Counterfactuals are an Answer, Not a Question 2019-09-03T15:36:39.622Z · score: 13 (10 votes)
Chris_Leong's Shortform 2019-08-21T10:02:01.907Z · score: 7 (1 votes)
Emotions are not beliefs 2019-08-07T06:27:49.812Z · score: 26 (9 votes)
Arguments for the existence of qualia 2019-07-28T10:52:42.997Z · score: -2 (17 votes)
Against Excessive Apologising 2019-07-19T15:00:34.272Z · score: 7 (5 votes)
How does one get invited to the alignment forum? 2019-06-23T09:39:20.042Z · score: 17 (7 votes)
Should rationality be a movement? 2019-06-20T23:09:10.555Z · score: 53 (22 votes)
What kind of thing is logic in an ontological sense? 2019-06-12T22:28:47.443Z · score: 13 (4 votes)
Dissolving the zombie argument 2019-06-10T04:54:54.716Z · score: 1 (5 votes)
Visiting the Bay Area from 17-30 June 2019-06-07T02:40:03.668Z · score: 18 (4 votes)
Narcissism vs. social signalling 2019-05-12T03:26:31.552Z · score: 15 (7 votes)
Natural Structures and Definitions 2019-05-01T00:05:35.698Z · score: 21 (8 votes)
Liar Paradox Revisited 2019-04-17T23:02:45.875Z · score: 11 (3 votes)
Agent Foundation Foundations and the Rocket Alignment Problem 2019-04-09T11:33:46.925Z · score: 13 (5 votes)
Would solving logical counterfactuals solve anthropics? 2019-04-05T11:08:19.834Z · score: 23 (-2 votes)
Is there a difference between uncertainty over your utility function and uncertainty over outcomes? 2019-03-18T18:41:38.246Z · score: 15 (4 votes)
Deconfusing Logical Counterfactuals 2019-01-30T15:13:41.436Z · score: 26 (9 votes)
Is Agent Simulates Predictor a "fair" problem? 2019-01-24T13:18:13.745Z · score: 22 (6 votes)
Debate AI and the Decision to Release an AI 2019-01-17T14:36:53.512Z · score: 10 (4 votes)
Which approach is most promising for aligned AGI? 2019-01-08T02:19:50.278Z · score: 6 (2 votes)
On Abstract Systems 2019-01-06T23:41:52.563Z · score: 15 (9 votes)
On Disingenuity 2018-12-26T17:08:47.138Z · score: 33 (16 votes)
Best arguments against worrying about AI risk? 2018-12-23T14:57:09.905Z · score: 15 (7 votes)
What are some concrete problems about logical counterfactuals? 2018-12-16T10:20:26.618Z · score: 26 (6 votes)
An Extensive Categorisation of Infinite Paradoxes 2018-12-13T18:36:53.972Z · score: -2 (23 votes)
No option to report spam 2018-12-03T13:40:58.514Z · score: 38 (14 votes)
Summary: Surreal Decisions 2018-11-27T14:15:07.342Z · score: 27 (6 votes)
Suggestion: New material shouldn't be released too fast 2018-11-21T16:39:19.495Z · score: 24 (8 votes)
The Inspection Paradox is Everywhere 2018-11-15T10:55:43.654Z · score: 26 (7 votes)
One Doubt About Timeless Decision Theories 2018-10-22T01:39:57.302Z · score: 15 (7 votes)
Formal vs. Effective Pre-Commitment 2018-08-27T12:04:53.268Z · score: 9 (4 votes)
Decision Theory with F@#!ed-Up Reference Classes 2018-08-22T10:10:52.170Z · score: 10 (3 votes)
Logical Counterfactuals & the Cooperation Game 2018-08-14T14:00:34.032Z · score: 17 (7 votes)
A Short Note on UDT 2018-08-08T13:27:12.349Z · score: 11 (4 votes)
Counterfactuals for Perfect Predictors 2018-08-06T12:24:49.624Z · score: 13 (5 votes)
Anthropics: A Short Note on the Fission Riddle 2018-07-28T04:14:44.737Z · score: 12 (5 votes)
The Evil Genie Puzzle 2018-07-25T06:12:53.598Z · score: 21 (8 votes)
Let's Discuss Functional Decision Theory 2018-07-23T07:24:47.559Z · score: 30 (14 votes)
The Psychology Of Resolute Agents 2018-07-20T05:42:09.427Z · score: 11 (4 votes)
Newcomb's Problem In One Paragraph 2018-07-10T07:10:17.321Z · score: 8 (4 votes)
The Prediction Problem: A Variant on Newcomb's 2018-07-04T07:40:21.872Z · score: 28 (8 votes)
What is the threshold for "Hide Low Karma"? 2018-07-01T00:24:40.838Z · score: 8 (2 votes)
The Beauty and the Prince 2018-06-26T13:10:29.889Z · score: 9 (3 votes)
Anthropics: Where does Less Wrong lie? 2018-06-22T10:27:16.592Z · score: 17 (4 votes)
Sleeping Beauty Not Resolved 2018-06-19T04:46:29.204Z · score: 18 (7 votes)
In Defense of Ambiguous Problems 2018-06-17T07:40:58.551Z · score: 8 (6 votes)
Merging accounts 2018-06-16T00:45:00.460Z · score: 6 (1 votes)
Resolving the Dr Evil Problem 2018-06-10T11:56:09.549Z · score: 11 (4 votes)
Principled vs. Pragmatic Morality 2018-05-29T04:31:04.620Z · score: 22 (4 votes)
Decoupling vs Contextualising Norms 2018-05-14T22:44:51.705Z · score: 130 (40 votes)


