1) “I’m a rationalist” = “I honestly apply the art of rationality every waking moment”
2) “I’m a rationalist” = “I make comments on Less Wrong and think Eliezer Yudkowsky is pretty cool”
1) “I’m a rationalist” = “I honestly apply the art of rationality every waking moment”
2) “I’m a rationalist” = “I make comments on Less Wrong and think Eliezer Yudkowsky is pretty cool”
So the only thing we need to improve online discourse is a way to instantly deliver ice cream over the internet...
I was really confused by this article, so I looked up Shapley value and re-thought the example. This is repetitive, but maybe someone will find it useful.
Society wants to dump matter in a black hole. It (society as a whole) gets a payoff of (total matter dumped)^2 for doing so. If Alice agrees to dump 3 kg, the payoff is 9. Then Bob agrees to dump 2 kg, and the total societal payoff jumps to 25.
In some sense Alice contributed 9 and Bob 16, but it doesn’t seem fair to reward them that way. We don’t want order of contribution to matter that much. So you imagine doing it in the opposite order. In that case, Alice’s marginal contribution is 21 and Bob’s is 4.
Then you average over all possible orderings. In this example, Alice gets (9+21)/2 = 15, and Bob gets (16 + 4)/2 = 10.
Your parents aren’t saying “Please update your estimate of the probability of your violent death, based on this important new evidence.”
The are saying, “I love you.”
This has nothing to do with how rational or irrational they are.
A major point of the post is that it is possible to both say what you mean clearly and accurately and choose your words to be polite and non-confrontational.
There are two games: a communication game and a social game. You (and the analytical people in the post) only see the communication game, thinking that if you cooperate in it you must defect in the social game.
In fact, you are allowed to cooperate in both games, and receive good payoffs whether or not your opponent is in the analytical cluster.
decide “this is important” and just remember it
Maybe we aren’t very good at deciding what’s important. For our brains, important memories are memories that are accessed often. How else would you decide?
I apologize for poor conversational form.
Let me try again, hopefully more nicely: You made a very strong claim with very weak evidence.
You claimed our thoughts were fundamentally affected by our language, and that someone can control how people think by tweaking the language. Your evidence was your own sense (not a paper, not even a survey) that people think differently when writing in a different programming language.
If you have more evidence, I would really like to see it, I am not just saying that to score points or to make you angry.
There is an enormous (far too enormous for its value to the world, in my opinion) literature on the unexpected hanging paradox (also known as the surprise exam paradox) in the philosophy and mathematics literature. The best treatments are:
Timothy Y. Chow, The surprise examination or unexpected hanging paradox, American Mathematical Monthly 105 (1998) pp. 41-51. (ungated)
Elliot Sober, To give a surprise exam, use game theory, Synthese 115 (1998) pp. 355-373. (ungated)
The stem cell “controversy” for example is the result of a prima facie pretty innocuous doctrine that life begins at conception.
Let’s suppose that cryonically preserved human brains are found to be especially useful for the treatment of several terrible diseases, because of some quirk of the vitrification process. Should we haul out cryonically suspended people and use them for medicine?
There are open access journals. I recommend supporting them.
Can I ask how you find “random blogs”? Is it truly random, or do you have a method for finding new stuff?
Dizziness. Fear. Exhaustion. Hunger. All very unpleasant, all quite different from pain.
I don’t understand much of this, and I want to, so let me start by asking basic questions in a much simpler setting.
We are playing Conway’s game of life with some given initial state. An disciple AI is given a 5 by 5 region of the board and allowed to manipulate its entries arbitrarily—information leaves that region according to the usual rules for the game.
The master AI decides on some algorithm for the disciple AI to execute. Then it runs the simulation with and without the disciple AI. The results can be compared directly—by, for example, counting the number of squares where the two futures differ. This can be a measure of the “impact” of the AI.
What complexities am I missing? Is it mainly that Conway’s game of life is deterministic and we are designing an AI for a stochastic world?
Here is a presentation that was used in a similar setting before.
I recommend trying to cover less than you currently plan. Just one or two big ideas should be more than enough.
How did this go over with your advisor? (Serious question.)
Nowadays, however, the class system has become far harsher and the distribution of status much more skewed. The better-off classes view those beneath them with frightful scorn and contempt, and the underclass has been dehumanized to a degree barely precedented in human history.
How do you measure this kind of thing? Do you have a citation?
I can’t even identify the orthodox positions in macroeconomics.
don’t update yet!
I read it to mean “update again” based on the probability that E is flawed. This well tend to adjust back toward your prior.
It’s most obvious when conspiracy theorists claim things about academia, because I know about academia.
This sounds like Wednesday:
“It’s most obvious when conspiracy theorists claim things about the LDS church, because I know about the LDS church. Specifically, I know that it is full of loving, caring, thoughtful and intelligent people. If there was a conspiracy, not only would someone know, I would know.”
Wednesday in the story, on the other hand, does have a relatively sheltered life
How do we measure sheltered-ness? How can I be confident that my life is less sheltered than Wednesday’s, and seek to correct for that?
Upvoted. A claim like this needs more evidence than “if you have ever worked in the restaurant industry you know...”