I, too, took the survey. (And promptly forgot to claim my karma; oh well.)
JoachimSchipper
I think your summary is fine, but I’d add this: almost everyone who thinks in terms of “differences between races” massively overestimates the effect of race (alone, social class does matter a lot), to the point that pretending there is no difference is probably a better idea. (Similar to how it’s better to not designate a ‘current best candidate’, if you’re human.)
If you interpret the father’s statement as “all else being equal, being a better cook is good” and you completely divorce it from a historical and cultural context, it is indeed not really problematic. But given that we are, in fact, talking culture here, I do not think that this is the interpretation most likely to increase your insight.
Note that the AI box setting is not one which security-minded people would consider “competent”; once you’re convinced that AI is dangerous and persuasive, the minimum safeguard would be to require multiple people to be present when interacting with the box, and to only allow release with the assent of a significant number of people.
It is, after all, much harder to convince a group of mutually-suspicious humans than to convince one lone person.
(This is not a knock on EY’s experiment, which does indeed test a level of security that really was proposed by several real-world people; it is a knock on their security systems.)
(Based on metatroll’s transcript (thanks!).)
[EDIT: expanded, original below.]
Unfortunately, you seem to fall prey to the usual errors:
you do not mention high-education-results subcultures. Analyzing educational results leads to the non-mainstream and actionable-to-you result “tiger moms are awesome” (one prominent LWian does think in that direction). However, when race realists do this analysis, they always conclude (only) “blacks suck”. (To be explicit: you’ve been hanging with white supremacists.)
parents’ social standing is highly influential. Serious civil rights legislation has only been in place for fifty years or so; there are huge confounding factors when inferring “inherent” intelligence from current life outcomes, which should at least be mentioned.
name-calling is not an argument.
you rail against feminism, but that seems somewhat unrelated. More importantly, women do pretty well in society (in particular, in the educational outcomes you cited above), so a straight “black people are poor—women are poor, too” analogy seems to fall flat. (This also furthers the impression that you’ve been hanging with a particular kind of white dude.)
“affirmative action discriminates against whites” is not a fair and full evaluation of that policy, since that is indeed exactly what it’s supposed to do. Your “awesome black doctor” is an argument against affirmative action, but you have not really engaged the core goal (improve chances for black people).
[Pre-EDIT: was: Unfortunately, you seem to fall prey to the usual errors: not mentioning Asian-American or other high-education-results cultures; not mentioning history; name-calling; linking it to unrelated causes including “men’s rights”; attacking affirmative action without even considering whether the good outweighs the bad.]
This is a bit un-LW-ian, but: I’m earnestly happy for you. You sound, if not happier, more fulfilled than in your first post on this site. (Also, ambition is good.)
In this particular case, not all attendees appear to be equally valuable to the event/other attendees. Giving priority to people who’ve organized cool things in the last few years may make sense.
I’m surprised that people think saving Hermione for ~$3.4MM was expensive. It does mean Harry needs money soon, but if her intelligence plus magic gets her a VP position at an investment bank, she can earn up to $.5MM per year (worked example: [1]). And Harry and Hermione could almost certainly come up with a better (ethical) plan.
Some presumably sophisticated real-world investors have actually invested in people in this way, e.g. investing $250K for a 2% stake in a “technologist’s” income (worked example: [2]).
Again, Harry does need money soon-ish; but even if his magical hedge fund doesn’t pan out, the-Boy-Who-Lived should be able to secure ten house-sized loans (abroad if necessary; Unbreakable Vows greatly reduce credit risk, and there must be people other than Draco who see the value of loaning money to HPJEV.)
(There are many possible objections, but both of these kids are really smart and have years to think about it. And magic.)
[1] Hermione takes five years to get to VP level, then saves an average of ~.5MM/year for fifteen years. After twenty years, she gives all of her savings to Harry and is freed from all further obligations. Harry has earned ~30% per year over this period, and Hermione has well over 150 years of life left. This may not be optimal, but it’s clearly better for both than letting her rot in Azkaban.
[2] Multiply by 15 to get an investment of $3.8MM for a 30% stake. Harry pays less and ends up with whatever stake he likes—and unlike the investor, he can order Hermione to maximize her income. Hermione being a witch raises the value of the investment further.
And, of course, encouraging homeownership makes this worse. Good thing that most of the Western world hasn’t made that an explicit policy goal for the past decade...
Sounds like the Buddha and his followers to me.
We already have a poll about whether this is useful content, and it’s currently at +32. I can imagine a few reasons why you made this second poll, but none of them are exactly complimentary.
Is this true? Naive Googling yields this, which suggests (non-authoritatively) that blood sugar and moods are indeed linked (in diabetics, but it’s presumably true in the general population). However, despair is not noted and the effects generally seem milder than that (true despair is a rather powerful emotion!)
A possible argument: rituals will help build a cohesive tribe, but harm recruiting efforts. LW is more valuable for its articles than for its community, so tribe-building is not that valuable. But there are lots of people who are not yet aware of LW’s ideas/community who would be turned off by cultishness.
(I don’t feel qualified to have a position on this issue myself.)
Not everyone agrees with Eliezer on everything; this is usually not that explicit, but consider e.g. the number of people talking about relationships vs. the number of people talking about cryonics or FAI—LW doesn’t act, collectively, as if it really believes Eliezer is right. It does assume that there is no God/god/supernatural, though.
(Also, where does this idea of atheists hating God come from? Most atheists have better things to do than hang on /r/atheism!)
One relevant datum: when I started my studies in math, about 33% of the students was female. In the same year, about 1% (i.e. one) of the computer science students was female.
It’s possible to come up with other reasons—IT is certainly well-suited to people who don’t like human interaction all that much—but I think that’s a significant part of the problem.
“Shut up and multiply” works for practical purposes too.
(One of my favorite shut-up-and-multiply results: automatic dishwashers cost less than 2 euro per hour saved, so everyone should have one.)
- 21 Nov 2012 15:36 UTC; 2 points) 's comment on Collating widely available time/money trades by (
This is rather self-serving: the Stoics in general were renowned (and well-paid) teachers. (More practically, I’ve seen some articles suggesting that, in the US, the cost of some majors now outweighs the monetary benefits. The cost of education should at least be considered.)
I took it as well. One comment: my mother and father adhere(d) to different flavours of Christianity in different degrees. This made it somewhat hard to answer that question fully (I went with my father because he cares most, but my mother’s views probably had more influence on me.)
Surveyed.
Also, spoiler: the reward is too small and unlikely for me to bother thinking through the ethics of defecting; in particular, I’m fairly insensitive to the multiplier for defecting at this price point. (Morality through indecisiveness?)