Oh, yeah, I absolutely agree.
AprilSR
Karma: 1,350
The Hats of LessOnline
A further note on logical correlations: I feel that people with a low level of familiarity with functional and evidential decision theory often over-estimate the extent of how many people they are logically correlated with here on Earth.
I don’t know if I would characterize it as an “over-estimate” personally. Mostly I think no one has an especially complete idea of how logical correlation actually works. I once asked Eliezer, and his tentative stab at it was
It ought to look similar to—though it is not defined as! -- the evidential update you’d probably perform on learning your own voting decision, if you’d never in your life seen any polls or gotten any info at all about how many people vote or for who; but you had even more information than now about which other voters are otherwise similar or dissimilar to you.
But I haven’t worked through this well enough to be very satisfied with my understanding.
(But of course I agree that thinking of FDT as sort of like magic mind control is probably (?) a little silly.)
I think making it marginally less convenient for authoritarian governments to catch dissidents could in practice be a pretty large benefit to them? It’s not clear to me how often authoritarian governments will even actually attempt the jail breaking, and if they do it probably matters just how difficult of a jail break it requires.
policy debates should not appear one-sided
your strength as a rationalist lies in your ability to argue for a belief being constrained by whether that belief is actually true
Hmm.
I like allowing it because it makes me happy when I see how downvoted they get.
I think different parts of a human can trade with each other, although I think they’re usually more abstract parts than the left vs right hemisphere.
I find 1 and 3 more intuitively plausible than 2?
Honestly I never seriously considered the idea that he might be joking
I think if I am not a Boltzmann-brain I do still want a mechanistic explanation of why not, even though my general decision-making process is robust to a scenario where non-Boltzmann brains are vanishingly rare.
I expect that most instances wouldn’t try, but I think some of them would.
Isn’t this just toki pona
Oh, I think whether the WHO declares that a pandemic is occurred is probably trustworthy. I don’t know if I trust their pandemic predictions. How good is their track record?
I mean, maybe they’re a really good parody artist who studied just enough physics to get away with it.
Why would I trust the WHO?
I would suggest Kirby: Planet Robobot over Super Star Ultra.
I think the prediction market can be useful even if you need to apply corrections to the headline number. It makes a huge difference to me whether Manifold says 8% or 40%, even though I won’t necessarily fully trust either number until it’s had a while longer to shake out (and even then it depends on the market dynamics, liquidity, etc.)
I think the prediction market question is too early to call.
Not that I recall.
I think this is basically correct, but the English word “belief” is often considered to include opinions (because most people don’t draw an incredibly clear distinction between questions of fact and questions of value), so—like, you just have to be careful you’re drawing that distinction correctly, I suppose.