LessWrong 2.0 Reader

@khushjammu will get this message as a notification (since they have RSVPed), but I think you'll have to send a private message to @smallsilo (unless they manually subscribed to the comments on this post), because it doesn't seem like LessWrong has proper user tagging.

If you do manage to set up a second group, you may want to organise to arrive 30 minutes earlier or later if possible, since that would make it easier for us to find our respective group members, and minimise any accidental "mixing". If a big group of us all arrive at once, that could look a bit sus, even if we are being sure to remain separated.

The selfish interest of homeowners and landowners is generally to prevent the creation of new homes and new land.

The selfish interest of renters and businesses is generally the opposite.

I suspect that New York City has an unusually high ratio of the latter to the former (in terms of political power).

Obviously, people frequently vote against their selfish interests. But it's at least slightly relevant. Anyway, you brought it up.

The visual system wouldn't detect the abstract concept of height, and that would be the brain's job to figure out by being primed on when the thing triggers and what else correlates with it.

I imagine the visual system would detect visual depth from binocular vision. Babies learn this in the first few months. It is one of the things that cause them distress when it gets activated in the brain. I don't know the research papers, but these might be starting pointers:

https://www.beltz.de/fileadmin/beltz/leseproben/978-3-621-27926-0.pdf (picture 2.2, German)   

https://www.thewonderweeks.com/babys-mental-leaps-first-year/ (week 26)

So visual depth you have without much learning - or with other priming steps ahead of that; I understand these are well researched). What is left is the vertical component, and I guess that it comes from the vestibular system. Looking down + visual depths = height trigger. 

It is funny that you mention the need to grasp something, and maybe that is the hard-wired cue: Close the hand. 

Yeah, I'd be pretty surprised if there's any demographic slice who actually demand "phase" when "faze" is correct. The correlation between "bothers to have an opinion on correctness of others' writing" and "knows what the correct answer actually is" seems too high.

It's a little unfortunate, because I do think there might be an important point here, but the OP's choice of example makes it harder for me to see. (Of course, it's possible I'm just wrong, which would be interesting in its own right.)

Hey, I want to come as well. Perhaps I'll form a second group with @smallsilo and @khushjammu at the same time and place? 

It is great for holding discussions when there are more people involved in a decision. 

As for the calculation, can you help me spot the mistake? I can't find it!

$(0.000004\ast 619.994)+(0.999996\ast 600)=.002479976+599.976=599.98$

Few quick examples:

Why is it “out of curiosity” and not “out of the curiosity”?

Why “see in context” and not “see in the context”? (See the button below this form)

Why “hide previous comment” and not “hide the previous comment”? (See the button above this form)

I read studies (seriously, it's super time-consuming!) and consider the best evidence available. Because of the lag introduced by studies, sometimes hearsay is enough to put in a guesstimate. It's interesting to play around with the values, however, and see what magnitude change in a single one would lead to a change in the ultimate decision. Sometimes you find out it doesn't make a difference, and more precise information would be irrelevant, so you can move on.

It's hard, and I find that I need to update my models every now and then. Practice makes better.

the revelations of this revolution might be terrifying

You seem to be implying that they will be terrifying for the exact opposite reasons why the previous epistemic revolution's philosophical implications were. Only this time, even more so; imagine an epistemically-induced emotional state where your only option is to force feed yourself some Schopenhauer to help mellow you out until you can acclimate to what you just learned. And it almost wasn't enough. 

I am fully committed to keep digging into this mine of Khazad-dum

If an infohazard warning doesn't at least give you second thoughts, then you haven't actually internalized the concept. Lesser infohazards have the additional danger of jading you to future infohazards that will be infinitely more powerful. The opportunity to practice acute epistemic abstinence is quickly running out.

Imagine TAI is magically not coming ... Of course, in the real world, TAI is coming.

Technological Singularity might be the least interesting one of the coming conjunction of singularities.