# Chris_Leong

Karma: 4,622
• Eliezer writes: “But in any case, Godel’s Theorem surely does not show that natural numbers don’t exist. It says you’ll have trouble proving certain theorems. The observed universe is like the natural numbers, not like a theorem about them.”

I think whether Godels Theorem applies or not depends on how we define “understanding reality”. A lot of people would interprete it as not only being able to theoretically predict the state of the universe at any given time (ignoring the pratical issues of course!), but being able to determine stuff like what can exist. Answering these types of questions requires much more complicated logic and could quite possibly be non-computatable.

# Beta—First Impressions

21 Sep 2017 1:56 UTC
32 points
• You have some interesting ideas, but in the end I actually voted −1 here because you are misusing the word arbitrage. You start off with the correct definition of buying low, then selling high, but the rest of the article isn’t using it correctly. Arbitrage isn’t just getting a lot of value cheaply, as in the introduction section or Yudkowsky sharing his knowledge.

An example of arbitrage would be learning Esperanto before you learn Spanish. I have heard that this can result in you learning Spanish even faster than if you had purely focused on learning Spanish. So here you have a currency (time), a primary good (Spanish ability) and a secondary good (Esperanto ability). Suppose you have a fixed amount of currency and more than a certain minimum. Then you can gain more of the primary good (Spanish) for the same amount of time by spending some time on Esperanto first, and even get some amount of the secondary good (Esperanto) tossed in for free!

(EDIT: Actually, this isn’t really an arbitrage, but rather a Pareto improvement, which is a closely related concept).

• I don’t think we should emphasise this too much as many people would have read a lot of the sequences, but not had it actually recorded. (Apparently they have some data for different user accounts, but I have read a lot of articles whilst not logged in)

• I would suggest that the minimum viable product here would involve an option to disable tagging. People who are only tagged occasionally could leave it on, whilst people who get tagged too much could turn it off* (minimum viable product isn’t quite the right term—I need a term for the simplest solution that makes sure that no-one is worse off. Pareto efficiency seems related, but not quite the right term either)

• The main difficulty with these systems is finding the right balance of expressiveness and simplicity. I can definitely see some advantages of having a “dislike tone” option that is separate from down-voting. I don’t know if I’d want a whole bunch of options added though, as that might become too complex.

• What would be even cooler, but a lot more work, would be the ability to automatically populate from either Facebook events or Meetup.com events. Perhaps some people use other social networks in particular countries, but this would be the easiest way to ensure that the information provided is up to date.

• I really like the design and the concept as explained in the strategic overview. I think this has a lot of potential, but I think that there is still a significant amount of work to do.

• Firstly, it is really annoying to always have the recommended reading up the top. You should be able to collapse this panel and it should stay collapsed if you are logged in.

• You can only see the last three featured posts, there does not seem to be any way to go back in time.

• Recent posts is extremely clumsy. Clicking on the title should open it up to a full page view. Instead, you have to click load more, which only loads a couple more, making it take much longer for you to browse backwards in time than in the current Less Wrong. I’m not a fan of infinite scrolling, but this is infinite scrolling without the scrolling!

• The current Reddit allows you to view the highest rated posts in the last day, week, month, three months and year. These options are useful as they allow you to quickly catch up on what has occurred since the last time you visited.

• There is no way to easily browse people’s profiles. This is a big issue if we are going to make posts first go to individual’s profiles.

• Meta posts currently don’t appear on your profile.

• I keep running into problems on mobile (Android) with my words disappearing after I click submit in comments.

On the other hand:

• I am so glad to see a meta-section. Meta discussion is important, but you don’t want it to overwhelm your object level discussion, especially since many people are bored by it. Creating this section allows as much meta-level discussion as is needed to take place, whilst avoiding these other issues.

Overall, the biggest changes so far have been internal or cosmetic. The biggest structural change has been the addition of meta as discussed above. People can publish on their own page without posting in main, but this is unlikely to get much use until there is a better discovery mechanism for finding people to follow.

• Create shared pages which multiple people can post to/​collaborate on, almost like a journal.

# What tech­nolo­gies was LessWrong 2.0 built on?

22 Sep 2017 1:59 UTC
5 points
• Is the natural division here between rules and attitudes or between rules and heuristics?

Virtue ethicists would argue that attitudes are important because the only way that we can guarantee that we will act ethically in the future is to practise virtue until it becomes deeply embedded in our mindset.

On the other hand, this post concentrates on the value of attitudes as heuristics so that there are a manageable number of considerations and also so that you can communicate your needs without opening yourself up to rules lawyering.

• 1) I notice that the norm of discouraging politics focuses on hot-button political issues instead of politics in general. Is this an intentional shift? For example, are general discussions of politics that stays out of controversial areas no longer discouraged? I’m also curious how this interacts with comments given that commentators may engage with these issues, even if the OP did not.
2) I feel that there needs to be a mechanism for sufficiently important meta posts like this one to appear on the front page. Otherwise only a few people will see this and it will take longer for the intended norms to be adopted by the community.

• I see the technique of double-crux as being useful, although there will not always be a double crux. Sometimes people will have a whole host of reasons for being for something and merely convincing them to change their view on any one of them won’t be enough to shift their view, even if they are a perfectly rational agent. Similarly, I don’t see any reason why two people’s cruxes have to overlap. Yet it practise, this technique seems to work reasonably well. I haven’t thought enough about this to understand it very well yet.

• Can you give a one or two sentence definition of what you mean by “blind goal-keepers”? This isn’t explicitly stated anywhere.

• Thanks, that helps, but I don’t suppose you could break down, “doesn’t seem to understand why you think it’s important that they understand it”.

How are they acting? Are they going, “Man, you’re worried about AI? Clearly you are crazy!” or are they like, “Clearly, a super-intelligent AI would also be much more morally developed than any human, so there’s no issue whatsoever”.

If it is the second, what is the issue? Is it that they are completely convinced of their own perspective or is it that they don’t understand that you might want to challenge that claim or is it something else?

# Moder­a­tor’s Dilemma: The Risks of Par­tial Intervention

29 Sep 2017 1:47 UTC
33 points