benwr's unpolished thoughts

post by benwr · 2019-07-29T02:18:14.366Z · score: 5 (2 votes) · LW · GW · 24 comments

(this is my shortform post)

24 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by benwr · 2019-07-29T02:18:14.631Z · score: 13 (5 votes) · LW · GW

A while ago, Duncan Sabien wrote a Facebook post about a thing he called "aliveness", and presented it on a single spectrum with something called "chillness". At the time I felt that aliveness seemed sort of like obviously-the-good-one, and like I was obviously-bad-for-being-more-chill, and I felt sad because I think there were a lot of pressures when I was younger to optimize for chillness.

But recently I've been in a couple of scenarios that have changed my views on this. I now think that aliveness and chillness aren't quite opposite ends of the same axis in person space. It seems instead like they're anticorrelated features of a given person in a given situation, and many people live their lives with a nearly-fixed level of each. But there are also people who can control their levels of aliveness or chillness, as the situation demands.

And it isn't the case that chillness is worse. I think it is much, much easier to coordinate large groups of chill people than not-chill people. I think that these people can also definitely be "alive" in the relevant way.

My intuitive feeling is that this ability to control your chillness and aliveness is strongly related to "leadership qualities". And, at least for me, noticing that these might not be opposite ends of a fixed spectrum makes me feel a lot more hopeful about the possibility to grow in aliveness-capability.

comment by benwr · 2019-08-05T22:59:51.770Z · score: 12 (6 votes) · LW · GW

As long as I'm using shortform posts to make feature requests, it would be really useful to me to have access to a feed (of shortform posts, normal posts, or both) where I could select which users I see. Right now I come to LessWrong and have a hard time deciding which posts I care about - lots of people here have lots of interests and lots of different standards for content quality, some of which I find actively annoying. Allowing me to build feeds from custom lists of selected users would let me filter by both shared interests and how valuable I typically find those users' posts. I don't think "who is in my custom feed" should be public like it is on Facebook, but Facebook circa 2012 gave me a lot of control over this via friend lists, and I miss the days when that feature was prioritized.

I also like the way lobste.rs solves this problem for some users, although I think the solution above would be better for me personally: every post comes with a selection from a group of site-wide tags, and users can filter their home page based on which tags they want to see.

comment by habryka (habryka4) · 2019-08-06T02:58:36.210Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I have some hesitations about this. The biggest one is that I do want to avoid LessWrong just becoming a collection of filter-bubbles in the way Tumblr or Reddit or Facebook is, and do think there is a lot of value from having people with disagreeing perspectives share the same space.

I think I am not opposed to people building feeds, but I would want to make sure that there is still a way to reach those users with at least the most important content. I.e. at least make sure that everyone sees the curated posts or something like that.

comment by Dagon · 2019-08-06T16:33:13.878Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I'm loving the shortform feature, and I'd appreciate enhancements to help me find those which I'd read before but have active comment threads, and I'd certainly like a "watch" feature for posts, comment trees, and shortform topics. I don't want (I'm not sure if I object, or just would not use) person-based feeds or filters. There are some posters I default to reading and most that I read based on topic, but I prefer to bias toward the latter.

comment by habryka (habryka4) · 2019-08-06T18:22:25.071Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

The shortform page is currently sorted by last-commented-on so that one should help you find active comment threads reasonably well.

comment by Dagon · 2019-08-06T23:18:04.729Z · score: 7 (3 votes) · LW · GW

That's helpful, I hadn't looked at that page, I generally just look at /daily, and sometimes at the main page for recommendations and recently curated.

comment by benwr · 2019-07-29T02:20:51.283Z · score: 10 (6 votes) · LW · GW

I really think LessWrong would benefit by giving users avatars. I think this would make the site much more visually appealing, but I also think it would vastly decrease the cognitive load required to read threaded conversations.

comment by benwr · 2019-07-31T18:02:23.191Z · score: 6 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Edit: I don't retract this comment but I should have rephrased it and posted it as a reply to this comment [LW · GW]

I also note that avatars could use tricks to solve various constraints I'm imagining the LessWrong team might want to impose.

For example, if you think avatars might make the comments section too visually interesting you could render them in greyscale, or with muted colors. And if you think they might lead to people playing weird games with their avatars (I don't think this is likely, but I can imagine someone worrying about it), you could let users choose from a small collection of acceptable-to-you, auto-generated images based on a hash of their username.

comment by habryka (habryka4) · 2019-07-31T18:29:26.557Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I originally designed LW with avatars, but couldn’t find a good compromise between avatars and high density of comment sections (they add a bunch of vertical height that means all comments need to either have more top margin or have a much deeper indent).

