0 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by sweenesm · 2024-02-25T12:42:11.005Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thanks for the post. It might be helpful to add some headings/subheadings throughout, plus a summary at the top, so people can quickly extract from it what they might be most interested in.
Replies from: x-o↑ comment by X O (x-o) · 2024-02-25T18:51:38.544Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I wrote a shorter article in the beginning which was rejected. Hence the detail. I do not know how to make headings for this. The title says it all, no?
I am trying to present the scope of my learning to get to how I got to currency as the driver. Should I take that out? Should I be completely analytical and just say the currency type is the driver, this is what it should be, and that's it? But then I get people asking for more depth, and so I write this. Is the story of how I got here uninteresting? My aim was to validate myself to readers that I am not in a box, that getting to currency, and the type, took a lot of understanding culture creation, etc. If I take that out, I will get other judgements of what I miss, etc. Isn't it more pertinent to look at the argument presented?
Did anything interest you, anyway? Does the argument make sense? Should I take out my personal story of architecture?
Everyone wants me to write a different way, and I do, to be told t write a different way, but isn't it more important to address the subject mater?
You are welcome to read alternative versions of my work at my Medium address https://bit.ly/3SAmlWj, if you like. What I really am looking for are people to act on what I am proposing, but it seems I have a score of -21, which seems unprecedented, and no one is understanding what I am proposing, and just missing the point. Ah, well. I tried.
Replies from: sweenesm↑ comment by sweenesm · 2024-02-25T19:59:56.762Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I only skimmed the work - I think it's hard to expect people to read this much without knowing if the "payoff" will be worth it. For adding headings, you can select the text of a heading and a little tool bar should pop up that says "Paragraph" on the left - if you click on the down arrow next to it, you can select Heading 1, Heading 2, etc. The text editor will automatically make a table of contents off to the left of your post based on this.
For summing up your post, maybe you could try popping it into ChatGPT and asking it to summarize it for you? Personally, in a summary I'd want to know quickly what "changing our currency type" entails (changing to what, exactly?), why you think it's critical (how is it going to "empower the greater good" while other things won't), and what you mean by "greater good."
Hope this helps!
Replies from: x-o, x-o↑ comment by X O (x-o) · 2024-03-03T17:58:05.713Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I added some headings, but I am not sure they help. I thought it would maker more sense to establish myself that would then establish how I got to a solution outside of usury. So once I am cleared to write a shorter version, I will. But, man, more than -30 karma? Because I am telling people to read instead of jumping to conclusions? With the first thing I post? I was told LessWrong has a high standard of content, so I made a point of doing that, well, thought I was, by building the big picture, the whole story, to get to why, what, how. But I don't have the best solutions. What could AI Achieve, with the framework presented, given that I know, and what I am trying to let you all know, that a neutral currency is critical for any empowered change to really happen. Let's use AI to see what it would come up with.
I didn't expect the article to be this long, but the initial, much shorter article was rejected because the moderators said I was muddled. So, OK, here I the big picture, establishing the whole argument. What will happen with the shorter article I write is I'll get questions to explain more. And so I go round in circles. That is why I left a link to what I wrote on Medium, to give other options. I am doing the best I can to explain something that is really outside what we accept as currency. BX is not for those that aren't interested sustainable change. We have to start somewhere. Who on Earth has heard of a neutral currency, ye?
If people want to disrespect innovation in the sustainable space, that is their problem. I just didn't; expect the vitriol here. That's entitled ignorance talking. Exactly who I want to avoid, but really didn't expect it here.
Replies from: sweenesm↑ comment by sweenesm · 2024-03-03T22:41:19.944Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thanks for adding the headings and TL;DR.
I wouldn't say my own posts have been particularly well-received on LW so far, but I try to look at this as a learning experience - perhaps you can, too, for your posts?
When I was in grad school, my advisor took the red pen to anything I wrote and tore it apart - it made me a better writer. Perhaps consider taking a course on clear technical writing (such as on udemy.com), or finding tips on YouTube or elsewhere on the web, and then practicing them, perhaps with ChatGPT's help? Becoming a more clear and concise writer can be useful both for getting one's views across and crystallizing one's own thinking.
↑ comment by X O (x-o) · 2024-02-25T22:44:00.165Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
OK. I will work on the headings, but I just tried to edit it and it seems I can't because I have less than -2 karma. I am -22 now. So much vitriol. I wrote the shorter article and Jacob said it was muddled, so I wrote the full version to get to how I got to know it is the currency type.
BTW, I did write a comment article that sumarises this about 2-3 weeks ago. I don't think anyone read that. Feel free to search for it, if you like.
I am not able to write anything now for a week, so I will do ask you suggest then. I appreciate the feedback, but wow ... -22 karma!? well, I did say this was going to be a big ride to understand WHY it is only through changing the currency type to a neutral one will humanity be able to create sustainable excellence. That is what I mean by the greater good. I explain that in the article, if anyone actually read it. It seems not. I knew this would be tough, but we got to start somewhere.