Comment by chris_leong on Chris_Leong's Shortform · 2019-09-12T02:25:22.918Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Yep, fiction

Comment by chris_leong on Chris_Leong's Shortform · 2019-09-11T23:25:14.215Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Book Review: The Rosie Project:

Plot summary: After a disastrous series of dates, autistic genetics professor Don Tilman decides that it’d be easier to just create a survey to eliminate all of the women who would be unsuitable for him. Soon after, he meets a barmaid called Rosie who is looking for help with finding out who her father is. Don agrees to help her, but over the course of the project Don finds himself increasingly attracted to her, even though the survey suggests that he is completely unsuitable. The story is narrated in Don’s voice. He tells us all about his social mishaps, while also providing some extremely straight-shooting observations on society

Should I read this?: If you’re on the fence, I recommend listening to a couple of minutes as the tone is remarkably consistent throughout, but without becoming stale

My thoughts: I found it to be very humorous. but without making fun of Don. We hear the story from his perspective and he manages to be a very sympathetic character. The romance manages to be relatively believable since Don manages to establish himself as having many attractive qualities despite his limited social sills. However, I couldn’t believe that he’d think of Rosie as “the most beautiful woman in the world”; that kind of romantic idealisation is just too inconsistent with his character. His ability to learn skills quickly also stretched credibility, but it felt more believable after he dramatically failed during one instance. I felt that Don’s character development was solid; I did think that he’d struggle more to change his schedule after keeping it rigid for so long, but that wasn’t a major issue for me. I appreciated that by the end he had made significant growth (less strict on his expectations for a partner, not sticking so rigidly to a schedule, being more accomodating of other people’s faults), but he was still largely himself.

Comment by chris_leong on Chris_Leong's Shortform · 2019-09-10T00:13:46.243Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Thanks, I'll think about it. I invested more effort in this one, but for some of the others I was optimising for speed

Comment by chris_leong on Chris_Leong's Shortform · 2019-09-09T11:52:34.177Z · score: 15 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Book Review: So Good They Can't Ignore You by Cal Newport:

This book makes an interesting contrast to The 4 Hour Workweek. Tim Ferris seems to believe that the purpose of work should be to make as much money as possible in the least amount of time and that meaning can then be pursued during your newly available free time. Tim gives you some productivity tips in the hope that it will make you valuable enough to negotiate flexibility in terms of how, when and where you complete your work, plus some dirty tricks as well.

