A fascinating experiment about short-term memory loss.
Gives me some ideas I’d like to try if I ever get affected so.
This post is somewhat of a description of a test run of Lesswrong values and lessons, which is very important for showcasing these values, somewhat explaining how they work, and giving people concrete ideas about what to look for.
I’ve certainly read this post more than once. The advice described really does seem to be pretty solid and while it may sound somewhat obvious (use all your various skills to work on [thing] instead of using one or two skills while ignoring the rest because redirecting skills is fairly doable), the general picture isn’t something I hear every day (or really any day).
Most questions that people ask you sound like “who do you want to be when you grow up”, which I guess gives one a sense of needing to figure out a specific thing (be a doctor) and it’s a little difficult to think outside this box (heal people), and this post does a wonderful job of describing how to begin thinking outside this box.
It might not be the path for everyone (some people do know exactly what they want to be) but it is really helpful for the more confused or unsure people.
Besides the helpful idea, the writing the implementation and thinking processes very well, which is amazing.
This is a fascinating article that I found interesting. But it is not something I’ll likely be a part of, ever, and neither is most of the community (judging by the “profession” question of the 2024 census—Medicine (being the closest field) with 7 people—this article isn’t particularly useful. Judging by the 2023 census, with 20 people across Biology and Medicine, this article is more useful but still doesn’t quite compare).
And since most of the community doesn’t seem to deal or be part of this field, and since it talks about an uncertain threat far in the future, I wouldn’t add it to the 2024 Review.
On the other hand, it is good rationality practice with somewhat of a guide (the section discussing pessimism/optimism/realism), which does fit the article in with much of the Lesswrong literature.
I like this post—it’s a good reminder of what we can quite easily do better, paired with a personal anecdote that makes it feel all the more achievable.
I’d like to know: what are the main questions a rational person would ask? (Also what are some better ways to phrase what I have?)
I’ve been thinking something like
What will happen in the future?
What is my best course of action regardless of what all other people are doing? (Asked in moderation)
5. One General FES (from each side) is ChatGPT
6. There will be an hour when each General cannot say anything on any channel, regardless of all circumstances. (Everybody can talk for the first hour)
Ideas for next year:
One General from each side is a defector. He wants the other side to win. If he is figured out, he will become a civilian.
Possible additions:
Once this happens, a random civilian will be chosen as the next general (if they agree).
Once this happens, a random civilian will be chosen as next general (if they agree) AND a random general will be chosen as the next defector.
One General from each side has to actively STOP nukes from getting launched (possible explanation: his overzealous men are pro-nuke, and he must send hourly (?) commands to NOT launch nukes, with the code 111111). This General must send this code in a five-minute radius of the xx:00 mark.
Addition: the General cannot send nukes normally (with the 000000 code)
The Generals/Petrovs must be people who have had an account on Less wrong for less than a year.
The East and West Petrovs cannot read every other message on the Diplomatic Channel (until after the game)
Last year, I checked Less wrong on the 27th, and found a message that told me that nobody, in fact, had pressed the red button.
When I saw the red button today, it took me about five minutes to convince myself to press it. The “join the Petrov Game” message gave me confidence and after I pressed it, there was no bright red message with the words “you nuked it all”
So no, not a trap. At least not in that sense—it adds you to a bigger trap, because once pressed the button cannot be unpressed.
“Is me creating an opportunity for someone to commit a crime constitute my doing something bad to the commons or is it on the actual criminals?”
“It’s on both”
These situations seem to be very extreme, but I have this less dark example: Say I go swimming in a place where the lifeguard can’t see me. Is it my fault I drowned or the lifeguards? The lifeguard is supposed to watch everyone… but I put myself in that situation in the first place. (After typing this out I realized it’s still pretty dark, oh well)
“Of course, you can argue “if they didn’t want homeless people using them, they shouldn’t provide them for free to homeless people”. The consequence of this attitude, at large, is why we can’t have nice things.”
- (This was in the second-from-the-top comment in this chain)
Another extreme situation. Here’s a similar but softer one which seems positive...
