chaosmage

• chaosmage 13 Mar 2020 14:08 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: habryka’s comment on: What cog­ni­tive bi­ases feel like from the inside

  Awe­some! Thanks a lot!

• chaosmage 4 Jan 2020 12:53 UTC

  6 points

  in reply to: Mathisco’s comment on: What cog­ni­tive bi­ases feel like from the inside

  I’m fan­ta­siz­ing about in­fo­graph­ics with mul­ti­ple ex­am­ples of the same bias, an ex­pla­na­tion how they’re all bi­ased the same way, and very brief talk­ing points like “we’re all bi­ased, try to avoid this mis­take, for­give oth­ers if they make it, learn more at LessWrong.com″.

  They could be mass pro­duced with differ­ent ex­am­ples. Like one with a pro­po­nent of Min­i­mum Wage and an op­po­nent of it, ar­gu­ing un­der in­tense con­fir­ma­tion bias as de­scribed in the table above, with a head­line like “Why dis­cus­sions about Min­i­mum Wage of­ten fail”. Another one “Why dis­cus­sions of Ve­ganism of­ten fail”, an­other one “Why dis­cus­sions of Gun Con­trol of­ten fail” etc. Each posted to the ap­pro­pri­ate sub­red­dits etc. Then evolve new ver­sions based on what got the most up­votes.

  But I am com­pletely clue­less about how to do in­fo­graph­ics. I’d love for some­one to grab the idea and run with it. But re­al­is­ti­cally I should prob­a­bly try to half-ass some­thing and hope it shows enough po­ten­tial for some­one with the skills to take pity.

  Or at least get more eyes on it to fur­ther im­prove the con­cept. Get­ting feed­back from fel­low LessWrongers was ex­tremely helpful for de­vel­op­ment thus far.

• chaosmage 3 Jan 2020 14:33 UTC

  3 points

  on: What cog­ni­tive bi­ases feel like from the inside

  I’m us­ing pic­tures be­cause I couldn’t get ei­ther ed­i­tor to ac­cept a proper table.

What cog­ni­tive bi­ases feel like from the inside

• chaosmage 13 Dec 2019 14:58 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: Kenny’s comment on: Elon Musk is wrong: Rob­o­taxis are stupid. We need stan­dard­ized rented au­tonomous tugs to move cus­tomized owned un­pow­ered wag­ons.

  In a car park? But they will be way more densely packed than cars in car parks, be­cause no hu­mans need ac­cess. The cab­ins get placed there and re­trieved from there by au­tonomous en­g­ines.

• chaosmage 6 Nov 2019 10:04 UTC

  7 points

  in reply to: MakoYass’s comment on: Elon Musk is wrong: Rob­o­taxis are stupid. We need stan­dard­ized rented au­tonomous tugs to move cus­tomized owned un­pow­ered wag­ons.

  Here are more use cases.

  • A spe­cial­ized cabin for your kid to drive to/​from school alone, or for your tod­dler to drive to/​from kinder­garten alone. Rob­o­taxis will definitely be used for this be­cause it is su­per valuable to par­ents. But a small spe­cial­ized cabin would be more eco­nom­i­cal than a stan­dard (typ­i­cal car size) cabin fit­ted with child seats.

  • Visit­ing dial­y­sis sta­tion.

  • Spe­cial­ized de­liv­ery cab­ins for par­tic­u­lar types of cargo: re­friger­ated, ex­tra sus­pen­sion, stuff for trans­port­ing an­i­mals. We do this with trucks, but trucks are big be­cause they’re op­ti­mized to need less hu­man drivers per mass of cargo, and once that re­stric­tion is gone the dis­ad­van­tages of big trucks should in­cen­tivize a move to smaller cargo ve­hi­cles.

  I think these three are ma­jor enough that even if we stay with sin­gle ve­hi­cles, these use cases would merit de­vel­op­ment of spe­cial­ized rob­o­taxis to cover them, sooner or later. But a tug and cabin sys­tem gets there sooner.

• chaosmage 5 Nov 2019 9:25 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: Dagon’s comment on: Elon Musk is wrong: Rob­o­taxis are stupid. We need stan­dard­ized rented au­tonomous tugs to move cus­tomized owned un­pow­ered wag­ons.

  I think I made a mis­take us­ing the word “ac­com­mo­da­tion”. (English isn’t my first lan­guage.) What I meant is ba­si­cally “where the peo­ple and cargo are stored safely and com­fortably”. That can be some­thing big to live in, but it could also be a sin­gle seat cabin for a com­mute.

  The point is you can have sev­eral differ­ent types for differ­ent pur­poses, be­cause you don’t need to buy an ex­pen­sive mo­tor and com­puter with each of them.

• chaosmage 5 Nov 2019 9:15 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: greylag’s comment on: Elon Musk is wrong: Rob­o­taxis are stupid. We need stan­dard­ized rented au­tonomous tugs to move cus­tomized owned un­pow­ered wag­ons.

  Good points.

  Agree about the bat­tery swaps, but swap­ping a tug would be eas­ier.

  Cargo con­tain­ers are definitely like this, but they’re big be­cause it is more eco­nom­i­cal to spread the cost of the driver over a large amount of cargo. Cargo wag­ons/​mod­ules could be in a wide range of sizes, in­clud­ing small/​fast ones that are more like courier ser­vice than like bulk trans­port.