Cal Newport's book is similar in that it focuses on becoming valuable enough to negotiate a job that you'll love and downplays the importance of pursuing your passions in your career. However, while Tim extolls the virtues of being a digital nomad, Cal Newport emphasises self-determination theory and autonomy, competence and relatedness. That is, the freedom to decide how you pursue your work, the satisfaction of doing a good job and the pleasure of working with people who you feel connected to. He argues that these traits are rare and valuable and so that if you want such a job you'll need skills that rare and valuable to offer in return.

That's the core of his argument against pre-existing passion; passions tend to cluster into a few fields such as music, arts or sports and only a very few people can ever make these the basis of their careers. Even for those who are interested in less insanely competitive pursuits such as becoming a yoga instructor or organic farmer, he cautions against pursuing the dream of just quitting your job one day. That would involve throwing away all of the career capital that you've accumulated and hence your negotiating power. Further, it can easily lead to restlessness, that is, jumping from career to career all the while searching for the "one" that meets an impossibly high bar.

Here are some examples of the kind of path he endorses:

  • Someone becoming an organic farmer after ten years of growing and selling food on the side, starting in high school. Lest this been seen as a confirmation of the passion hypothesis, this was initially just to make some money
  • A software tester making her way up to the head of testing to the point where she could demand that she reduce her hours to thirty per week and study philosophy
  • A marketer who gained such a strong reputation that he was able to form his own sub-agency within the bigger agency and then eventually form his own completely independent operation

Cal makes a very strong argument. When comparing pursuing a passion to more prosaic career paths, we often underestimate how fulfilling the later might eventually become if we work hard and use our accumulated career capital to negotiate the things that we truly want. This viewpoint resonates with me as I left software to study philosophy and psychology, without fully exploring options related to software. I now have a job that I really enjoy as it offers me a lot of freedom and flexibility.

One of the more compelling examples is Cal's analysis of Steve Jobs. We tend to think of Job's success as a prototypical case of following your passion, but his life shows otherwise. Jobs' entry into technology (working for Atari) was based upon the promise of a quick buck. He'd been traversing around India and needed a real job. Jobs was then involved in a timesharing company, but he left for a commune without telling the others and was replaced by the time he made it back. So merely a year before he started Apple, he was hardly passionate about technology or entrepreneurship. This seems to have only occurred as he became more successful.

This is prototypical of Cal's theory: instead of leveraging passion to become So Good They Can't Ignore You (TM), he believes that if you become So Good They Can't Ignore You (TM) that passion will follow. In evidence, Cal notes that people often passionate about many different things at different times, including things they definitely weren't passionate about before. He suggests this is indicative of our ability to develop passions under the right circumstances.

Personally, I feel that the best approach will vary hugely depending on individual circumstance, but I suspect Cal is sadly right for most people. Nonetheless, Cal provides lists three exceptions. A job or career path is not suitable for his strategy if there aren't opportunities to distinguish yourself, it is pointless or harmful to society or if it requires you to work with people you hate.

Towards the end of the book, Cal focuses on strategies for becoming good at what you do. While this section wasn't bad, I didn't find it particularly compelling either. I wish I'd just read the start of the book which covers his case against focusing on pre-existing passion, as that was by far the most insightful and original part of the book for me. Perhaps the most interesting aspect was how he found spending 14 hours of focused attention deconstructing a key paper in his field to have been a valuable use of time. I was surprised to hear that it paid off in terms of research opportunities, but I suppose it isn't so implausible that such projects could pay off if you picked an especially important paper.

Further notes:
- If you are going to only read this or Four Hour Workweek, I'd suggest this one to most people. I feel that this one is less likely to be harmful and is applicable to a broader range of people, many who won't immediately have the career capital to follow Tim's advice. On the other hand, Tim's book might be more useful if, unlike me, you don't need to be convinced of Cal's thesis.
- Cal points out that if you become valuable enough to negotiate more freedom, then you also become valuable enough that people will want to stop you. The challenge is figuring out whether you have sufficient career capital to overcome this resistance. Cal suggest not pursuing control without evidence people are willing to pay you either in money or with something else valuable; I find his position reductive and insufficiently justified.
- Cal believes that it is important to have a mission for your career, but that it is hard to pick a mission without already being deep inside a field. He notes that discoveries are often made independently and theorises that this is because often a discovery isn't likely or even possible until certain prerequisites are in place, such as ideas, technologies or social needs. It's only when you are at the frontier that you have sufficient knowledge to see and understand the next logical developments

Comment by chris_leong on Counterfactuals are an Answer, Not a Question · 2019-09-07T07:45:23.541Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Hopefully I tie up my old job soon so that I can dive deeper into Agent Foundations, including your sequence on CDT=EDT.

