LessWrong 2.0 Reader

Huh, that went somewhere other than where I was expecting.  I thought you were going to say that ignoring letter-of-the-rule violations is fine when they're not spirit-of-the-rule violations, as a way of communicating the actual boundaries.

Interesting - I was thinking it was going to be about the analogy with collapse of civilization and how far we might fall. Because I am concerned that if we have a loss of industrial civilization, we might not be able to figure out how to go back to subsistence farming, or even hunting and gathering (Secret of Our Success), so we may fall to extinction. But I think there are ways of not pulling up the ladder behind us in this case as well (planning for meeting basic needs in low tech ways).

What do you mean "of this type?" Why not just say "laws" full stop? What type are you referring to?

Here's a quick mockup of what that might look like.

In my head you the voting UI is available after you click to expand and then scroll down to the bottom of the comment.

Added: Oops, I realize I did the quick takes, not the popular comments. Still, the relevant changes are very similar.

The LessWrong Review [? · GW] runs every year to select the posts that have most stood the test of time. This post is not yet eligible for review, but will be at the end of 2025. The top fifty or so posts are featured prominently on the site throughout the year. Will this post make the top fifty?

Teacher here, can confirm.

This is a great use case for AI: expert knowledge tailored precisely to one’s needs

I'm not attempting to speculate on what might be possible for an AI.  I'm saying that there may be much low-hanging fruit potentially accessible to humans, despite there now being many high-IQ researchers. Note that the other attributes I mention are more culturally-influenced than IQ, so it's possible that they are uncommon now despite there being 8 billion people.

Not following - where could the 'low hanging fruit' possibly be hiding? We have many of "Other attributes conducive to breakthroughs are a ..." in our world of 8 billion. The data strongly suggests we are in diminishing returns. What qualities could an AI of Einstein intelligence realistically have that would let it make such progress where no person has. It would seem you would need to appeal to other less well defined qualities such as 'creativity' and argue that for some reason the AI would have much more of that. But that seems similar to just arguing that it in fact has > Einstein intelligence.

Yeah, seems right to me. If this is a recurring thing we might deactivate voting on the popular comments interface or something like that.