If something is valuable and powerful, and (big if) it’s not harmful, plus it’s extremely cheap to reproduce I see no reason not to distribute it freely. My confusion was that Brennan’s world seems set in the future, and I got the sense that EY may have been in favor of it in some ways (perhaps that’s mistaken). Since it seemed to be set in the future of our world, I got the sense that the Singularity had already happened. Maybe I just need to get to the fun sequence, but that particular future really made me uneasy,
Will_BC
Karma: 209
I’m relatively new to the site and I wasn’t aware of any censorship.I suppose I can imagine that it might be useful and even necessary to censor things, but I have an intuitive aversion to the whole business. Plus I’m not sure how practical it is, since after you posted that I googled lesswrong censorship and found out what was being censored. I have to say, if they’re willing to censor stuff that causes nightmares then they ought to censor talk of conspiracies, as I can personally attest that that has caused supreme discomfort. They are a very harmful meme and positing a conspiracy can warp your sense of reality. I have bipolar, and I was taking a medicine that increases the level of dopamine in my brain to help with some of the symptoms of depression. Dopamine (I recently rediscovered) increased your brain’s tendency to see patterns, and I had to stop talking a very helpful medication after reading this site. Maybe it would have happened anyway, but the world of conspiracy theories is very dark and my journey there was triggered by his writings. I guess most of the content on this site is disorienting though, but perhaps some clarification about what he thinks the benefits of conspiracies are and their extent should be would help.
Also, the content on this site is pretty hard hitting in a lot of ways, I find it inconsistent to censor things to protect sensitive people who think about AI but not people who are sensitive to all the other things that are discussed here. I think it’s emblematic of a broader problem with the community, which is that there’s a strong ingroup outgroup barrier, which is a problem when you’re trying to subsist on philanthropy and the ingroup is fairly tiny.
Why do you think EY uses conspiracy in his fictional writing? He seems to use them in positive or at least not clearly negative light, which is not how I think of conspiracies at all. I notice that I am confused, so I’m trying to gather some other opinions.
I’m taking this course, I bought the recommended textbook as well.
With all these options, single choice voting is pretty clearly sub-optimal, Approval or Range Voting would be better.
I’ve had some success in the past, but I haven’t been able to keep with my program long enough to achieve the results I want and I lost motivation. I don’t really have a great deal of disposable income right now, so if I derailed a lot I probably would stop using it. I really like the graphs, and by themselves they are a good motivator, so the thought of losing them is a further motivator. Basically I’ve had a better diet I’ve been meaning to stick to and an exercise routine that I sometimes did, but this kept me on track and focused on results.
That’s a good point, I knew they elected the pope but I wasn’t sure about the middle positions, I was thinking more about the size of the groups being an important factor when I compared the other system to the military.. And the Catholic Church is another example of an effective real world analog to a system I was thinking about hypothetically.
What I had in mind was more a hybrid between feudalism and the democratic process originally described. Democratic, bottom up above a certain level, top down below a certain level. But the idea was promoting a single person from a small group to a small group of similarly promoted people and so on ad infinitum, concentrating power by either process. I’m thinking of a system that could be implemented in practice.
Well, the reasons to try hard are to be kind to others and to learn something yourself. Again, I never said it was an example of a voting system, what was asked for was a system of selecting public officials, and militaries are often public officials and it is not uncommon for them to change domains. The value is in taking a hypothetical system whose merits and weaknesses are difficult to evaluate, and comparing it to its closest analog in reality, which was my goal. I had come up with a system quite similar to the original query’s idea, and the thought that it might be more effective in a top down fashion occurred to me, so it was even less different from the military than his idea, and both ideas fit the criteria of
methods for selecting important public officials from large populations that are arguably much better than the current standards as practiced in various modern democracies
Yes, Jesus is popular than the military, and more highly regarded in US politics by a majority of people. The opinions of the majority being of significant importance in a democratic political system. And certainly, there are differences. The direction of authority, which is what elections provide, is one. And there are others I’m sure I’m not mentioning, but those related to elections and authority are the biggest. But if you can’t see how it’s similar at all then you aren’t being very charitable and aren’t trying very hard. Both systems are hierarchical, both involve the promotion of a small number from a small group to another small group which then promotes a small number and so on until there is a small number of people or a single person at the top.
