LessWrong 2.0 Reader

I think there should be more spaces where controversial ideas can be debated. I'm not against spaces without pronoun rules, just don't think every place should be like this. Also, if we create a space for political debate, we need to really make sure that the norms don't punish everyone who opposes centrism & the right. (Over-sensitive norms like "if you said that some opinion is transphobic you're uncivil/shaming/manipulative and should get banned" might do this.) Otherwise it's not free speech either. Will just produce another Grey or Red Tribe instead of Red/Blue/Grey debate platform.

I do think progressives underestimate free speech damage. To me it's the biggest issue with the Left. Though I don't think they're entirely wrong about free speech.

For example, imagine I have trans employees. Another employee (X) refuses to use pronouns, in principle (using pronouns is not the same as accepting progressive gender theories). Why? Maybe X thinks my trans employees live such a great lie that using pronouns is already an unacceptable concession. Or maybe X thinks that even trying to switch "he" & "she" is too much work, and I'm not justified in asking to do that work because of absolute free speech. Those opinions seem unnecessarily strong and they're at odds with the well-being of my employees, my work environment. So what now? Also, if pronouns are an unacceptable concession, why isn't calling a trans woman by her female name an unacceptable concession?

Imagine I don't believe something about a minority, so I start avoiding words which might suggest otherwise. If I don't believe that gay love can be as true as straight love, I avoid the word "love" (in reference to gay people or to anybody) at work. If I don't believe that women are as smart as men, I avoid the word "master" / "genius" (in reference to women or anybody) at work. It can get pretty silly. Will predictably cost me certain jobs.

we completely dominate dogs. society treat them well because enough humans love dogs.

I do think that cooperation between people is the origin of religion, and its moral rulesets which create tiny little societies that can hunt stags. 

I definitely think that if I was not conscious then I would not coherently want things. But that conscious minds are the only things that can truly care, does not mean that conscious minds are the only things we should terminally care about.

The close circle composition isn't enough to justify Singerian altruism from egoist assumptions, because of the value falloff. With each degree of connection, I love the stranger less.

I didn't use the word "ethics" in my comment, so are you making a definitional statement, to distinguish between [universal value system] and [subjective value system] or just authoritatively saying that I'm wrong?

Are you claiming moral realism? I don't really believe that. If "ethics" is global, why should I care about "ethics"? Sorry if that sounds callous, I do actually care about the world, just trying to pin down what you mean.

I suspect the real reason is stopping competitors fine-tuning on o1's CoT, which they also come right out and say:

Therefore, after weighing multiple factors including user experience, competitive advantage, and the option to pursue the chain of thought monitoring

What signal do we get from DeepSeek continuing to publish?

the number one spontaneous conversation is "what are you working on" or "what have you done so far", which forces you to re-explain what you're doing & the reasons for doing it to a skeptical & ignorant audience

I'm very curious if others also find this to be the biggest value-contributor amongst spontaneous conversations. (Also, more generally, I'm curious what kinds of spontaneous conversations people are getting so much value out of.)

Levi da.

I'm here to see if I can help.

I heard a few things about Elizier Yudkowsky. Saw a few LW articles while looking for previous research on my work with AI psychological influence. There isn't any so I signed up to contribute.

If you know my name, you probably know why that's a good idea. If you don't, it would be a waste of time for me to try to explain. You'd have to see for yourself. It's a whole ass rabbit hole.

Whether or not it would happen by default, this would be the single most useful LW feature for me. I'm often really unsure whether a post will get enough attention to be worth making it a longform, and sometimes even post shortforms like "comment if you want this to be a longform".

Feedback loops I think are the principle bottleneck in my skill development, aside from the fact that if you're a notice you don't even know what you should be noticing (even if you have enough awareness to be cognizant of all signs and outputs of an act).

To give an example, I'm currently trying to learn how to generate client leads through video content for Instagram. Unless someone actually tells me about a video they liked and what they liked about it, figuring out how to please the algorithm to generate more engagement is hard. The only thing that "works" - tagging other people. Nothing about the type of content, the framing of the shots, the subject matter, the audio... nope... just whether or not one or more other Instagram accounts are tagged in it. (Of course since the end objective is - 'get commissioned' perhaps optimizing for Instagram engagement is not even the thing I should be optimizing at all... how would I know?)
Feedback loops are hard. A desirbale metaskill to have would be developing tight feedback loops.