Yep, that was roughly what we were thinking about.
Promoted to curated: It’s a good follow-up to the last post, so a lot of the things I said in that curation notice apply here as well. This one was similarly well written, had clear actionables, and I think had some slightly better structure than the last one. I am excited about people implementing these lessons in real-world prediction markets (and/or to adjust their plans based on these lessons).
Have a PR up, should be merged and deployed tomorrow. Sorry for the hassle.
Oh, huh. I think I must have introduced that bug when I refactored some in the last few days. Will fix ASAP.
Yeah, agree. I think it’s quite costly for non-meetup-goers.
By the way, happy to change your display name to whatever you want. We don’t allow people to do it themselves because that opens things up to abuse, but if you ping us on Intercom we are happy to do it for you.
Will remove it early next week. The idea was indeed that it would be useful for people going to SSC meetups, but a lot of the SSC meetups have now happened, so it’s less important.
I would also be interested in this. Being able to update our canon in this way strikes me as one of the key goals that I want the LessWrong community to be able to do. If people have any UI suggestions, or ways for us to facilitate that kind of updating in a productive way, I would be very interested in hearing them.
Promoted to curated: The general topic of moral patienthood strikes me as important on two fronts. One, it’s important in terms of understanding our values and taking good actions, and two it’s important as an area in which I think it’s pretty clear that human thinking is still confused, and so for many people I think it’s a good place to try to dissolve confused questions and train the relevant skills of rationality. I think while this post is less polished than your much longer moral patienthood report, I think for most people it will be a better place to start engaging with this topic, at least in parts because it’s length isn’t as daunting.
On the more object level, I think this post makes some quite interesting points that have changed my thinking a good bit. I think most people have not considered the hypothesis that animals could be assigned a higher moral value than humans, and independently of the truth value of that hypothesis, I think the evidence presented helps people realize a bunch of implicit constraints in their thinking around moral patienthood. I’ve heard similar things from other people who’ve read the post.
It’s also great to see you write a post on LW again, and I strongly recommend newcomers to read lukeprog’s other writing on LW, if you haven’t done so.
Definitely still interested in bug reports for the WYSIWYG editor.
Alas, we didn’t end up prioritizing this after it turned out that the existing infrastructure that came with our framework wasn’t good enough, but it’s now quite high again on our priority list.
Great article, can strongly recommend. Hadn’t read it before and got quite a bit of value out of it.
(You have to press space after finishing some markdown syntax to have it be properly parsed. Fixed it for you, and sorry for the confusion.)
Something about the model proposed here feels slightly off to me, but overall I think this changed my perspective on public discourse a bunch.
I am putting out a $50 bounty to anyone who creates a Sarah Constantin style fact-post about how many active online-commenters there are on major platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Reddit, especially with basic writing and persuasion skills.
Upvoted for the effort, and since it helped me get value out of the post, but I do think many authors can feel violated when they see other people significantly edit their writing and then publish it like this. I have some underlying models here that I might be able to explicate, but for now I just wanted to state the high-level outputs of my thinking.
Oh, definitely agree. I wasn’t advocating for not posting this here, I was advocating for also posting it other places.
Ah, yep. Sorry for not communicating that better.
Hmm, I expect posting here will not cause you to reach the majority of people who might be interested. My model is that you want to try to post to all of the relevant European facebook groups, and mailing lists, and maybe create a Facebook event that people can share and mark themselves as “interested”.
I met him at the CFAR Alumni Reunion 2014, so he is definitely connected to the community.
Seems like a reasonable quibble. I tend to use CEV to also refer to personal extrapolation, where I tend to have similar uncertainty to whether the values of a single person will cohere, as I have about whether the values of multiple people will cohere, but it seems reasonable to still have different words to refer to the different processes. PEV does seem as good as any.