Conor

Karma: 41

Conor 14 Apr 2024 4:42 UTC
1 point
0
on: Medical Roundup #2
“The problem is that Johnson is expecting this to translate into defeating aging, which I very much do not expect.”

I’m fairly confident Johnson is betting on future tech solving aging and his goal is to live long enough to be there for it by creating measurements and therapies for the health of every organ.

From his site:
“2023: don’t die because we don’t know how long and well we can live ”
“This time, our time, right now—the early 21st century—will be defined by the radical evolution of intelligence: human, AI and biology. Our opportunity is to be this exciting future. “
https://protocol.bryanjohnson.com/

Conor 4 Aug 2023 2:26 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Adam Zerner’s comment on: Would you pay for a search engine limited to rationalist sites?
Hey Adam, please review some of replies I’ve made to other commentators for issues I don’t address here.
>ease of use
A keyboard shortcut, chrome extension that serves the results in a side bar or some other spot, autocomplete in the search bar, or bookmark would remove that friction.
If I want to go to lesswrong, I hit ctrl-t for a new tab, type “les” and chrome completes the url. The same would apply.
>cognitive overhead
I do not think about those things for something that delivers me consistent value. If the starting premise is “I don’t value this.” It doesn’t matter what comes after it.
>less time browsing
Wanting to spend less time doing semi-productive browsing isn’t something a better search engine can fix—unless it’s because the result quality is the reason the time is semi-productive.

Conor 4 Aug 2023 2:11 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Would you pay for a search engine limited to rationalist sites?
Tried that previously. It limits the search results and it doesn’t rank the results it simply spits out first results it finds on the first domain it searches.

You can give the one I made a try to see what it mean. Don’t be fooled by the number of pages it lists at the bottom—that’s fake: https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=cced60b51960f6137

Conor 4 Aug 2023 1:59 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Brendan Long’s comment on: Would you pay for a search engine limited to rationalist sites?
Use cases: superconductor, Ukraine war, LLM development, diet or exercise, dealing with anxiety, etc. But you would only get results from a curated list of sites with higher epistemic standards.

I should have been more explicit in my initial post. I was relying on the word “rationalist” to do too much.

No worries about negativity. It is exactly what I want, so thank you.

Conor 4 Aug 2023 1:53 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: Stephen Bennett’s comment on: Would you pay for a search engine limited to rationalist sites?
Yes, but instead of searching one domain (lesswrong), it would search ~100+ curated domains. Google currently limits the domains to ten.

Conor 2 Aug 2023 22:08 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: MondSemmel’s comment on: Would you pay for a search engine limited to rationalist sites?
>drowning in stuff to read
Suppose you wanted to find content on prioritizing what you read by people with similar interests or with higher standards than most writers in the google search results.

Do you expect a search of LW will be more likely to deliver what you want than a search of LW +100 other sites?

>Google is free, and supports limiting queries to specific domains.
The limit is ten sites.
>just search LW or EA
What if you could do both in one place plus search all these and the ACX’s blogroll and similar sites?
>solution in search of a problem
Google search quality seems to not satisfy a large number of people: link. Not to say this idea will fix that for everyone.
>value delivered
What if it cost $1-6 a month? Would you try it if it was free? Would you donate once or regularly if you liked it?

Conor 2 Aug 2023 20:12 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Brendan Long’s comment on: Would you pay for a search engine limited to rationalist sites?
Unfortunately, I’ve found that appending rationalist to queries doesn’t get the desired results. Instead you get this: link
If you could limit your search results to sites with a higher level of epistemics, would that be more compelling? There might be default set of sites, which you could customize and submit requests for additions to the corpus.

What price point would change your mind? Is the idea compelling enough that you would try a demo?

Conor 2 Aug 2023 20:06 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: MondSemmel’s comment on: Would you pay for a search engine limited to rationalist sites?
What utility would it need to provide to change your mind?

How about a search of sites curated for a higher level of epistemics? Can you think of any searches you might do where that would be useful?

Suppose it cost between $2-6 a month? Or, what price point would be enticing for you to try it?

