romeostevensit

Your Pri­ori­ti­za­tion is Underspecified

• romeostevensit 10 Jul 2020 1:04 UTC

  2 points

  on: How far along are you on the Less­wrong Path?

  Carte­sian bound­ary is, while in­tel­lec­tu­ally seen through, not ex­pe­ri­en­tially seen through most of the time.

• romeostevensit 9 Jul 2020 19:42 UTC

  4 points

  on: Covid 7/​9: Lies, Damn Lies and Death Rates

  It was a good ex­em­plar of simu­lacra lev­els when I went to google for risk mod­els of eat­ing take out food and I liter­ally could not tell what, if any in­for­ma­tion any of the re­sults were ac­tu­ally com­mu­ni­cat­ing.

• romeostevensit 6 Jul 2020 17:04 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: rsphinx8’s comment on: Causal­ity and its harms

  Type er­ror: con­sider Aris­to­tle’s 4 causes. If I ask you a why ques­tion about one kind of cause and you give me an ex­pla­na­tion about an­other kind of cause there has been a type er­ror.

  De­grees of free­dom: if there are more de­grees of free­dom in your ex­pla­na­tion than in the thing you are at­tempt­ing to ex­plain then you can always get the an­swer you want. Con­sider as­trol­ogy. A good ex­pla­na­tion has fewer de­grees of free­dom than the thing it is ex­plain­ing and thus cre­ates com­pres­sion and pre­dic­tion power, i.e. it elimi­nates more pos­si­ble wor­lds whereas bad ex­pla­na­tions leave you with the same num­ber of pos­si­ble wor­lds as you started with.

• romeostevensit 6 Jul 2020 15:05 UTC

  2 points

  on: Mea­sur­ing Meta-Certainty

  This sounds like a con­fused mix of knigh­tian un­cer­tainty and var­i­ance in con­fi­dence in­ter­val.

• romeostevensit 6 Jul 2020 13:08 UTC

  5 points

  in reply to: CuriousApe’s comment on: What should we do about net­work-effect mo­nop­o­lies?

  Some api fea­tures man­dated so that third par­ties can cre­ate ser­vices that al­low you to in­ter­act with the net­work more on your own terms, like rss.

• romeostevensit 5 Jul 2020 19:12 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: Daniel Kokotajlo’s comment on: Could Nixon go­ing to China be a cause for the big stag­na­tion?

  > there is less in­cen­tive to au­to­mate if la­bor is cheaper.

  this is a ma­jor hy­poth­e­sis about the plague be­ing a con­trib­u­tor to the in­dus­trial rev­olu­tion.

• romeostevensit 4 Jul 2020 19:27 UTC

  5 points

  on: Clas­sify­ing games like the Pri­soner’s Dilemma

  Would love to see similar for pub­lic goods games as there are so many simu­la­tions based off of them.

  Very tempt­ing to meme the graph of re­la­tions into the kab­balah tree of life di­a­gram.

• romeostevensit 4 Jul 2020 16:31 UTC

  6 points

  on: Causal­ity and its harms

  +1 on the sprawl­ing mess. What I have per­son­ally found use­ful is figur­ing out what is go­ing on in terms of men­tal heuris­tics when some causal ex­pla­na­tions seem ‘bet­ter’ than oth­ers. Which in­volves type er­rors and de­grees of free­dom.

• romeostevensit 2 Jul 2020 15:43 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: Klen Salubri’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and meth­ods of ra­tio­nal­ity end­ing.

  worth

• romeostevensit 2 Jul 2020 4:28 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: snog toddgrass’s comment on: I am Bad at Flirt­ing; Real­iz­ing that by Notic­ing Confusion

  > right af­ter you dou­ble text peo­ple of­ten stop re­spond­ing.

  could be the up­stream thing that caused you to dou­ble text is the cause, but that just means that the feel­ing of want­ing to dou­ble text is an equally good in­di­ca­tor.

• romeostevensit 2 Jul 2020 1:54 UTC

  3 points

  on: I am Bad at Flirt­ing; Real­iz­ing that by Notic­ing Confusion

  > One friend de­scribed her­self as con­stantly dat­ing jerks be­cause of her child­hood is­sues, but it was cheaper to be­liever she sub­con­sciously preferred aloof and un­available men.

  This “but” is non­sen­si­cal. Try “My friend has child­hood is­sues that cause her to only semi con­sciously pre­fer aloof and un­available men.”

  As for the rest, po­ten­tial apophe­nia on raw num­bers of plau­si­ble can­di­dates. be­ing around more can­di­dates makes you get less tar­get fo­cused, sure, but it also gives you many more lot­tery tick­ets on ev­ery other di­men­sion whether leg­ible, illeg­ible, op­ti­mized or no.

  Edit: this com­ment sounds more crit­i­cal than in­tended. I en­joyed the writeup and am glad you posted it.

PSA: Cars don’t have ‘blindspots’

• romeostevensit 30 Jun 2020 19:48 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: dqups1’s comment on: How ought I spend time?

  +1 most books are bad

• romeostevensit 30 Jun 2020 19:25 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Dagon’s comment on: romeosteven­sit’s Shortform

  Good points!

  That works if things are con­scious and X is well defined enough that that is ac­tion­able.

  All uni­ver­sal claims have, at least, non-cen­tral ob­jec­tions (have fun with that one ;)

• romeostevensit 30 Jun 2020 8:19 UTC

  9 points

  on: romeosteven­sit’s Shortform

  Most com­mu­ni­ties I’ve par­ti­ci­pated in seem to have prop­erty X. Un­der­rated hy­poth­e­sis: I am en­tan­gled with prop­erty X along the rele­vant di­men­sions and am self sort­ing into such com­mu­ni­ties and have a warped view of ‘all com­mu­ni­ties’ as a re­sult.

• romeostevensit 30 Jun 2020 8:14 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: ozziegooen’s comment on: ozzie­gooen’s Shortform

  Novel and ob­vi­ously some good ideas/​di­rec­tions. Thanks.

• romeostevensit 26 Jun 2020 9:06 UTC

  6 points

  in reply to: orthonormal’s comment on: Covid 6/​25: The Dam Breaks

  be­ing much larger it of­ten makes sense to pay more at­ten­tion to the state by state break­down for com­par­i­son to, say, EU coun­tries.

• romeostevensit 25 Jun 2020 6:36 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: lifelonglearner’s comment on: Don­tDoxS­cot­tAlexan­der.com—A Petition

  if by some mal­i­cious peo­ple you’re in­clud­ing peo­ple at the NYT who view con­tro­versy as a good thing as a proxy for clicks, yes.

• romeostevensit 24 Jun 2020 23:26 UTC

  1 point

  on: Pre­view On Hover

  I think this is es­pe­cially great for rapid de­vel­op­ment of tech­ni­cal jar­gon in nascent fields.