LessWrong 2.0 Reader

It sounds pretty unrealistic, but what goes wrong?

Have you ever seen a chemical factory explode?

We live in a world where we are surrounded by multiple fail deadly systems, and multiple critical failure systems. There is too much we depend on to be able to viably step away from the controls.

If we are to do anything radical I would suggest the inverse of the quarantine strategy. Amp up our hospital systems to the highest degree possible and then give people full right to walk around freely. Then we take our 0.3-0.5% mortality (and god knows what complication rate) on the chin and get the hell on with our lives.

(Cleaned up some formatting, like adding a blockquote and adding some proper dividers as opposed to three "*" symbols)

That has little to do with strategy.

I couldn't disagree more. I think I will need you to clarify for me what you believe strategy is.

It doesn't do anything to help the person who thinks that they will learn to become a good comedian by watching Garfield and Friends.

If you are making fundamental attribution errors then that's a bigger problem than finding something to build strategic skills with.

Garfield and Friends is not comedy, it is existential tranquilisers. You consume it to keep your mind from thinking thoughts you don't want, and feeling emotions you don't want to feel. Slapping a fake label saying comedy on it is a deliberate contribution to that end. Nobody (well, I might) is going to consume media called look at this boring crap and inch closer to your death.

Strategy is about chosing the short-term goals based on the long-term goals. 

If that is your (or part of your) definition of strategy then I make no such distinction between the timeframes and durations of strategy. Strategy is about how you're going to get what you want, especially in the face of opposition, period. You might make a different strategic choice based on short or long terms, but that's no less an application of strategy, merely a change in focus as to where the payoff will be collected.

Most of my own strategy is built around creating systems. I want defaults so that I don't have to consciously analyse and micromanage every single situation. Systems have to work adequately in all time frames.

If you are playing a game you don't have that. 

I only need to open my steam library to find games I've played for longer than many other activities I've done. My biggest time sink has 245 days of playtime (because it's easy to play, but hard to win). Plenty of my regulars have 250 hours or more.

I play with my cat every day, multiple times a day, because play is training the cat as to what is acceptable behaviour and what isn't. Operant conditioning is a game, and for the cat to 'win' it has to fulfil the victory conditions. I win by setting up victory conditions that suit me. 

Is now a good time to mention that operant conditioning works on people? Sometimes getting your way is simply a matter of getting out your bag of kibble and giving out a bite when the person does the preferred action. The really fun part is that people can be completely conscious of operant conditioning being used on them and it still works. It's a simple game structure that arguably determines a vast majority of our society. Do you work for money? Congratulations, you're living in a Skinner box.

You don't nail strategy on the first go, nor do you nail strategy every single time. There's always a need for training and practice. Most people don't do that deliberately, and most people have quite a bit of intuitive understanding of social strategy at the least. I have done a lot of the former because I have little of the latter. I am suggesting games not as some sort of be all and end all, but as a low cost, low effort entry point into deliberate consideration of strategy.

Eliezer's post on motivated stopping [LW · GW] contains this line:

Who can argue against gathering more evidence? I can. Evidence is often costly, and worse, slow, and there is certainly nothing virtuous about refusing to integrate the evidence you already have. You can always change your mind later."

This is often not true, though, for example with regard to whether or not it's ethical to have kids. So how to make these sorts of decisions?

I don't have a good answer for this. I sort of think that there are certain superhuman forces or drives that "win out." The drive to win, to pursue curiosity, to achieve goals, to speak and use your intelligence and influence to sway other people. The force of natural selection. Entropy.

The limit, maybe, of a person is to align themselves with the drives and forces that they have faith in. I think we might eventually come up with a good account that explains that everything is just politics in the end, including philosophy and ethics, and figure out a way perhaps to reconcile this perspective with the feeling that we need to be able to appeal to something timeless and beyond human affairs.

👍

Congratulations on your first LessWrong post! :) (Well, almost first)

As a piece of feedback, I will note that I found the "Rosenberg's crux" section pretty hard to read, because it was quite dense. 