That’s probably a more sophisticated view, but I think popular opinion is with the military.
And the original topic was
methods for selecting important public officials from large populations that are arguably much better than the current standards as practiced in various modern democracies
And I think the military is similar in many ways to option two, sans the election part, which is why I brought it up.
Well, highly regarded as far as US politics is concerned. A lot of people here like to see military service in a politician, and it’s considered to be somewhat above partisan politics. And doing what you’re told is a meritorious characteristic to have in the military, although I suppose it’s far less meritocratic than some other organizations, it’s ideal is that it is. Although you’re certainly right, I should have said my statements were framed in the context of the US politics.
There is some incentive to vote strategically, but depending on the range and the other candidate on offer you might be better off voting honestly. If there’s a candidate you dislike strongly, and a major candidate you only mildly dislike, you might give your favorite a 10, the mild dislike a 3, and the major dislike a 0, just to reduce the major dislike’s chances. The worst case scenario, which you describe, is called bullet voting, and is basically identical to our current system, but if even a small proportion vote honestly it can improve the results. The researcher who made the graph at the bottom of rangevoting.org ran computer simulations of voter preferences compared with candidate values, and found that something like 10% of voters given their honest preference can improve results. I do recommend the book if you want to know more.
I am very interested in delegable proxy, although it seems potentially dangerous and I think if it were implemented it would need to be tempered with some less democratic devices, but it could certainly make for some interesting drama.
I read a very interesting book on election systems by William Poundstone called Gaming the Vote. His conclusion was that Score (aka Range) Voting was the best system on offer. A brief explanation can be found at rangvoting.org; it’s a rather simple and intuitive system. As to idea number 2, I had a similar idea a while back, I called it fractal hierarchy, and a few thoughts occurred to me. First, it need not be democratic at all levels. I was thinking that if you wanted to select for rationality then the entry levels might not be very good at this. This led me to realize that this was rather similar to how the US military is structured, and they are generally positively regarded and considered quite meritocratic, so it might be a good way to do things.
Another idea for legislative systems that I came across that is a merger between direct and representative democracy is called delegable proxy. The idea is that every member can vote on every issue, but they can choose to delegate their vote to a proxy voter, who can then choose to delegate all their votes to another voter, and so on, until you get a number of people with large chunks of votes. But for any issue, an individual can retract their vote(s) and vote how they wish. I think this system would allow for a lot of legislation to get passed, and would most strongly represent the popular will, but that is also it’s greatest weakness, in that you get the issue of tyranny of the majority and ignorance of the masses playing a greater role.
I am working on a project right now to put these and other ideas into practice, and will make a discussion post about it at some point in the future. If anyone is interested in helping me to better articulate my ideas before I post them, please let me know.
I lost 10 pounds in the last 30 days, and I would like to credit part of that to the LW community for introducing me to Beeminder.
I intend to make a discussion post, once my ideas are more polished and I have sufficient karma. Right now, I’m having a biweekly Google Hangout with a few people and trying to set up a Simple Machine Forum, so if anyone is interested in either of those send me a PM and I’ll let you know how they’re progressing.
There was an RSA clip about this awhile back. Smile or Die
I have been mostly lurking for a couple of months, but organizing people is one of my main areas of interest, and I have some practical experience in doing it. I have had thoughts along these lines, and right now I’m having a biweekly Google hangout with some friends and family to discuss the issue and get feedback on my ideas. I’d like to very gradually introduce the topics to the rationalist community. But the core idea that I’m working on right now is that rationality is not interesting to the general public because rationality is too abstract. I would like to form a community where the main outreach is “Success Clubs” or something like that, basically a support group for improving your life designed by rationalists. I would also like to create a currency that people earned by attending the meetings and participating in the broader organization. I think the success of cryptocurrencies, video games, and karma systems is evidence that this could be a very useful motivator.
Thanks for answering, I did some googling and found a website called spreeder.com that seems to be helping. So far I’ve been able to gradually increase the wpm from where I was comfortable starting, and it seems like it could be an effective tool.
One could make the argument that anything that harms the mission of lesswrong’s sponsoring organizations is to the detriment of mankind. I’m not opposed to that argument, but googling censorship of lesswrong did not turn up anything I considered to be particularly dangerous. Maybe that just means that the censorship is more effective than I would have predicted, or is indicative or a lack of imagination on my part.