abstractapplic's Shortform

post by abstractapplic · 2024-09-15T16:44:20.274Z · LW · GW · 8 comments

Contents

8 comments

8 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by abstractapplic · 2024-12-01T02:17:37.965Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Has some government or random billionaire sought out Petrov's heirs and made sure none of them have to work again if they don't want to? It seems like an obviously sensible thing to do from a game-theoretic point of view.

Replies from: caleb-withers-1, Erich_Grunewald
↑ comment by Erich_Grunewald · 2024-12-01T16:48:20.105Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

It seems like an obviously sensible thing to do from a game-theoretic point of view.

Hmm, seems highly contingent on how well-known the gift would be? And even if potential future Petrovs are vaguely aware that this happened to Petrov's heirs, it's not clear that it would be an important factor when they make key decisions, if anything it would probably feel pretty speculative/distant as a possible positive consequence of doing the right thing. Especially if those future decisions are not directly analogous to Petrov's, such that it's not clear whether it's the same category. But yeah, mainly I just suspect this type of thing to not get enough attention that it ends up shifting important decisions in the future? Interesting idea, though -- upvoted.

comment by abstractapplic · 2024-12-20T01:05:26.439Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

"What important truth do you believe, which most people don't?"

"I don't think I possess any rare important truths."

Replies from: CstineSublime
↑ comment by CstineSublime · 2024-12-20T02:31:32.781Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

How could we test the inverse? How do we test if others believe in rare important truths? Because obviously if they are rare, then that implies that either we don't share them, therefore do not believe they are truthful or important.
"Mel believes in the Law of Attraction, he believes it is very important even though it's a load of hooey"

I suppose there are "Known-Unknowns" and things which we know are significant but kept secret (i.e. Google Pagerank Algorithm, in 2008 the 'appetite' for debt in European Bond Markets was a very important belief and those who believed the right level avoided disaster), we believe there is something to believe, but don't know what the sin-qua-non belief is. 
 

comment by abstractapplic · 2024-11-01T16:37:58.575Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I should probably get into the habit of splitting my comments up. I keep making multiple assertions in a single response, which means when people add (dis)agreement votes I have no idea which part(s) they're (dis)agreeing with.

comment by abstractapplic · 2024-09-15T16:44:20.711Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I used to implicitly believe that when I have a new idea for a creative(/creative-adjacent) project, all else being equal, I should add it to the end of my to-do list (FIFO). I now explicitly believe the opposite: that the fresher an idea is, the sooner I should get started making it a reality (LIFO). This way:

  • I get to use the burst of inspired-by-a-new-idea energy on the project in question.
  • I spend more time working on projects conceived by a me with whom I have a lot in common.

The downsides are:

  • Some old ideas will end up near the bottom of the pile until I die or the Singularity happens. (But concepts are cheaper than execution, and time is finite.)
  • I get less time to polish ideas in my head before committing pen to paper. (But maybe that's good?)

Thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Replies from: WayZ
↑ comment by simeon_c (WayZ) · 2024-09-15T17:13:42.638Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Personally I use a mix of heuristics based on how important the new idea is, how rapid it is and how painful it will be to execute it in the future once the excitement dies down.

The more ADHD you are and the more the "burst of inspired-by-a-new-idea energy" effect is strong, so that should count.