My impression is that money can only lower prestige if the amount is low relative to an anchor.
For example a $3000 prize would be high prestige if it’s interpreted as an award, but low prestige if it’s interpreted as a salary.
toonalfrink
Karma: 1,180 (LW), 0 (AF)
[Question] What features of people do you know of that might predict academic success?
Besides the subsystems making their own predictions, there might also be a meta-learning system keeping track of which other subsystems tend to make the most accurate predictions in each situation, giving extra weight to the bids of the subsystem which has tended to perform the best in that situation.
This is why I eat junk food, sans guilt. I don’t want my central planning subagent to lose influence over unimportant details. Spend your weirdness points wisely.
Yeah, otherwise you’re not narrowing down one person’s beliefs, but possibly going back and forth.
I’d expect that option to be bad overall. I might just be justifying an alief here, but it seems to me that closing a set of people off entirely will entrench you in your beliefs.
We have dorms that are purely dedicated to short term paying guests. This allows us to honestly tell people that they’re always welcome. I think that’s great.
The funniest part is that I have a friend who really talks like this. We often listen to what he has to say intently to try to parse any meaning from it, but it seems like he’s either too far beyond us or just mad (I’d say both). Guess I have a new nickname for him
Well I don’t really have a justification for it (ha), but I’ve noticed that explicit deductive thought rarely leads me to insights that turn out to be useful. Instead, I find that simply waiting for ideas to pop into my head, makes the right ideas pop into my head.
You saw that correctly. What I mean is too often, not always.
Claim: a typical rationalist is likely to be relying too much on legibility, and would benefit from sometimes not requiring an immediate explicit justification for their beliefs.
Experimental Open Thread April 2019: Socratic method
Open Thread April 2019
I have a different hypothesis for the “people aren’t like that!” response. It’s about signalling high status in order to be given high status. If I claim that “people aren’t bad where I come from”, it signals that I’m somehow not used to being treated badly, which is evidence that I’m not treated badly, which is evidence that mechanisms for preventing bad behavior are already in place.
This isn’t just a random idea, this is introspectively the reason that I keep insisting that people really aren’t bad. It’s a sermon. An invitation to good people and a threat to bad ones.
The one who gets bullied is the one that openly behaves like they’re already being bullied.
Did not, despite this offer which offers a quite large social reward. Seems like people aren’t interested.
Going forward, I think there’s a “revert to draft” feature! Or at least I noticed that option on the EA forum
RAISE is launching their MVP
This part feels underdefined:
A program P is more useful than Hugh for X if, for every project using H to accomplish X, we can efficiently transform it into a new project which uses P to accomplish X. The new project shouldn’t be much more expensive—it shouldn’t take much longer, use much more computation or many additional resources, involve much more human labor, or have significant additional side-effects.
Why quantify over projects? Why is it not sufficient to say that P is as useful as H if it can also accomplish X?
Seems like you want to say that P can achieve X in more ways, but I fail to see why that is obviously relevant. What is even a project?
Or is this some kind of built in measure to prevent side effects, by making P achieve X in a humanlike way? Still doesn’t feel obvious enough.
I expect that there are metrics that screen off gender so we can have better predictions and also circumvent the politics of doing anything related to gender