LessWrong 2.0 Reader

I'm new to LW.  Why was this post downvoted? How can I make better posts in the future? https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/n7Fa63ZgHDH8zcw9d/we-can-survive [LW · GW]

 

If there is no identity substance, then copies even outside the light cone matter. And even non-exact copies matter if the difference is almost unobservable. So I think that countable infinity is enough. 

I'm not sure why 

• Universe is finite (or only countably infinite), and MWI is irrelevant (makes it larger, but doesn't change the cardinality).  When you die, you die.  There may or may not exist near-but-not-exact duplicates outside of current-you's lightcone.

is not one of your considerations.  This seems most likely to me.

How to build a stockpile of testosterone for HRT, as a buffer in case of emergency:

* Get your provider to prescribe "single use" vials and make sure they're marking them as "single use" in their prescription notes. These usually contain 200mg, which for most people is two doses or more. By design, you're meant to throw away the leftovers when you don't use all 200mg in a single dose, and that is what pharmacies and insurance companies expect you to do.

* Use each vial more than once, just make sure you alcohol swab the top.

* Organize your vials by expiration date. This will not necessarily line up with the order in which you receive the vials, so you have to actually check. Use vials with earlier expiration dates first.

This will result in access to testosterone at twice the rate you use it, and you'll be able to build up at least a bit of a buffer.

I'm not telling anybody to do this. Just that if I were scared of losing access to HRT, this is what I'd do.

Just wanted to point out that AI Safety ("Friendliness" at the time) was the original impetus for LW. Only, they (esp. EY, early on) kept noticing other topics that were prerequisites for even having a useful conversation about AI, and topics that were prerequisites for those, etc., and that's how the Sequences came to be. So in that sense, "LW is more and more full of detailed posts about AI that newcomers can't follow easily" is a sign that everything is going as intended, and yes, it really is important to read a lot of the prerequisite background material if you want to participate in that part of the discussion. 

On the other hand, if you want a broader participation in the parts of the community that are about individual and collective rationality, that's still here too! You can read the Sequence Highlights [? · GW], or the collections of resources listed by CFAR, or everything else in the Library. And if there's something you want to ask or discuss, make a post about it, and you'll most likely get some good engagement, or at least people directing you to other places to investigate or discuss it. There are also lots of other forums and blogs and substacks with current or historical ties to LW that are more specialized, now that the community is big enough to support that. The diaspora/fragmentation will continue for many of the same reasons we no longer have Natural Philosophers.

Across all websites I've been on in my life, I have posted more than 100000 comments (resulting in many interactions), so while things like psychoanalyzing people, assuming intentions, and making stereotypes is "bad", I simply have too much training data, and too few incorrect guesses not to do this.

On the contrary, your guess did not take context into account and was bad. They were downvoted for answering in a way which didn't answer the question, had many typos, and otherwise took more effort to read than the information it contained was worth.

Your comment "added more heat than light" for no reason, with no prompting. I explicitly am only making this comment because you posted a long paragraph explaining why you are so sure that you did a good job analyzing when it looks like you did a very poor one. Perhaps people in the past have not given useful feedback, so I will give a short piece: do not do this psycho-analysis until you have generated at least 2 alternate theories for what happened.

I've learned a weird amount about whales from here this week.

If unsupervised translation is possible for creatures with a language as different from ours as whales, that would be amazing. Especially if it could be done without monitoring their behaviors (although that might be asking for too much)

Typically, this reasoning doesn't work because we have to update once again based on our current age and on the fact that such technologies do not yet exist, which compensates for the update in the direction of "Life extension is developing and alignment is easy."

This is easier to understand through the Sleeping Beauty problem. She wakes up once on Monday if it's heads, and on both Monday and Tuesday if it's tails. The first update suggests that tails is two times more likely, so the probability becomes 2/3. However, as people typically argue, after learning that it is Monday, she needs to update back to 1/3, which yields the same probability for both tails and heads.

But in the two-thirders' position, we reject the second update because Tails-Monday and Tails-Tuesday are not independent events (as was recently discussed on LessWrong in the Sleeping Beauty series).

The note that it isn't what the username is for is kind of interesting. There are two places to put information on social media: your account and the media attached to your account. Here, instead of attaching some GWWC information to every piece of media (Tweet/post/picture/essay etc), the idea is to attach it to the account, but that really does feel quite weird to me.

I'm glad you said that.

I think it can be both rational to doubt his edge and not trade on it.