LessWrong 2.0 Reader
View: New · Old · TopRestrict date range: Today · This week · This month · Last three months · This year · All time
next page (older posts) →
next page (older posts) →
The thing I'm arguing in the OP is that there can't be an experiential difference here, because there's no physical difference that could be underlying the supposed experiential difference.
Is there even anybody claiming there is an experiential difference? It seems you may attacking a strawman.
So the disagreement about the first-person facts, I claim, stems from a cognitive error
The alternative to this is that there is a disagreement about the appropriate semantic interpretation/analysis of the question. E.g. about what we mean when we say "I will (not) experience such and such". That seems more charitable than hypothesizing beliefs in "ghosts" or "magic".
gwern on I measure Google's MusicLM over 3 months as it appears to go from jaw-dropping to embarrassingly repeating itselfAny updates on this? For example, I notice that the new music services like Suno & Udio seem to be betraying a bit of mode collapse, but they certainly do not degenerate into such within-song repetition like these were.
quinn-dougherty on Quinn's Shortformtim-liptrot on Building Blocks of Politics: An Overview of Selectorate TheoryHe had become so caught up in building sentences that he had almost forgotten the barbaric days when thinking was like a splash of color landing on a page.
Those redditors have pretty weak arguments. The first comment is basically "the other academics all agree with the popular claim that Gilley is criticizing, so the popular claim must be true". The second guy basically states "Gilley correctly argues that Hoschild's evidence for a population decline is too weak. But if the evidence is bad, Gilley can't prove there was a genocide. Therefore Gilley is wrong".
neil-warren on Neil Warren's ShortformFHI at Oxford
by Nick Bostrom (recently turned into song [LW · GW]):
the big creaky wheel
a thousand years to turn
thousand meetings, thousand emails, thousand rules
to keep things from changing
and heaven forbid
the setting of a precedent
yet in this magisterial inefficiency
there are spaces and hiding places
for fragile weeds to bloom
and maybe bear some singular fruit
like the FHI, a misfit prodigy
daytime a tweedy don
at dark a superhero
flying off into the night
cape a-fluttering
to intercept villains and stop catastrophes
and why not base it here?
our spandex costumes
blend in with the scholarly gowns
our unusual proclivities
are shielded from ridicule
where mortar boards are still in vogue
Update #1
Lots of info to share! Here's a bunch of awesome people confirmed as coming.
Eliezer Yudkowsky | The Sequences [? · GW] | HPMOR | Project Lawful |
Scott Alexander | SlateStarCodex | Astral Codex Ten | UNSONG |
Zvi Mowshowitz | The Zvi | Don't Worry About The Vase |
Alexander Wales | Worth the Candle | Alexander Wales |
Kevin Simler | Melting Asphalt | The Elephant in the Brain |
Katja Grace | World Spirit Sock Puppet | AI Impacts |
Sarah Constantin | Rough Diamonds |
Martin Sustrik | 250bpm | LW [LW · GW] |
Duncan Sabien | Homo Sabiens | r!Animorphs |
John Wentworth | LW [LW · GW] |
Abram Demski | LW [LW · GW] |
Alicorn | Alicorn | LW [LW · GW] |
Jacob Falkovich | PutANumOnIt | LW [LW · GW] |
Zack Davis | LW [LW · GW] |
Daystar Eld | Daystar Eld |
GeneSmith | LW [LW · GW] |
Ozy Brennan | Thing of Things |
Two sessions I'm personally quite excited to go to are Sarah Constantin's "My First Fact Post" and Alicorn's "My First GlowFic" (I want to try to do both of these things!).
raemon on Eli's shortform feedlol at the approval/agreement ratio here. It does seem like this is a post that surely gets something wrong.
benito on LessOnline Updates ThreadQuestions Thread
benito on LessOnline Updates ThreadThinking Thread
eggsyntax on Creating unrestricted AI Agents with Command R+That said, while I do think it's important to ensure that the public is aware of both current and future risks, unilaterally pointing the media in the direction of potentially sensationalizable individual studies is probably not the best way to go about that. In retrospect my suggestion to consider that was itself ill-considered, and I retract it.