Screwtape's Shortform

post by Screwtape · 2023-04-28T03:17:14.764Z · LW · GW · 7 comments

7 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Screwtape · 2024-03-10T23:20:12.068Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

A bullet point from an unsorted list of complaints I have against the English language. (And I think most languages.)

  • "I think" is an annoying extra three syllables, and should be stuck on the front of almost everything I saw. "[I think] we have apples at home." "[I think] we take a left turn here." This adds a lot of extra clunk to talking properly with rationalists where I want to be careful and precise in my speech. Proposal: That the normal and unmodified sentence assumes the "I think" and you instead prefix "It is a fact" or something similar when you're making a stronger claim.
Replies from: Screwtape, Screwtape, Screwtape
comment by Screwtape · 2024-03-22T17:32:57.728Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
  • English is liberal and ambiguous with possessives. "My hat" is fine, "my spouse" I guess works but I'd rather not, "my country" seems wrong to me. I have all the decision making authority for the hat, I have next to none about the country. Proposal: that there are different words denoting "ownership of" and "associated with."
comment by Screwtape · 2024-03-15T21:37:25.396Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
  • "Listened to" has an interesting ambiguity in English. Consider the sentence "I listen to the people" or "Me and George don't think you're listening to us." It can mean "heard the words of." I listened to a radio talk show on how to fix a car's broken fan belt. It can mean "done what those words said." I listened to my theatre director's coaching on where to stand during the show. Proposal: Two short phrases which mean one of those two things, and no short phrases that are ambiguous. 
comment by Screwtape · 2024-03-11T03:28:52.823Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
  • "will" is supposedly supposed to be interpreted as a statement of fact, but colloquially isn't especially when it's a contraction. "I'll grab eggs from the store later tonight" is not normally read as a deep and abiding commitment to obtain eggs come hell or high water, but that's sort of what a literal reading of the sentence should mean? Proposal: That the contraction form of "will" indicate an intention or light commitment.
Replies from: shankar-sivarajan
comment by Shankar Sivarajan (shankar-sivarajan) · 2024-03-11T05:32:21.227Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

This problem is because most have stopped using the word "shall." 

comment by Screwtape · 2024-04-02T01:56:15.816Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Usage of ChatGPT/Dall-E I did not think about until I had the idea to try it- in the middle of a tabletop RPG session, pulling out my phone, describing the scene in a couple of quick sentences, and then showing the phone and the resulting picture to the players without breaking my pacing.

Anyway, the current results of music AI make me suspicious the next time I play a bard I might be able to come up with new songs mid session.

comment by Screwtape · 2023-04-28T03:17:15.050Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

When I've tried to do rationality practice, (as distinct from skills practice) a lot of the time what I do is set up toy problems and try to solve them. Essentially this is like trying to learn to ice skate by strapping on skates, wandering onto the ice, and falling over a lot while figuring things out. I try and pay attention to how I'm solving the problem and deliberately try different things (randomly jumping around in thought space instead of just hill climbing) ideally to find things that work better than what I'd been doing. 

A number of my Meetups In A Box follow this pattern. Skill Acquisition is the most blatant, but Calibration Trivia, The Falling Drill, and Puzzle Cycles are doing the same thing. Here's a challenge that's trying to require a particular skill, keep trying and failing and trying and failing and in theory gradually you'll get better. 

One of the important missing pieces is more teaching of the skill. This came to mind when Raemon posted Tuning Your Cognitive Strategies and reminded me of his comment on Puzzle Cycles suggesting that (paraphrasing) he'd be interested in the combination. Going back to the ice skating example, I learned to ice skate in part by watching other people ice skate and with some people who were good at it showing me the motions slowly and then watching me do it and pointing out my mistakes. I haven't posted this variation because I'm not confident I know how to write it in a way that's better than "Read this article. Now do these puzzles. Anything clicking for you?"

Teaching how to think is harder than teaching how to move in some ways, particularly in that it's harder to watch and observe exactly what's going wrong. 

(Tangent: I'm tempted to suggest that a useful skill while learning is verbalizing what's going on in your head and saying it out loud, because that gives a hypothetical teacher a window to spot this kind of thing. Verbalizing what's going on in your head might or might not be useful apart from learning, but having ever taught cognitive subskills (math, card evaluation, programming) getting people to talk through the problem out loud and in detail is helpful for noticing what mistake they're actually making in a way that I could visually see if I was teaching martial arts.)

Teachers are also harder to scale than challenges. I could mail a copy of Zendo to every meetup. I can't mail a CFAR instructor to every meetup. (Yet, growth mindset.) I. . . can hypothetically mail a copy of Tuning Your Cognitive Strategies to every meetup, which tries to walk someone through the skill by written instruction. 

There's something I really want to exist between written instructions on the skills and challenges for the skills. I think instructions and challenges are together greater than the sum of their parts.