I am generally open to avatars and might want to give it another shot sometime.

comment by Raemon · 2019-07-31T18:42:46.689Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I'd expected you to also be wary of them giving the site a distinctly casual feel, and/or less aesthetically harmonious feel (neither of which are necessarily wrong, but are definitely choices). Do those feel relevant to you?

comment by habryka (habryka4) · 2019-07-31T19:44:18.483Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I was thinking of customly generated avatars that are aesthetically consistent with the site (similar to how Google creates avatars based on your initials, or gives you cool animals if you are a guest)

comment by benwr · 2019-07-31T18:55:50.298Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Interesting, good to know. I'm curious if you considered doing something like lobste.rs, where the avatar is next to the username and the same height as the text.

comment by habryka (habryka4) · 2019-07-31T19:45:12.060Z · score: 9 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Yeah, that was the kind of thing I was thinking about. Lobste.rs' was one inspiration I had for something that did it reasonably well.

comment by Hazard · 2019-07-29T15:25:52.444Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I'd also find it waaaay easier to track conversations and build models of "who is who" with avatars. A guess I have that hasn't been verified is that a lot of people on LW might be opposed from a "people would start to use their avatars for signalling purposes" angle. I'd be open to hearing more of that side, but currently I think I'd be for avatars.

comment by benwr · 2019-07-31T18:05:58.226Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I should have posted this comment [LW · GW] here and rephrased it, sorry:

I also note that avatars could use tricks to solve various constraints I'm imagining the LessWrong team might want to impose.

For example, if you think avatars might make the comments section too visually interesting you could render them in greyscale, or with muted colors. And if you think they might lead to people playing weird games with their avatars (I don't think this is likely, but I can imagine someone worrying about it), you could let users choose from a small collection of acceptable-to-you, auto-generated images based on a hash of their username.

comment by Hazard · 2019-07-31T19:15:37.000Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

np, yeah that small amount of brainstorming from you has updated me to "even if we don't do [pick whatever image you want] there's still probs a way to get the visual stickyness".

I'd also be super interested in the results of a study on ability to recall/track individuals in a thread with their head-shots vs autogen images.


comment by FactorialCode · 2019-08-01T20:49:03.819Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I actually like the fact that I don't immediately know who is speaking to who in a thread. I feel like it prevents me from immediately biasing my judgment of what a person is saying before they say it.

comment by benwr · 2019-08-31T00:20:40.511Z · score: 9 (6 votes) · LW · GW

There should really be a system that does what WebMD tried to do, but actually does it well.

You'd put in your symptoms and background info (e.g. what country you live in, your age), it would ask you clarifying questions ("how bad is the pain from 1 to 10?" "which of these patterns is most like the rash?" "Do you have a family history of heart disease?") and then it would give you a posterior distribution over possible conditions, and a guess about whether you should go to the emergency room or whatever.

Is this just much harder than I'm imagining it would be? It seems like the kind of thing where you could harvest likelihood ratios and put them all into a big database. Is there some regulatory thing where you can't practically offer this service because it's illegal to give medical advice or something?

comment by eigen · 2019-08-31T00:51:54.767Z · score: 1 (5 votes) · LW · GW

Assuming that you actually get it to work and that you provide, at best, mediocre diagnostic (which is already really difficult to make), this is a regulatory nightmare and a plain hazardous tool to exist.

I'd even say that people cannot make decisions based on statistics (I doubt that most can even differentiate between anecdotal advice and scientific evidence) that's why physicians make these decisions for them and if ever a tool is allowed it would only be available for physicians.

For anyone interested in making this sort of tool, the enthusiasm doesn't last a day or two after talking to a lawyer for a few minutes!


comment by benwr · 2019-08-31T20:07:16.227Z · score: 11 (5 votes) · LW · GW

One friend pointed out that you might be able to avoid some of the pitfalls by releasing something like an open source desktop application that requires you to feed it a database of information. Then you could build databases like this in lots of different ways, including anonymous ones or crowdsourced ones. And in this case it might become a lot harder to claim that the creator of the application is liable for anything. I might actually want to talk to a lawyer about this kind of thing, if the lawyer was willing to put on a sort of "engineering" mindset to help me figure out how you might make this happen without getting sued. So if you know anyone like that, I'd be pretty interested

comment by benwr · 2019-09-08T18:06:46.040Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Doom circles seem hard to do outside of CFAR workshops: If I just pick the ~7 people who I most want to be in my doom circle, this might be the best doom circle for me, but it won't be the best doom circle for them, since they will mostly not know each other very well.

So you might think that doing doom "circles" one-on-one would be best. But doom circles also have a sort of ceremony / spacing / high-cost-ness to them that cuts the other way: More people means more "weight" or something. And there are probably other considerations determining the optimal size.

So if you wanted to have a not-at-the-end-of-a-workshop doom circle, should you find the largest clique with some minimum relationship strength in your social graph?

comment by jimrandomh · 2019-09-10T00:11:35.857Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I'm not sure relationship-strength on a single axis is quite the right factor. At the end of a workshop, the participants don't have that much familiarity, if you measure it by hours spent talking; but those hours will tend to have been focused on the sort of information that makes a Doom circle work, ie, people's life strategies and the things they're struggling with. If I naively tried to gather a group with strong relationship-strength, I expect many of the people I invited would find out that they didn't know each other as well as they thought they did.

comment by benwr · 2019-09-07T00:56:55.934Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Yet another Shortform-as-feature-request:

Notifications and/or RSS feeds from particular posts' comments / answers.

This would be especially useful for Questions and Shortform posts (sometimes tellingly mis-labeled "shortform feeds"), both of which are things where one particular post has a collection of related comments, and which gather content over time.

I currently subscribe to the front page in Feedly, and whenever someone asks a question that I find interesting I mentally cringe because I know that I'll have to remind myself to check back (and I probably will never actually check back).

I guess I could come up with some custom Zapier / IFTTT system for this if I spent a few hours on it, but I suspect this would be generally useful functionality.

comment by Raemon · 2019-09-07T01:13:44.227Z · score: 10 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Yup, this is in the works right now.