I guess I frame this as “vibes are signals too”. Like if my body doesn’t like someone, that’s a signal. And it might be they smell or have an asymmetric face, but also they might have some distrustworthy trait that my body recognises (because figuring out lying is really important evolutionarily).
I think it’s good to analyse vibes and figure out if unfair judgemental things are enough to account for most of the bad vibes or if there is a missing component that may be fair.
Seems fine, though this doesn’t seem like the central crux.
Currently:
Prediction markets are used
Argument maps tend not to be.
My bird flu risk dashboard is here:
If you find it valuable, you could upvote it on HackerNews:
Yeah I wish someone would write a condensed and less onanistic version of Planecrash. I think one could get much of the benefit in a much shorter package.
Error checking in important works is moderately valuable.
I recall thinking this article got a lot right.
I remain confused about the non-linear stuff, but I have updated to thinking that norms should be that stories are accurate not merely informative with caveats given.
I am glad people come into this community to give critique like this.
Solid story. I like it. Contains a few useful frames and is memorable as a story.
I have listened to this essay about 3 times and I imagine I might do so again. Has been a valuable addition to my thinking about whether people have contact with reality and what their social goals might be.
I have used this dichotomy, 5 − 100 times during the last few years. I am glad it was brought to my attention.
Sure, but again to discuss what really happened, it wasn’t that it wasn’t prioritised, it was that I didn’t realise it until late into the process.
That isn’t prioritisation, in my view, that’s halfassing. And I endorse having done so.
Or a coordination problem.
I think coordiantion problems are formed from many bad thinkers working together.
I mean the Democratic party insiders who resisted the idea that Biden was unsuitable for so long and counselled him to stay when he was pressed. I think those people were thinking badly.
Or perhaps I think they were thinking more about their own careers than the next administration being Democrat.
Yes, this is one reason I really like forecasting. I forces me to see if my thinking was bad and learn what good thinking looks like.
I think it caused them to have much less time to choose a candidate and so they chose a less good candidate than they were able to.
If thinking is the process of coming to conclusions you reflectively endorse, I think they did bad thinking and that in time people will move to that view.
Thinking is about choosing the action that actually wins, not the one that is justifiable by social reality, right?
Do you mean this as a rebuke?
I feel a little defensive here, because I think the acknowledgement and subsequent actions were more accurate and information preserving than any others I can think of. I didn’t want to rewrite it, I didn’t want to quickly hack useful chunks out, I didn’t want to pretend I thought things I didn’t, I actually did hold these views once.
If you have suggestions for a better course of action, I’m open.
Do you find this an intuitive framework? I find the implication that conversation fits neatly into these boxes or that these are the relevant boxes a little doubtful.
Are you able to quickly give examples in any setting of what 1,2,3 and 4 would be?
I don’t really understand the difference between simulacra levels 2 and 3.
Discussing reality
Attempting to achieve results in reality by inaccuracy
Attempting to achieve results in social reality by inaccuracy
I’ve never really got 4 either, but let’s stick to 1 − 3.
Also they seem more like nested circles rather than levels—the jump between 2 and 3 (if I understand it correctly) seems pretty arbitrary.
Suggested market. Happy to take suggestions on how to improve it:
https://manifold.markets/NathanpmYoung/will-o3-perform-as-well-on-the-fron?play=true