• chaosmage 4 Nov 2019 15:23 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: Gurkenglas’s comment on: Elon Musk is wrong: Rob­o­taxis are stupid. We need stan­dard­ized rented au­tonomous tugs to move cus­tomized owned un­pow­ered wag­ons.

  You don’t need a park­ing spot—the sys­tem can still be used as a rob­o­taxi, it just has ad­di­tional uses.

  You don’t need to be where your wagon is, you can send it places. Be­cause of that, you could even rent out your wagon (say you offer a rental sound sys­tem or a mo­bile mas­sage par­lor).

• chaosmage 4 Nov 2019 14:52 UTC

  8 points

  in reply to: korin43’s comment on: Elon Musk is wrong: Rob­o­taxis are stupid. We need stan­dard­ized rented au­tonomous tugs to move cus­tomized owned un­pow­ered wag­ons.

  If you’re a first world cit­i­zen and able to spend $35k+ on a car, sure. Most of the cars that need re­plac­ing are way cheaper, and their re­place­ment needs to be way cheaper too.

Elon Musk is wrong: Rob­o­taxis are stupid. We need stan­dard­ized rented au­tonomous tugs to move cus­tomized owned un­pow­ered wag­ons.

Func­tional silence: com­mu­ni­ca­tion that min­i­mizes change of re­ceiver’s beliefs

• chaosmage 28 Nov 2018 9:04 UTC

  10 points

  on: Win­ter Sols­tice 2018 Roundup

  There is a Sec­u­lar Sols­tice in Ber­lin, Ger­many, but it hap­pens in a small apart­ment so it has to be in­vi­ta­tion only and is already full AFAIK.

  Frank­furt, Ger­many might again be do­ing one but I do not know par­tic­u­lars.

  Leipzig, Ger­many is not hav­ing one this year due to the place where the last cou­ple of Sols­tices hap­pened be­ing cur­rently in­fested with tod­dlers.

• chaosmage 1 Nov 2018 8:47 UTC

  14 points

  on: Embed­ded Agents

  The text is beau­tifully con­densed. And the hand­writ­ten style does help it look ca­sual/​invit­ing.

  But the whole thing loaded sig­nifi­cantly slower than I read. How many megabytes is this post? I haven’t waited this long for a web­site to load for years.

• chaosmage 29 Oct 2018 13:11 UTC

  6 points

  on: On Do­ing the Improbable

  What re­ally helps is mor­tal­ity and our in­bred need to leave a legacy. It is bet­ter to pick a pro­ject with low prob­a­bil­ity of suc­cess than none at all. That can help you stick with some­thing you only es­ti­mate to have a low chance of suc­cess, at least long enough to have sunk costs kick in. Does for me any­way.

  This mechanism may only work for one man pro­jects, or work in tight knit groups like bands of mu­si­ci­ans. Your con­tri­bu­tion to a big pro­ject doesn’t feel like a legacy to the same de­gree.

• chaosmage 28 Oct 2018 17:30 UTC

  2 points

  on: The propo­si­tion that Panpsy­chism started out true and was made false

  That sounds a *lot* like http://​​slat­estar­codex.com/​​2018/​​04/​​01/​​the-hour-i-first-be­lieved/​​ .

  It does not sound a lot like any ex­ist­ing var­i­ant of Panpsy­chism. Since the word isn’t do­ing any work here, I sug­gest you do with­out it.

In fa­vor of taboo­ing the word “val­ues” and us­ing only “pri­ori­ties” instead

• chaosmage 15 Jul 2018 20:12 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: verbiage_ecstatic’s comment on: An op­ti­mistic ex­pla­na­tion of the out­rage epidemic

  No, the de­gree of out­rage also de­pends on close­ness to the vic­tim. In this case Jews will feel closer to Is­raelis (the vic­tims of Pales­ti­ni­ans), and Mus­lims will feel closer to Pales­ti­ni­ans (the vic­tims of Is­raelis) so that’s what they’re out­raged about. Close­ness to the per­pe­tra­tor is a fac­tor I think, but I don’t ex­pect it is stronger than close­ness to the vic­tim.

An op­ti­mistic ex­pla­na­tion of the out­rage epidemic

• chaosmage 1 Jun 2018 15:35 UTC

  7 points

  on: Un­der­stand­ing is translation

  Yes! Thank you!

  I’ve had similar ideas for a long time. I’ve trans­lated three books and find that I think of many acts of com­mu­ni­ca­tion as trans­la­tions. In par­tic­u­lar, I find it use­ful to think of mi­s­un­der­stand­ings as mis­trans­la­tions.

  To think of think­ing/​speak­ing styles as lan­guages just plain makes sense, and I feel that when peo­ple “are on the same wave­length” what is re­ally hap­pen­ing is that they’re (some­what un­usu­ally) ac­tu­ally speak­ing the same lan­guage.

  I don’t use this con­cept for pro­cesses in­side a sin­gle mind, though. Might be worth think­ing about, but a term that de­notes work with ex­plicit com­mu­ni­ca­tions does not seem like a good fit for pro­cesses that are al­most en­tirely im­plicit.