Thanks so much for the suggestions. Will do once I am able to. :)
comment by Dagon · 2024-02-26T06:33:43.287Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm less hopeful than sweenesm seems to be. I doubt that reformatting or reorganizaing with section headers will reveal a useful thesis or reasonable points of debate/discussion. I can't tell if there's a coherent model in there somewhere, or if it's just crazed ranting, because the inferential distance from normal LessWrong posts is quite a bit too much for me to decode it.
One example - you seem quite against "usury", but the definition is unclear and maybe encompasses all of currency and trade. Or just parts that you don't like? I really don't know, and the text gives weird fictional examples that don't seem believable to me, and don't show the boundaries of your ideas nor anything about how to transition from current ideas.
edit: I'm sorry this is harsh. I wanted to explain my downvote, and to try to warn you that the suggestions of the only other commenter may not be sufficient to make it clear enough to engage well on LessWrong.
Replies from: Richard_Kennaway, x-o, x-o, x-o↑ comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2024-02-26T20:10:40.983Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
For a version without the crazed ranting, or a lot less of it, try his post on Medium here. I can't be sure that it makes more sense, as the writer, there and here, has a truckload of concepts that he is too impatient to bother explaining. It's a stream of consciousness, not an argument.
His posting here is basically that Medium article, topped with an intro of crazed ranting and tailed with a plea for AI people to get involved. It's not clear to me what AI has to do with it. Neither it is clear to me how I would obtain a loaf of bread under his system.
Replies from: x-o↑ comment by X O (x-o) · 2024-02-29T20:29:43.472Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I am not crazed ranting. I am giving a logical argument for why changing the currency type is essential for any substantiative change. It is your problem if you can''t see that. It's an hour long read. If I was ranting, would you not think I would be more in your face? And I do not point to one article. I point to my site give you alternate options to read different ways I have tried to explain the point, some shorter articles, some longer. But all point to the value of creating sustainably based on excellence, not ethics.
Your last line says it all. You are a stupid idiot with no foresight who can't see passed what you want today. So this is not for your consideration. You are too small. For you to even say 'crazed ranting' twice just shows how fucking stupid you are. Mindless. Are you voting for Trump? I am just checking ... because you sure as hell can't comprehend anything, even if you read, which is unlikely.
I wrote on this LW because, I had hoped, to reach some truly intelligent people who are interested in solving solutions for the greater good. I came here because Connor Leahy was truly worried about AI taking over humanity, and i gave an argument for a solution outside what sadly has been realised as your blinkered way of thinking. J know that the moderators do want effective content on this platform. My initial passionate 'rant', if you want to call it that, was rejected, and so I made a more formidable argument.
But saying I am telling you to go to an 'article' on Medium is stupid. You didn't check. You don' think. You are just proved that in spite of all the access to knowledge you all have, or could have, which it seems you don't have, otherwise you wouldn't be this dumb, you thank I am just peddling something. Why would I bother doing that here for? And you wonder what AI has to do with changing the world for the greater good? You stupid idiot.
Just make sure you get white bread. Anything else for you would just be wasted. You stupid fucking mindless coward. Cowards, because all you seem to be pathetic. My mistake.
↑ comment by X O (x-o) · 2024-02-26T17:45:47.371Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Every time I read this comment, I can't believe the entitled ignorant stupidity of it. I did not say I am a genius. I gave perceived scenarios as I see it in transitioning, but offered how AI may see options. I am doing my best. Empty ignorant critique is useless,, no? I did explain the transition, if you read. You are in your tiny boxes for how to use AI for the greater good, those that care about that at least, with Connor Leahy going nuts over Ai overtaking the world, but with what framework, and can we change it? We won't, can't change the framework without changing the currency type. We got to start somewhere. If you don't find it believable, that's fine, but you don't understand BX, do you, so how the fck can you find any of the scenarios believable, even as a stepping stone to make them better? So, thanks, but you need to think first, no? But we reached your limit. So move along. Nothing to see here. Have a nice day.
↑ comment by X O (x-o) · 2024-02-26T17:17:08.499Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You should read it. I define what usury is. Any cost on currency. I can't disagree on parts of usury. that is stupid, would you not think? I am not ranting. yes, what I am writing is outside what is usually on Les Wrong, but do you want to be in little boxes or think outside it? Your automatic judgement of thinking of my article as an object misses the point. How on Earth could you think I could be so stupid as to think it is only parts of usury I do not like?
Man, if you do not know to read it, forget it. I couldn't care less if you want to judge and not think. Jesus, I got -22 karma! Fck, I had no idea all you people would so closed minded. it is incredible. Obviously al you AI gurus aren't using AI to expands your minds. Therein lies the problem.
Your limitation if you don't want to understand it.
What do I mean by usury and if I don't like parts of it. What a fucking dumb thing to even say. Read, or go somewhere else. I am not here to be stupid, nor deal with stupidity.
For all the knowledge you all have access to, you all sure as hell are fucking stupid.
'By the way, I define usury in its original meaning: that it is any cost on currency, not the updated definition of an exorbitant cost on currency.'
Did you miss that? Read. Don't like parts of usury? It's all usury, ao how the fuck could not like just parts of it? What a fucking dumb thing to say.
The entitled dumbness just seems endless ...