I feel like if I would've have read the original letter exchange, I could then have turned to this post, and gone "a-ha!" In other words, it felt like a useful summary, but didn't give me the original generators/models, such that I could pass the intellectual Turing test of what Dennett and Rosenberg actually believe. 

By comparison, I think the section on the "cryptographer's constraint" was clearer; since it was more focused on elaborating on a particular principle and why it was important, along with considering some concrete examples more in depth. 

I play Catan with friends and family and we add a few extra mechanics: development has to begin on the outer edge of the island and roads are required to move further inwards, soldier cards can be used (up) to take over an adjacent player's village/city that you're connected to and fewer soldier cards can be used to defend as well with frequency limits based on how many road tiles the soldiers need to travel, political trading where paying another player to not develop certain areas in exchange for profit-free trade agreements, using each other's ports, payment, etc. Largest Army and Longest Road trophies can be traded away or lost. Robber takes over the resource spot until moved providing a resource income to the robber player. These mechanisms make Catan very deep and more fluid for every player.

We also play Monopoly with a "laborhours" mechanism along with money. It costs laborhours to build those properties based on the printed monetary value of that property/house/hotel, and players can use their own laborhours, or purchase laborhours from other players to build your property. But you only get a set amount of laborhours until you pass Go where at that point they reset back, rather than add up even more. You can also increase your reset point of laborhours by using them up for "training". We used to use cards to keep track of how many laborhours everyone got, but now we use little analog clocks for each player and move their hands to keep track. Properties degrade over time though and need to be worked on every cycle to upkeep them and maintain their high rents. We use rice grains to keep track of degradation. The rice grains are also used to keep track of how much food each player has. Every time a player passed Go, they lose some of their food, which needs to be bought. If the player runs out of food, they lose. Players are also free to enter into their own co-ops together or buy membership into corporations, to share their properties and development/upkeep costs. It's fun seeing players devolve into drama arguing about which player should spend their laborhours on upkeep lol. 

That was an exciting graph! However, the labeling would be more consistent if it were steam engines, piston engines, and turbine engines OR stationary, ship/barge, train, automobile, and aircraft (I assume you mean airplanes and helicopters and you excluded rockets).

I think this is the best proto-plan.

1. Taking 9 days (Saturday - following Sunday) off from all out-of-house activities every other month would let the exponential growth re-set from thousands back to dozens.
2. A ban on large gatherings (20+ people) all the time (entertainment events, full capacity meat processing, church, etc.)
3. Compensating employers for the forced time off
4. Extended and enhanced unemployment benefits, since there won't be much hiring.
5. Whatever mask/sanitization/mosquito killing makes sense for the transmission mechanism.

(Alright, breaking my own rule; we'll see how it goes.)

Eliezer already wrote a post on this, so no one should bother writing anything about the same topic that does not add anything new to Eliezer’s post, or do anything to result in changing one’s conclusion from that described in Eliezer’s post. This post does not (indeed, it would be quite difficult to write anything that does).

I guess I don't have much to say to this, as I disagree with your judgement here that there's no value in saying the same things in a new way even if nothing new is added, although I also disagree of course that I don't add anything. Sometimes saying the same thing in a different way clicks for someone when it didn't click [LW · GW] for someone else because not everyone has literally the same mind. Cf. Anna Salamon on learning soft skills [LW · GW] and the project of distillation [? · GW].

My point is precisely that conundrums of epistemology, and epistemological questions in general, are motivated by pragmatic things or else by nothing.

This is literally also one of my main points, so I guess we at least agree on something.

I do not think there is any “problem of the criterion”, except in a way such as is already addressed to the maximum possible degree of satisfaction by the linked Sequence post. Hence no “conundrum” exists.

Sure, but I'm not satisfied with his post, hence I think there is more to say, though you obviously disagree.

Thus I'm left struggling to figure out a charitable motivation for your comments. That is, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here other than you are annoyed I wrote something you didn't want to read since I already agree with pragmatism, linked and highlighted your preferred Yudkowsky article on this topic, and we otherwise agree that there is something going on to be addressed regarding grounding problems.