LessWrong 2.0 Reader

Ironically, the even more basic error of probabilistic thinking that people so—painfully—commonly make ("It either happens or doesn't, so it's 50/50") would get closer to the right answer.

I think it's a pretty weak hit, though not zero. There are so many things I want to look into that I don't have time for that having this as another factor in my prioritization doesn't feel very limiting to my intellectual freedom.

I do think it is good to have a range of people in society who are taking a range of approaches, though!

Then I shall continue to tend to and grow my garden.

Nice of you to offer! I expect, however, that pressure in this direction will come from non-LW non-EA directions.

Suggested spelling corrections:

I predict that the superforcaters in the report took

I predict that the superforcasters in the report took

a lot of empircal evidence for climate stuff

a lot of empirical evidence for climate stuff

and it may or not may not be the case

and it may or may not be the case

There are no also easy rules that

There are also no easy rules that

meaning that there should see persistence from past events

meaning that we should see persistence from past events

I also feel this kinds of linear extrapolation

I also feel these kinds of linear extrapolation

and really quite a lot of empircal evidence

and really quite a lot of empirical evidence

are many many times more invectious

are many many times more infectious

engineered virus that is spreads like the measles or covid

engineered virus that spreads like the measles or covid

case studies on weather are breakpoints in technological development

case studies on weather there are breakpoints in technological development

break that trend extrapolition wouldn't have predicted

break that trend extrapolation wouldn't have predicted

It's very vulnerable to refernces class and

It's very vulnerable to references class and

impressed by superforecaster track record than you are.

impressed by superforecaster track records than you are.

Does it feel to you as though your epistemic habits / self-trust / intellectual freedom and autonomy / self-honesty takes a hit here?

It’s going pretty well for me! Most people I work with or am friends with know that there are multiple topics on which my thoughts are private, and there have been ~no significant social costs to me that I’m aware of.

I would like to be informed of opportunities to support others in this on LessWrong or in the social circles I participate in, to back you up if people are applying pressure on you to express your thoughts on a topic that you don’t want to talk about.

My own heresy is that I don't have a true rejection. Many ideas are things which I believe by accumulation of evidence and there's no single item which would disprove my position. And talking about a "true rejection" is really trying to create a gotcha to force someone to change their position without allowing for things such as accumulation of evidence or even misphrasing the rejection.

I also think rationalists shouldn't bet, but that probably deserves its own post.

I think that the standard simulation argument is still pretty strong: If the world was like what it looks to be, then probably we could, and plausibly we would, create lots of simulations. Therefore, we are probably in a simulation.

I agree that all the rest, for example the Oracle assuming that most of the simulations it appears in are created for anthropic capture/influencing reasons, are pretty speculative and I have low confidence in them.