Consider the mental move you’re performing if you’re doing a word search and you switch which word you’re currently actively hunting for. Or searching for a word on the tip of your tongue. Gendlin called this a sharp blank or a blank that knows what it is looking for. This seems related to active curiosity vs the more exploration based open curiosity.
Also related: forward vs backchaining, open vs closed mode, exploration vs exploitation
Agree, and I’d roll in the incentives more closely. It feels more like:
you have at most space for a few feedback loops
you can improve this by making one of the feedback loops a checklist that makes calls out to other feedback loops
the tighter and more directly incentivized the feedback loop, the more you can pack in
every employer/organization is trying to hire/recruit people who can hold more feedback loops at once and do some unsupervised load balancing between them
you can make some of people’s feedback loops managing another person’s feedback loops
Now jump to this post https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/09/ars-longa-vita-brevis/
another frame is that instead of thinking about how many bits you can successfully transmit, think about whether the behaviors implied by the bits you transmit can run in loops, whether the loops are supervised or unsupervised and what range of noise they remain stable under.
This is fantastic stuff. Nice to see others independently coming up with the transmitters and receivers model. Also, the structure mentioned in 3a resonates strongly for me with the people groping towards some sense that Circling type skills seem to be useful for rationality but couldn’t quite put their finger on why. My experience is that Circling with good facilitators enables exactly the kinds of things seen in 3a.
Two things that we’ve found useful at QRI that may apply:
1. A slack or slack like thing (keybase is nice for the additional security) for tracking the explosion of references and conversational threads that occur when you find a generative frame/question/method set is way way more useful than things like shared gdocs. It allows more of ‘getting the lay of the land’ to reorient yourself when you’ve been away and developments have happened in the meantime. Storing links in this format also gives them a juicy sense of discovery where other formats can make them feel more like homework needed to participate in the convo.
2. Maintaining momentum in the load balancing of connections in the graph of one-on-one meetings. That is to say, groups seem to function better when there is roughly equal communication between all the participants. Probably for a variety of reasons but one major one is that it seems to allow better bootstrapping of blindspots. Crossing all the possible one-on-ones gives the chance for misunderstandings to get worked out so that people can return to much more flow-like communication patterns. This is accomplished by regularly scheduling the various one-on-ones, prioritizing them, and making it so that people can request them without feeling like it is a big ask. Generally accomplished via video chat when in person would be laborious.
This feels like how I think about TDT as a casual heuristic.
It isn’t all the moments you’re doing the action but the moments of another candidate winner being surfaced in consciousness giving you the affordance to do something else instead. In that moment you can reaffirm your commitment to the thing or choose the distraction. Poor modeling of the self who has to make that microdecision is behind much confusion.
factor analysis, levels of analysis.
another frame might be Kuhnian momentum.
I’ve seen this referred to as discursive learning. The idea that things stick much better when you’re forced to expend some cognition in order to figure out how it fits with what you already know.
I’ve been working on mapping explanation-space and have identified 3 areas of decomposition, the how-why-what axis corresponding to levels of analysis (Marr, et al), the temporal axis delineating past, future, and now as a special moment of causal intervention, and the variance-invariance axis.
I think it is driven by a general heuristic of finding compressibility. If a distribution seems complex we assume we’re accidentally conflating two variables and seek the decomposition that makes the two resultant distributions approximate-able by simpler functions.
Imagine you have 10 sensors measuring different things. The environment (including things you can affect) permutes their values over time. Let’s say they operate like thermometers and you’re trying to keep them within specified ranges. If the sensors are trinary (too low, too high, just right) you already have 59,049 states to navigate in your tradeoff space. The higher the resolution the sensors the faster the combinatoric explosion. So a small number of parameters leads to a very complex seeming situation.
would likely be solved if slack had a robust 3 level ontology rather than two level. Threaded conversations don’t work very well.
I agree that slack is a better interaction modality for multiple people trying to make progress on problems. The main drawback is chaotic channel ontologies leading to too many buckets to check for users (though many obv. find this aspect addictive as well).
In epistemic structural realism the bridge is all we have. One end of the bridge feels more ‘is’ like and one end feels more ‘ought’ like. Both are subject to extensionalism in trying to figure out what’s ‘really there’. I find this stance much much less confusing than the more standard indirect realism that typically underlies the is-ought distinction.
There’s also the general pattern, see if by inverting the nature of the representation (turn the edges into vertices and vice versa) a false dichotomy disappears.
Jung seemed to be the first to identify more explicitly the punctuated equilibrium model of adult psychological development. I find it useful to combine with sub agents to explain a lot of the psychotehrapuetic models I see. Different parts can be at different stages of development and thus be open to different kinds of evidence and experiences in order to mature and gain access to better strategies for getting needs met.
I really want to read a book focusing on vigilance. Conscious access seemed like the least interesting of the three by far.
Mentioned before, but I wonder if progressive/iterative summarization would increase peer review between AI researchers a bunch. I.e. marginal efforts towards summarizing the either adversarial or generative ideas a post is a response to, which gives the original authors and outsiders more surfaces to offer ideas along. I think this would also lead to more settling on shared terminology, which is a significant fraction of progress in a field as far as I can tell from the history of science. If it increased engagement then it would be directly incentivized as soon as people knew/experienced that.
+1 eliminating certain negative emotions seems to temporarily get rid of any motivation structures that were using those negative emotions as a building block. Things I really value seem to rebuild themselves on better foundations.
I have a hypothesis for increasing transferability of insights. Their transferability being by default quite low. Lower than they feel like they should be from the inside. I think what generally happens is something like this: a person has an insight, this generates a bunch of emotional energy, sometimes this gets channeled into the urge to share/write about the insight, this is most of what we hear about. But the writing is from the perspective of the insight, which tends to be dissimilar from the material that *triggered* the insight. I noticed this in myself after developing a very detailed note taking system. This allowed me to go back and trace the trajectory of past insights. It is much harder and less motivating (currently) to share stuff from the pre-insight perspective. Harder because of insight amnesia, the tendency to forget what your past thinking patterns were like, and also because most don’t have detailed enough notes. Less motivating because pre-insight material just seems, well, wrong now. Why write about wrong things when you could write about *glorious new correct thing*?
Pretty random, but the thought this post lead to was ‘let’s upload Culadasa and then have the upload direct us in how to iteratively upgrade him.’ Sort of like gun-to-the-head you have to pick the safest option using only the concepts we already have right now.