I was going to say that same exact thing in 10x as many words.
Duke
Karma: 129
Somehow I doubt that the part about needing a guy to have lots of sex with you is worth mentioning.
I tend to treat anger and frustration as resulting from my map not matching the terrain somewhere. I suspect that your frustration is rooted in inaccurate mapping concerning the prior commitment that prevented you from meeting Patri. My guess is that you correctly assumed that there would be a small chance that something “better” than your commitment would pop-up that you would have to miss; but, you failed to properly assess the emotional impact this unlikely scenario would have on you. Now you can update your priors, do some re-mapping and be better prepared emotionally to deal with low-probability/high-annoyingness events.
Also, how similar is the present Patri-hysteria in Finland to the Beatles-hysteria in the 60′s?
The claim that “the purpose of GMOs is so Monsanto can have a plant they own..” is false. One tiny aspect of GMOs which objectors constantly harp on is Monsanto’s business model.
GMO tech is used for a broad set of purposes and on a broad set of organisms. Monsanto uses GMO tech for specific purposes (firstly, to profit) on specific organisms. I don’t see why this is a big problem for GMO tech even if there is an ethical breach by Monsanto.
ANKI flashcard deck: Cognitive Biases and Related Terms
Las Vegas LW Meetup!
I don’t understand what makes learning about cognitive biases intrinsically different from obtaining any other type of knowledge. That is, couldn’t you make a parallel argument that learning math (or any rationality skill) is dangerous unless it is applied evenhandedly to your own beliefs and to the beliefs of others?
What’s the evidence that knowing about cognitive biases is more dangerous than knowing math? My claim is that it is just as easy to apply math in an unbalanced way that favors one’s already-held beliefs as it is to apply cognitive biases in a similarly unbalanced way.
In other words, why did EY speak specifically to cognitive biases as opposed to the general problem of using your knowledge more vigilantly to attack others arguments than to attack your own arguments?
Judging both from experience and after reading the original comments for this post, it seems that many people share the misconception that betting—be it on ideas or sports, etc—is always done at odds of 1:1, ie I bet $100 that my prediction y will occur by date z and if i am wrong I lose $100 and if I am right I win $100 (plus my original wager). In fact, astute gambling is about predicting the likelihood of an event and then finding someone to bet with whom you think has done a worse job than you at predicting the likelihood of the event.
For instance, when I watch golf and a player has a long and difficult putt, I frequently hear the commentators say “I wouldn’t bet on this putt going in.” If betting was restricted to wagers at 1 to 1 odds then they would be correct not to bet on the putt dropping, as it is less than 50% likely that it will. But what if I gave the commentator 1000 to 1 odds on the putt going in—would they take that bet? They should. Similarly, I wouldn’t place a bet at 1 to 1 odds that there will be superhuman intelligence by the end of the year. But I’d certainly place this bet if someone would give me 100000 to 1 odds, and I’d consider placing this bet at much lower odds.
On a related note, if you ever see or hear someone make an outrageous prediction of certainty which they are willing to bet on, you are making a mistake by wagering with them at 1 to 1 odds on their prediction. You are allowing them to place a bet where they break even if their prediction is only 50% likely to occur, yet they are claiming 100% likelihood. You should push them to give you better on odds on the bet—as good as you can get from them since theoretically they should think they will never lose this bet. But be careful pushing too hard because the mark will realize that they aren’t actually certain about their prediction.
You should say something like “Now that we can agree on x, let’s discuss y.” (Given that agreeingt on y is dependent on a prior agreement about x.) Getting someone to agree with you is not the end of the conversation, it is the beginning. Thanking them for agreeing with you makes it seem like all matters are settled and now you may peacefully part ways.
Also, I disagree that it is intrinsically rational or polite or part of some gentlemen’s agreement to thank someone when they concede your point.
I try to eat only fruits, vegetables and peanut butter. I live alone and prepare my own food. I am at the grocery store 5 to 7 days a week. When freshness is essential and overstocking is bad, then I don’t know of a better way.
A tip on consuming more vegetables and fruits when you have them: don’t also keep other food around that you prefer to veg/fruits. If you prefer x to mangoes and have x and mangoes available to eat, then you’ll eat more x than mangoes. Take willpower out of the equation. Force yourself to eat what you “should.”
I wouldn’t be reading LW right now.
The diet is the result of a 5-ish year development. The major changes were, first, elimination of animals, then animal products, then processed products and finally everything that wasn’t fresh fruits and vegetables and some pb and tofu. I heard a couple reasonable talks in the past year making the case that fresh fruits and veggies are unequivocally the healthiest foods. I said fuck it, why not just eat all fruits and veggies then? This was ~3 months ago.
In every way that matters to me it has been an overwhelming success: it’s cheap, it tastes good, it gives me ample energy, it seems to make me feel better physically and emotionally, I have lost weight, I think I appear more lean, and it’s filling—it was a pleasant surprise to find that a small salad can create a satisfying fullness in my body.
*Added: One downside is frequent trips to the store.
Redacted because I misread Manfred’s comment the first time.
While for a couple periods I counted my calories, measuring nutrients—either of the food or my own—is a low priority for me. If I could afford to pay someone to do these things for me I wouldn’t hesitate. I’m content for now with this simple reasoning: How bad could it be to eat only fruits and vegetables? Plus, I can alter the diet in a moment if needed.
I am an Anki user and I am interested in working on this project.
Why do you care if it is done to your satisfaction when the prize is awarded based on other’s satisfaction with it?
This is an expected value problem. Decide how much a unit of your time is worth, how much time you are willing to invest and then (the hard part) estimate your likelihood for success.
So, if you value your time at $10/hr, are willing to invest 10 hours and estimate you will win the $155 X% of the time then we get this equation:
P(winning)$amount won—P(losing)$amount not won = initial investment
x$155 - (1-x)$0 = $10/hr * 10 hours
solve for x
x = 64.5%, in other words, to “break even” you need to be sure that if you invest 10 hours of your time in this project that you will win it at least 64.5% of the time.
A race may not be the best way to run this for you, since I suspect that you value your time a high rate relative to the potential payoff. But someone who values their time less (or is more productive than you per unit time) may think a race is a wonderful idea.
Getting it done to other’s satisfaction and getting it done to your own are not mutually exclusive. You can work quickly to win the prize and then go back and expand.
While I would be interested in contributing to someone’s independent research, a vague post on LW doesn’t come anywhere close to meeting my minimum threshold for confidence to do such a thing. I would recommend that you continue working and spend your free time writing a paper or an intricate analysis or something else to inspire confidence in your potential to contribute significantly to the singularity/AI body of knowledge. Otherwise, why shouldn’t I just donate my money to SIAI?