Conor 2 Aug 2023 20:01 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: AnthonyC’s comment on: Would you pay for a search engine limited to rationalist sites?
My understanding is that google limits the search space to ten sites.
>set of sites of my choosing

Perhaps a standard set of sites that could be customized with the option to submit requests for additions.

Thanks for the ideas.

Conor 11 Jun 2023 12:55 UTC
7 points
3
in reply to: Ted Sanders’s comment on: Transformative AGI by 2043 is <1% likely
Teenagers generally don’t start learning to drive until they have had fifteen years to orient themselves in the world.

AI and teenagers are not starting from the same point so the comparison does not map very well.

Conor 5 Mar 2023 4:15 UTC
1 point
in reply to: FiftyTwo’s comment on: [link] Guide on How to Learn Programming
How did it go? Please share even if it didn’t work out it could be helpful for others.

Conor 22 Oct 2021 0:18 UTC
1 point
in reply to: TAG’s comment on: Book Review: The Beginning of Infinity
Yes, but i’m not sure how that follows from your original question.
What can you do with a bad explanation that you can’t do with no explanation?

Conor 19 Oct 2021 18:59 UTC
1 point
in reply to: TAG’s comment on: Book Review: The Beginning of Infinity
Deutsch specifies good explanations (laws of nature, scientific theories), and claims the rapid increase of good explanations is because of the invention of the scientific method, and thus explanations are essential for progress.
A bad explanation allows me to make (bad) sense of the world, which makes it appear less chaotic and threatening.
Ah yes, the spirits are causing the indigestion. Now I know that I need only do a specific dance to please them and the discomfort will resolve.
The alternative is suffering for no apparent reason or recourse. At least until we find a good explanation for indigestion.

Conor 19 Oct 2021 2:11 UTC
1 point
in reply to: TAG’s comment on: Book Review: The Beginning of Infinity
I think I wasn’t clear. An explanation that isn’t accurate is still an explanation to Deutsch, it just isn’t a good one. Microbiology or bread-spirits are both explanations for rising bread.

Conor 18 Oct 2021 6:48 UTC
1 point
in reply to: TAG’s comment on: Book Review: The Beginning of Infinity
“Our ancestors followed many practices which work, but for which they had no explanation.”

That would be very surprising for a species that reflexively attempts to explain things.

Also, in the book, he specifies that’s he’s explaining the unprecedented rate of consistent progress from the scientific revolution onward.

Edit: I was mistaken. He is trying to explain all progress.

Conor 2 Jul 2021 17:23 UTC
4 points
on: Optimal Exercise
Seven years later, would you modify this scheme?
Is there validity to the volume/consistency over intensity argument? Training ¹⁄₂ max reps every day vs going to failure 2-3 times week.
An illustration:
10 reps is your pull-up max.
Volume/consistency: 5 reps every day for 35 a week vs Intensity: 2-3 workouts for 20-30 reps a week.
Over a year that’s 1820 vs 1040-1560.
Firas Zahabi outlines it here:

Conor 14 Jun 2021 21:16 UTC
1 point
on: The 5-Second Level
Example
1. I am working on a hard problem and A. I notice a thought proposing a distraction from my current task, B. but I stop myself and continue my current activity.
2. 1. Perceptually recognize a thought proposing a distraction from my current task.
  2. Feel the need for explicit reasons why I would change tasks.
  3. Experience an aversion to changing tasks without explicit reasons.
  4. Ask why I want to change to that task, to what end, and why now.
3. Exercise
Recognizing the distractions. I’m struggling to come up with an idea on how to do this other than a form of awareness or attention meditation.

Conor 13 Jun 2021 5:06 UTC
1 point
in reply to: pjeby’s comment on: Extreme Rationality: It’s Not That Great
What are the other posts in your top five?

Conor 9 Jun 2021 3:00 UTC
1 point
in reply to: John_Maxwell’s comment on: John_Maxwell’s Shortform
Did you end up trying the microneedling? I’m curious about that route.

Conor 7 Jun 2021 5:41 UTC
1 point
in reply to: John_Maxwell’s comment on: John_Maxwell’s Shortform
How are things progressing?