep 2023 19:55 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: A Pear With legs’s comment on: Write

  Seeing patterns where there are none is also part of my writing process.

• alkjash 27 Jan 2023 23:48 UTC

  8 points

  0

  on: As­sign­ing Praise and Blame: De­cou­pling Episte­mol­ogy and De­ci­sion Theory

  This paper of mine answers exactly this question (nonconstructively, using the minimax theorem).

• alkjash 26 Jan 2023 18:54 UTC

  4 points

  0

  on: Set­ting the Zero Point

  I feel there is an important thing here but [setting the zero point] is either not the right frame, or a special case of the real thing, [blame and responsibility are often part of the map and not part of the territory] closely related to asymmetric justice and the copenhagen interpretation of ethics.

• alkjash 22 Jan 2023 1:59 UTC

  6 points

  0

  in reply to: Dagon’s comment on: Rock, Paper and Scis­sors: A Game The­ory View

  Afaict, the first simple game is not the prisoner’s dilemma, nor is it zero-sum, nor is the prisoner’s dilemma zero-sum.

• alkjash 17 Jan 2023 20:50 UTC

  3 points

  1

  on: Wis­dom Can­not Be Unzipped

  This is not intended as a criticism in any way, but this post seems to overlap largely with https://​​www.lesswrong.com/​​posts/​​k9dsbn8LZ6tTesDS3/​​sazen.

  [Edit: After looking at the timestamps it looks like that post actually came out after, anyway it might be an helpful alternative perspective on the same phenomenon.]

• alkjash 10 Jan 2023 23:22 UTC

  4 points

  0

  on: Re­view AI Align­ment posts to help figure out how to make a proper AI Align­ment review

  Is it just me or are alignment-related post titles getting longer and longer?

• alkjash 10 Jan 2023 4:07 UTC

  7 points

  on: Cup-Stack­ing Skills (or, Reflex­ive In­vol­un­tary Men­tal Mo­tions)

  This post has a lot of particular charms, but also touches on a generally under-represented subject in LessWrong: the simple power of deliberate practice and competence. The community seems saturated with the kind of thinking that goes [let’s reason about this endeavor from all angles and meta-angles and find the exact cheat code to game reality] at the expense of the simple [git gud scrub]. Of course, gitting gud at reason is one very important aspect of gitting gud in general, but only one aspect.

  The fixation on calibration and correctness in this community trades off heavily against general competence. Being correct is just a very special case of being good at things in general. Part of Duncan’s ethos is that it’s possible to learn [the pattern of gitting gud], and furthermore this is more important and consistent than learning how to be good at one particular arbitrary skill.

• alkjash 1 Jan 2023 19:01 UTC

  8 points

  0

  in reply to: Valentine’s comment on: Slack mat­ters more than any outcome

  It seems important to notice that we don’t have control over when these “shimmying” strategies work, or how. I don’t know the implication of that yet. But it seems awfully important.

  A related move is when applying force to sort of push the adaptive entropy out of a certain subsystem so that that subsystem can untangle some of the entropy. Some kinds of meditation are like this: intentionally clearing the mind and settling the body so that there’s a pocket of calmness in defiance of everything relying on non-calmness, precisely because that creates clarity from which you can meaningfully change things and net decrease adaptive entropy.

  Two further comments:
  (a) The main distinction I wanted to get across is while many behaviors fall under the “addiction from” umbrella, there is a whole spectrum of how more or less productive they are, both on their own terms and with respect to the original root cause.
  (b) I think, but am not sure, I understand what you mean by [let go of the outcome], and my interpretation is different from how the words are received by default. At least for me I cannot actually let go of the outcome psychologically, but what I can do is [expect direct efforts to fail miserably and indirect efforts to be surprisingly fruitful].

  Yeah… for some reason, on this particular point, it always does, no matter how I present it. Then people go on to say things that seem related but importantly aren’t. It’s a detail of how this whole dimension works that I’ve never seen how to communicate without it somehow coming across like an attempt to hijack people. Maybe secretly to me some part of me is trying. But FWIW, hijacking is quite explicitly the opposite of what I want. Alas, spelling that out doesn’t help and sometimes just causes people to say they flat-out don’t believe me. So… here we are.

  Sure, seems like the issue is not a substantive disagreement, but some combination of a rhetorical tic of yours and the topic itself being hard to talk about.