Airplane tickets to Las Vegas are often much cheaper than tickets to literally anywhere else. That’s because Las Vegas bets that people will be attracted to the cheap tickets and go to Las Vegas, then proceed to spend tons of money at the casinos. My family doesn’t go to these casinos, we just travel to Vegas because we have friends nearby. We’re benefiting but not contributing.
My point is that I noticed that some of the situations Jiao Bu’s been in can be rewritten to get the other person to react differently. Maybe that’s just me, though.
What’s the difference between a virus that preferentially infects cancer cells and a virus that kills infected cancer cells directly?
Does “preferentially” mean that the virus also attacks non-cancer cells? Or does it mean that it just doesn’t hit cancer cells as hard?
“A virus that kills infected cancer cells”: does this mean the virus kills cells infected with the virus mentioned in the first part of the question or is this just badly phrased?
Yes I clicked on this one partly because my brain saw the word cadaver, but I totally expected it be similar to “dissecting the [some dead civilization]”
I, too would like to know about this
Wow. I relate seriously to the first half of your story—the “read lots of books, learn about traps, don’t fall in” part.
But instead of completely ignoring emotions, I had decided to find the source and fix it. But just like you said—a kid doesn’t have much power to fix things outside of themselves. But I had another piece of advice from family—it’s not the outside that affects your emotions, you affect your emotions. If you’re bored, just make yourself feel less bored by doing something (singing, drawing, thinking about what you’re going to eat for dinner, AKA making your brain do work instead of whining).
I guess the main idea I got from books was that whiny idiots are idiots and are highly annoying. I try not to complain too much, and now I’m this horribly excitable person because when you have to make everything interesting yourself [didn’t have a phone, so I couldn’t be the kid who just sits down in the middle of a museum to play video games or whatever], everything is NEW! and EXCITING! (even though you’ve seen this same exact building fifty times)
Lass Puppet: the glasses make you act stereotypically female
Pass Puppet: the glasses don’t have any text
This post is really important as a lot of other materials on LessWrong (notably AI to Zombies) really berate the idea that trying out things that haven’t been tested via the Scientific Method.
This post explains that some (especially health) conditions may go completely outside the scope of testable-via-scientific-method, and at some point turning to chance is a good idea, reminding us that intuition may be often wrong but it can work wonders when used as a last resort.
This is something to remember when trying to solve problems that don’t seem to have one perfect mathematical solution (yet).
One of the disadvantages of arguing “but it could be dangerous” (which is what you seem to be arguing), is that every new invention is probably dangerous in some way or other. Cars, for example, are an invention that changed life around the world [just like the internet, or nuclear energy, and gunpowder] and have been misused, there have been thousands if not millions of accidents, and yet people view them in a very positive sense. It is true that richer people have cars with price tags over a million, and while cars are nothing in comparison to a human life, I believe that long-term-wise, eugenics is going to have a gigantic net positive effect on humanity.
As a side note, have you read Dr. Seuss’ book “The Sneetches and Other Stories”?
Personally, I’ve enjoyed the novella. Not the best I’ve ever read, but I wanted to learn what comes next, which is a high bar these days.
The beginning isn’t as interesting as it could be. It’s not as “hook-y” as most books I find in the library are. But by, say, Chapter 10, I was interested in reading it.
(I can’t believe I’m criticizing AI work. Wow.)
I’m surprised ChatGPT changed the plot of the story with the last DMF message. Is there anything I’m not seeing or did it actually delete the whole last part of the storyline from that one prompt?
What I can’t figure out is why BLUE died. She’s supposed to be immune to physical dangers? What did she die of?
What did I get out of this?
Microwaving onions could help with the crying issue. (I haven’t tried this yet, but it does seem a little more sound than “rub knife with a potato”)
(For those still looking for a solution, wearing goggles is a great fix actually)
On the topic of oatmeal, I can’t stand it most of the time, it literally makes me feel sick. I do absolutely love oatmilk though.