GreaterWrong will now display Metaculus embeds created via the LessWrong editor.
(You can’t create Metaculus embeds via GreaterWrong… yet.)
Said Achmiz
Karma: 13,189
Cool feature!
Is there any info on implementing Elicit embeds on other sites? (Like, say, GreaterWrong? :) I looked on elicit.org and didn’t find anything.
EDIT: Same question re: Metaculus embeds…
Surely there’s more than one way to design a website in a ‘minimalist’ way?
Note about NYC being too expensive:
When people talk about the city being expensive, what they are talking about, primarily, is rent prices. This is the massively dominant factor in NYC’s higher cost of living. And the caveat there is that while rent prices are very, very high in Manhattan, and quite high in the parts of Brooklyn and Queens that are <= 15 minutes by public transit from Manhattan, as you get further from that, the rents drop. Not to Midwest levels (for example)—no, never quite that far; but they do drop.
And many things are actually cheaper in NYC than elsewhere. I own a car and benefit from that fact greatly, but it can’t be denied that car ownership is not at all mandatory in NYC—that’s money in your pocket. Groceries—fresh fruits and vegetables in every variety, and everything else from the basics to ethnic cuisine ingredients—are cheaper than anywhere else I’ve been to, in the U.S. The ubiquitous “99 cent stores” are huge money-savers. Etc.
It leads directly to their being fewer PDA and otherwise overt sexuality. I prefer that, hence the prudishness is a benefit.
I read this comment with interest, and with the intent of responding to your points—it seemed to me that there was much confusion to be resolved here, to the benefit of all. Then I got to your last line.
It is severely rude to post a detailed fisking of an interlocutor’s post/comment, and to then walk away. If you wish to bow out of the discussion, that is your right, but it is both self-indulgent and disrespectful to first get in a last word (much less a last several hundred words).
Strongly downvoted.
The website leaves me confused about what this … app? web app? … has that might generate the effect you describe. Could you say a bit more about what aspects of Superhuman were responsible for the improvements you mentioned?
Whether the future “matters more than today” is not a question of impersonal fact. Things, as you no doubt know, do not ‘matter’ intransitively; they matter to someone. So the question is, does “the future” (however construed) matter to me more than “today” (likewise, however construed) does? Does “the future” matter to my hypothetical friend Alice more than today does, or to her neighbor Bob? Etc.
And any of these people are fully within their right to answer in the negative.
“There are 4 * 10^20 stars out there. You’re in a prime position to make sure they’re used for something valuable to you- as in, you’re currently experiencing the top 10^-30% most influential hours of human experience because of your early position in human history, etc. Are you going to change your plans and leverage your unique position?”
Note that you’re making a non-trivial claim here. In past discussions, on Less Wrong and in adjacent spaces, it has been pointed out that our ability to predict future consequences of our actions drops off rapidly as our time horizon recedes into the distance. It is not obvious to me that I am in any particularly favorable position to affect the course of the distant future in any but the most general ways (such as contributing to, or helping to avert, human extinction—and even there, many actions I might feasibly take could plausibly affect the likelihood of my desired outcome in either the one direction or the other).
“No, I think I’ll spend most of my effort doing the things I was already going to do.”
Really- Is that your final answer? What position would you need to be in to decide that planning for the long term future is worth most of your effort?
I would need to (a) have different values than those I currently have, and (b) gain (implausibly, given my current understanding of the world) the ability to predict the future consequences of my actions with an accuracy vastly greater than that which is currently possible (for me or for anyone else).
“Seeing as how a couple’s baby does not yet exist, it makes very little sense to say that saving money for their clothes and crib is something that they would be doing ‘for’ them.” No, wait, that’s ridiculous- It does make sense to say that you’re doing things “for” people who don’t exist.
Sorry, no. There is a categorical difference between bringing a person into existence and affecting a person’s future life, contingent on them being brought into existence. It of course makes sense to speak of doing the latter sort of thing “for” the person-to-be, but such isn’t the case for the former sort of thing.
There’s some more complicated discussion to be had on the specific merits of making sure that people exist, but I’m not (currently) interested in having that discussion. My point isn’t really related to that …
To the contrary: your point hinges on this. You may of course discuss or not discuss what you like, but by avoiding this topic, you avoid one of the critical considerations in your whole edifice of reasoning. Your conclusion is unsupportable without committing to a position on this question.
Also, in the context of artificial intelligence research, it’s an open question as to what the border of “Future Humanity” is.
Quite so—but surely this undermines your thesis, rather than supporting it?
The cost is probably less than the cost of time spent in the meeting, so the additional signal is weak. If you like cooking, the cost might actually be negative.
I’m sorry, but this is a ridiculous claim.
Just so.
Our job is to make sure that our light cone ends up being used for what we find valuable. That’s our only job.
Why, exactly, is this our only job (or, indeed, our job at all)? Surely it’s possible to value present-day things, people, etc.?
The only important thing and the best thing we can do for [future humanity] is to ensure that they will ever exist at all!
Seeing as how future humanity (with capital letters or otherwise) does not, in fact, currently exist, it makes very little sense to say that ensuring their existence is something that we would be doing “for” them.
You can hardly simultaneously describe the relevant dynamic as “selling food for status” and admit that many people/groups enjoy sharing food at social gatherings; these are mutually inconsistent characterizations.
ETA: It goes almost without saying that “sell some food for status” is an unnecessarily tendentious description, all by itself…
What norm do you think I was (or appeared to be) promoting?
Third, as I said above, it’s a pretty low bar. If you’re rich enough (and don’t work at a hospital), avoiding personally getting infected is relatively straightforward, and while obviously it has some benefits, I don’t think it would be enough of an incentive to convince me to take on a whole new worldview.
