I will note this is both a cool as fuck project and the token is like 2x+ from when I posted. So idk why im getting downvoted. I guess lesswrong jsut isnt into finance for personal gain or to look at dope stuff.
sapphire
FUTARCHY NOW BABY
The lesswrong/EA communities ‘inside game’ strategy for AI safety is genuinely embarrassing to me as a longtime community member. Quokkas gonna quokka but this is ridiculous.
Obviously this is up a fuckton
Serious advice: Your close friends and partners should actively admire you and how you live your life. Don’t settle for less. You can have less close relations across the divide. But your closest circle should see you as a hero.
Emmett Shear reminds us that if you are playing Street Fighter [2 Turbo, presumably] then the solution to the so-called ‘cheese’ moves that seem overpowered is not to ban them, it is to use them until someone shows you or figures out the counter, then everything is fine.
This works exactly because the game is well-designed, with good counters to every such move. If that was not true, this would fail. It also relies on having enough data to find the counter-moves, and enough practice to learn them, to get to the new equilibrium. It does genuinely ruin a different experience some people want. Keep those things in mind while generalizing.
Its worth noting that, at this point, the vast majority of paper magic is explicitly competitive. Commander has eclipsed everything else combined. And in normal commander if your playgroup finds something cheap than you basically can’t use it! Normal commander games run on social consensus of whats acceptable, definitely de facto ban fully optimized lists, and have a strong norm of not bringing strategies anyone at the table strongly objects to. Seems like most people prefer this flexible ‘scrubby’ ruleset.
it is interesting to me that what has won out is neither strictly competitive nor strictly freeform. Commander has a banned list and most people dont explicitly deviate from it. People rarely play totally homebrew formats. What has won is a ‘consensus ruleset’ + ‘flexible social norms around what is de facto banned for being too strong or cheesy’. Very interesting to me.
Note: Im aware CEDH exists but I’m counting it as part of ‘everything else’ for these purposes. I play IRL modern and modern/legacy on mtgo (im sapphirestar on mtgo! send me a friend request if you wanna jam some games). so im not exactly the scrubbiest person myself. But it definitely seems like the hardcore tribe lost out in the marketplace for playershare.
I don’t really get why this wouldn’t get funded.
Current AI weights
A culture that denigrates being altruistic/nice in small ways makes it really hard to know who to trust. I understand their is an aversion to ‘virtue signaling’ but accepting rat/ea culture really feels like it disables my intuitive (and honestly decently reliable) intuition for who is trustworthy. Imo there is a good reason people check things like ‘how do they treat waiters’ when deciding who is a trustworthy partner or friend. That stuff cannot replace explicit logical altruism. But it seems like a mistake to jettison being kind in smaller ways throughout your life.
Progress is mostly illegal or at least extremely hobbled by regulations. When people are free to innovate there is usually quite rapid progress. There are a few exceptions like fundamental physics but existing physics explains things we actually interact with fairly well except at extremely high energies. I have all sorts of very viable and productive business ideas that would help people. But they are either illegal or regulations make them tooo expensive to start up. This is the norm. If you want to improve things you need to look for areas where innovation is still doable without incurring gigantic costs.
A browser extension that colors reddit usernames red if the user is a likely bot.
I must have a different relation to social media to most rats. Whenever I open twitter I get a constant dopamine rush from all the stuff I find cute or funny. Here are some examples to demonstrate that maybe I am just easy to please:
I dont even live in SF. but I am visiting right now and having so much fun. Filled with joy at the idea of tetra having a lovely trip.
note: I have been informed by my hotel mate I cried writing this comment in the bathroom I had to reassure her the audible crying had nothing to do with her.
I thought about this for awhile. My real opinion is that ‘being afraid of a scar on your chest’ just isn’t a great way to live. And so I am not exactly against the traditional masculine gender role discouraging people from being afraid of that stuff. Arguable the ‘traditional masc gender role’ only discourages expressing such fears not having them. I think there is a place for expressing negative emotions, you can’t always bottle them up. But for the most part expressing emotions makes them stronger not weaker. If you are going to cry tears, cry about something that really matters. Or cry about the plight of others not yourself. Though of course I am against oppressing or bullying others.I am diagnosed with BPD. A nice way to describe BPD is being someone with ‘hard to mange emotions’ and almost always means being really sensitive and easy to hurt. I won’t speak for others but at least for me personally ‘Man up’ has been a good attitude. So its hard for me personally to be too against this aspect of the male gender role. I am mostly a queer community norms partisan but on this one I think trad masculinity has a point. It really does seem better to encourage people to ‘be strong’. Though I dont think bravery and strength always point in a particularly ‘trad’ direction—arguably thats a lot of the point of the post. There are a lot of ways to be a man. But this just isn’t the softest world. The more you can handle your own pain the more strength you have to fight for the people who are in a lot of trouble.
Thats how I see it anyway. And I decided to be quite open about how I really feel about this stuff. I definitely didn’t add many disclaimers to my post, and I could have added a whole lot. For example I am personally not willing to risk bottom surgery. But I have a quite strong commitment to bodily autonomy. I’m very supportive of other people making other choices.
Estrogen seems to make a lot of girls more interested in men over time. Possibly progesterone is involved idk. So you may be meeting girls who are still figuring out their new sexuality with a new hormone balance. I don’t think it’s well understood. Both certainty a surprising number of trans girls predict they will be lesbian but end up with some sexual interest in cis men .
Gender Exploration
:heart:
Means a lot tbh
I will say I tried extremely hard to be a good EA. It basically drove me insane. Community is extremely unsupportive. I basically decided Im retired. I put in enough years in the misery mines and donated more than enough money (most of what I did ended in failure but I cashed out 7 figs of crypto and donated a lot). I will be a nice friendly generous person by the extremely low standards of my actually existing society. But otherwise I will just do what I want. I cried enough tears and sacrificed enough of the windfalls I was legally entitled to keep.
People metaphorically run parts of the code themselves all the time! Its quite common for people to work through proofs of major theorems themselves. As a grad student it is expected you will make an effort to understand the derivation of as much of the foundational results in your sub-field as you can. A large part of the rationale is pedagogical but it is also good practice. It is definitely considered moderately distasteful to cite results you dont understand and good mathematicians do try to minimize it. Its rare that an important theorem has a proof that is unusually hard to check out yourself.
Also a few people like Terrance Tao have personally gone through a LOT of results and written up explanations. Terry Tao doesn’t seem to report that he looks into X field and finds fatal errors.
Long complicated proofs almost always have mistakes. So in that sense you are right. But its very rare for the mistakes to turn out to be important or hard to fix.
In my opinion the only really logical defense of Academic Mathematics as an epistemic process is that it does seem to generate reliable knowledge. You can read through this thread: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/35468/widely-accepted-mathematical-results-that-were-later-shown-to-be-wrong. There just don’t seem to be very many recent results that were widely accepted but proven wrong later. Certainly not many ‘important’ results. The situation was different in the 1800s but standard for rigor have risen.Admittedly this isn’t the most convincing argument in the world. But it convinces me and I am fairly able to follow academic mathematics.
I didn’t have time or energy! This shit was going parabolic! Whatever happened to Aumann’s agreement theorem!