LessWrong 2.0 Reader

(Thanks. I don't think this is necessarily significant evidence against my hypothesis (see my comment on GeneSmith's comment.)

Another confusing relevant piece of evidence I thought I throw in:

Human intelligence seems to me to be very heavytailed. (I assume this is uncontrovertial here, just look at the greatest scientists vs great scientists.)

If variance in intelligence was basically purely explained by mildly-delterious SNPs, this would seem a bit odd to me: If the average person had 1000SNPs, and then (using butt-numbers which might be very off) Einstein (+6.3std) had only 800 and the average theoretical physics professor (+4std) had 850, I wouldn't expect the difference there to be that big.

It's a bit less surprising on the model where most people have a few strongly delterious mutations, and supergeniuses are the lucky ones that have only 1 or 0 of those.

It's IMO even a bit less surprising on my hypothesis where in some cases the different hyperparameters happen to work much better with each other -- where supergeniuses are in some dimensions "more lucky than the base genome" (in a way that's not necessarily easy to pass on to offspring though because the genes are interdependent, which is why the genes didn't yet rise to fixation). But even there I'd still be pretty surprised by the heavytail.

The heavytail of intelligence really confuses me. (Given that it doesn't even come from sub-critical intelligence explosion dynamics.)

Yep, Claude sure is a pretty good coder: Wang Tile Pattern Generator

This took 1 initial write and 5 change requests to produce. The most manual effort I had to do was look at unicode ranges and see which ones had distinctive-looking glyphs in them. (Sorry if any of these aren't in your computer's glyph library.)

I don't think people who disagree with your political beliefs must be inherently irrational.

Can you think of real world scenarios in which "shop elsewhere" isn't an option?

Is there no event on Oct 29th?

Okay, I don't understand what do you mean by "degree of intergration". If we lived in a world where immigrant could have "high degree of intergration" within months, what would we have observed?

I'm confused about how continuity poses a problem for "This sentence has truth value in [0,1)" without also posing an equal problem for "this sentence is false", which was used as the original motivating example. 

I'd intuitively expect "this sentence is false" == "this sentence has truth value 0" == "this sentence does not have a truth value in (0,1]"

Hi, is there a way to get people in touch with a project or project lead? For example, I'd like to get in touch with Masaharu Mizumoto because iVAIS sounds related to the aintelope project. 

The post was likely downvoted because it conflicts with principles of empathy, cooperation, and intellectual rigor. Defending bullying, even provocatively, clashes with commonly held beliefs. The zero-sum framing of status is overly simplistic, ignoring positive-sum approaches. The provocative style comes off as antagonistic. Reframing the argument around prosocial accountability might get more positive responses.

I'm interested too. I think several of the above are solvable issues. AFAICT:

Solved by simple modifications to markets:

• Races to correct naive bidders
• Defending the true price from incorrect bidders for $ w/o letting price shift

Seem doable with thought:

• Billing for information value
• Policy conditionals

Seem hard/idk if it's possible to solve:

• Collating information known by different bidders
• Preventing tricking other bidders for profit

I think we're spinning on an undefined term.  I'd bet there are LOTS of details that effect my perception in subtle and aggregate ways which I don't consciously identify.

You're equivocating between perceiving a collection of details and consciously identifying every separate detail.

If I show you a grid of 100 pixels, then (barring imperfect eyesight) you will consciously perceive all 100 them. But you will not consciously identify every individual pixel unless your attention is aimed at each pixel in a for loop (that would take longer than consciously perceiving the entire grid at once).

There are lots of details that affect your perception that you don't consciously identify. But there is no detail that affects your perception that wouldn't be contained in your consciousness (otherwise it, by definition, couldn't affect in your perception).