My personal experience is consistent with this take, for what it’s worth. I think that “rationalists didn’t get COVID” is indeed mostly due to substantially higher average income (perhaps not even among ‘rationalists’ but specifically among Jacob’s friends/acquaintances).
Respectfully, I think you are missing my point in a quite comprehensive way.
Perhaps others might weigh in on whether what I have said is clear (and, of course, whether they agree, etc.) I will refrain from further attempts at explanation until then.
I would’ve hoped that the use of ‘everyone’ in this context would be clearly enough slightly-hyperbolic to avoid this sort of misunderstanding…
This happened years ago, and I don’t have perfect recall of past events. Even at the time, I could not assert with confidence that literally every single person present at each of these events ate the cookies. (Indeed, a priori such a claim seems unlikely; surely at least one person was on a diet? Diabetic? Vegan? Lactose-intolerant? Not a fan of oatmeal / chocolate chip / whatever? A claim that literally everyone ate the cookies should be surprising for reasons entirely unrelated to any social norms!)
The cookies were eaten—that’s the point. Not long into each gathering, all the cookies (or other sweets; I think I may’ve brought brownies once) were gone. The majority of the other attendees seemed happy to eat them. These things, I can say with as great a confidence as I have in recollection of any other years-past event.
As for your main point…
I sympathize with being placed in the unpleasant situation of disapproving of a social norm that others are promulgating with good intentions. (Clearly, I disagree with you on the subject of this particular norm; what’s more, it seems to me that you are rather misinterpreting what the intended/desired norm is, in this case. I don’t know if you’d still disapprove of the actual norm I have in mind, properly understood… if so, our disagreement deepens, as I think that rejection of the norm in question, and those like it, is corrosive to any would-be community. But all of this is beside the point.)
But there are ways of handling such situations that contribute to social cohesion, and ways that detract from it.
In my experience, in most more or less casual social circles (whether they be centered around a workplace, group activity, or anything else), most people have little or no skill at cooking/baking. If one person does have such skill, and (for whatever occasion may warrant it—be that “it’s my birthday” or “it’s Friday”) brings homemade food or snacks, typically the other members of the group are somewhat surprised (it’s an unusual skill, after all), and express gratitude. If the food is skillfully made, there are comments noting this—praising the person who made and brought the food, and making note of their skill.
On other occasions, in such groups, other members of the group, who lack such cooking/baking skills, nevertheless see fit to bring food for sharing. This may be store-bought, prepared by a caterer, etc. The rest of the group expresses gratitude again, though not, of course, the other sentiments of praise and admiration.
Still others in such groups may rarely or never contribute food (homemade or otherwise) to group gatherings (but do typically, if they wish to be perceived as cooperative members, contribute in other informal ways).
This is a pattern I’ve seen play out many times, in many groups—academic, professional, hobby-oriented, generic social gatherings, etc. I have observed it on the East Coast, and on the West Coast, and in the Midwest; among “millennials” and “boomers”; among people and groups from a variety of cultural backgrounds.
In each case, the voluntary contribution of food to the group, for sharing by its members, with no direct compensation expected, is seen, correctly, as an act of deliberate cooperation. The contributor is rewarded with some social status, as well as the positive feelings that come from being directly thanked by a fellow group member. If the food was also made by the contributor (and is good)—i.e., if the contribution required skill and effort, i.e. is a costly signal of cooperation—a larger amount of status is bestowed (via expressions of admiration, etc.).
These responses cost the other group members little else but words. They need not create expectations or reciprocal obligations, please note! If I bring cookies, and everyone else says “oh, thanks for bringing cookies, Said!” and (assuming they are delicious) “ooh, these are great, Said, you made these? cool!”—this already discharges any obligations of reciprocity. Certainly there could be a norm that everyone contributes something (either every time, or in some sort of formal or informal rotation). But such a norm would be a separate and additional thing.
Now, suppose that you still strenuously object even to the implied suggestion that there might be any expectation of contributing food for sharing. Suppose you bristle at the notion that a group member may expect, and receive, any social status for such contributions. Nevertheless, unless you consider the contribution to be a hostile act, it is clearly counterproductive to punish it, yes? The signal you send, if you do so, is “this group neither appreciates nor rewards cooperation”. (Cooperation in general, note! If I bring cookies and get not a peep of acknowledgment or thanks, the message I get isn’t “we don’t do food sharing here”—it’s the aforesaid general rebuke. If you want to send the specific message and not the general one, you have to use actual words. But in such a case, you would have to ensure that the contributor is still rewarded for the impulse to cooperation…)
And, needless to say, taking advantage of the cooperative act, while neither rewarding it with even so much as acknowledgment, not to say thanks (and still less praise)… well, that is defection, pure and simple.
What actually happened was exactly the same as what happened with the homemade cookies: people ate the food, without ever in any way acknowledging that I had brought it (thanking me wasn’t even on the radar); no one else ever brought anything.
In a way, having good but bought food is easier to cooperate on.
I tried that, too, as it happens. Would you care to guess what the result was?
And how good are the best of us at bringing cookies and tea and just putting things on the table before we start disagreeing?
This is one of the things that drove me away from casual in-person “rationalist community” gatherings. My habit when getting together with my friends is to bring some cookies (or something along these lines); my friends usually also contribute something. So the first several times I came to small gatherings of rationalist-type folks, I indeed brought (homemade!) cookies for everyone.
It turned out that (a) I was the only one who ever thought to bring any such thing (even after the first time), and (b) while everyone else was clearly happy to eat the cookies, not only did no one ever thank me for bringing them, but no one even commented on them or acknowledged in any way that I’d brought said cookies.
So, I stopped bringing cookies, and then stopping coming to such gatherings.
You must understand—we have to ration our usage of parentheses, lest our strategic reserve again fails us in time of need…