LessWrong 2.0 Reader

Here's a non-metaphor!

“Cryptobenthics do one thing particularly well: getting eaten.”

I guess the moral of that is, don't be a cryptobenthic.

I don't feel comfortable changing the title of other people's posts unilaterally, though I agree that a title change would be good. 

To my own surprise, I wasn't actually the one who crossposted this and came up with the title (my guess is it was Robby). I poked him about changing the title.

I am

What's "I am" mean in that sentence?

I didn't have an exact model of what I'd expect to go wrong, but was generally aware that it might pack a big emotional wollop for people in particular spaces, (two people have messaged me so far to say they were shaken by it, in a good way), and it seemed generally better to say "hey this gun is loaded" and be ready to deal with whatever fallout there turned out to be.

But, at the very least, people might just have a lot of stuff going on and don't necessarily have time to have some hopefully-cathartic-but-meanwhile-destabilizing-or-intense-reorientation..

...

[edit: Maybe one particular thing I'd be worried about are people with a belief that things-will-be-okay-soon-because-something-will-end-or-someone-will-help them, and then this post questions that belief, and suddenly a psychologically loadbearing belief is gone and they don't immediately have the tools to deal with it]

I am but puzzle about how your post could wreck someone, it's a great piece to help those with fears about something they cannot control to not worry about it too much or understanding the importance of learning to grieve. If I were in those spots, the message is an optimistic one

links 9/24/2024 

https://roamresearch.com/#/app/srcpublic/page/09-24-2024

My angle here is not "there seems like there's hope in this direction", it's that the discourse around this feels confused and unresolved and this is maybe creating some faultlines around which something tragic may happen later.

I'm not 100% sure if this actually cruxy for Paul/Buck/etc's decisionmaking, but it seems part of an overall mosaic that is the difference between Eliezer and Nate saying "we're doomed" and Paul/Buck etc saying "we may well be doomed or have some really-bad-but-not-doomed things happen", and in some places that results in different high level strategies that may be subtly in conflict.

This doesn't actually follow. There isn't a law of the universe saying that some things are painful, and unlock a certain amount of value, and if we could reduce the pain you'd still get more value by enduring more pain.

It might happen to be true in some cases, but there's no reason to expect that to hold in all cases.

I clicked the link hoping to expand the metaphor into some object level example that applied in this case but instead just found more metaphor. :P

Maybe you should change the title of this post? It would also help if the post linked to the kinds of arguments he was refuting.

It seems one is missing: "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness".

And it is worth noting that there are, of course, many previous expositions on the Beatitudes, which, along with the expected focus on eternal rewards as outranking earthly ones, often provide additional insights, like how the "pure in heart" merit to "see God" because "purity" here means something like "singular focus", which has analogical application to being single-mindedly devoted to a cause, etc.