Anyway, I'm slightly confused by your comment, because I get the impression you think there is more divergence between our ideas than I think exists. When you talk about it being constructed rather than real, it's very similar to what i meant when I (briefly) noted that some definitions are more natural than others (

It's on this basis that I argue raw counterfactuals are particularly important, as opposed to before when I was arguing that all other definitions of counterfactuals need to be justified in terms of them.

Anyway, the next step for me will probably be to look at the notions of counterfactual that exist and try to see which ones, if any, aren't ultimately relying on raw counterfactuals to justify their value.

"counterfacting on what you actually did should yield what actually happened" - what do you mean by this? I can think of one definition where this is pretty much trivial and another where it is essentially circular

Comment by chris_leong on Chris_Leong's Shortform · 2019-09-06T01:51:01.841Z · score: 12 (6 votes) · LW · GW

Book Review: The 4 Hour Workweek

This is the kind of book that you either love or hate. I found value in it, but I can definitely understand the perspective of the haters. First off: the title. It's probably one of the most blatant cases of over-promising that I've ever seen. Secondly, he's kind of a jerk. A number of his tips involve lying and in school he had a strategy of interrogating his lecturers in detail when they gave him a bad mark so that they'd think very carefully assigning him a bad grade. And of course, while drop-shipping might have been an underexploited strategy at the time when he wrote the book, it's now something of a saturated market.

On the plus side, Tim is very good at giving you specific advice. To give you the flavour, he advises the following policies for running an online store: avoid international orders, no expedited or overnight shipping, two options only - standard and premium; no cheque or Western union, no phone number if possible, minimum wholesale order with tax id and faxed in order form, ect. Tim is extremely process oriented and it's clear that he has deep expertise here and is able to share it unusually well. I found it fascinating to see how he thought even though I don't have any intention of going into this space.

This book covers a few different things:
- Firstly, he explains why you should aim to have control over when and where you work. Much of this is about cost, but it's also about the ability to go on adventures, develop new skills and meet people you wouldn't normally meet. He makes a good case and hopefully I can confirm whether it is as amazing as he says soon enough
- Tim's philosophy of work is that you should try to find a way of living the life you want to live now. He's not into long-term plans that, in his words, require you to sacrifice the best years of your life in order to obtain freedom later. He makes a good point for those with enough career capital to make it work, but it's bad advice for many other who decide to just jump on the travel blogging or drop-shipping train without realistic expectations of how hard it is to make it in those industries
- Tim's productivity advice focuses on ruthlessly (and I mean ruthlessly) minimising what he does to the most critical by applying the 80/20 rule. For example, he says that you should have a todo list and a not todo list. He says that your todo list shouldn't have more than two items and you should ask yourself, "If this was the only thing I accomplished today, would I be satisfied?".
- A large part of minimising your work involves delegating these tasks to other people and Tim goes into detail about how to do this. He is a big fan of virtual assistants, to the point ofc even delegating his email.
- Lots of this book is business advice. Unlike most businesses, Tim isn't optimising for making the most money, but for making enough money to support his lifestyle while taking up the least amount of his time. I suspect that this would be great advice for many people who already own a business
- Tim also talks about how to figure out what to do with your spare time if you manage to obtain freedom. He advises chasing excitement instead of happiness. He finds happiness too vague, while excitement will motivation you to grow and develop. He suggests that it is fine to go wild at first, jumping from place to place, chasing whatever experiences you want, but at some point it'll lose it's appeal and you'll want to find something more meaningful.

I'd recommend this book, but only to people with a healthy sense of skepticism. There's lots of good advice in this book, but think very carefully before you become drop-shipper #2001. And remember that you don't have to become a jerk just because he tells you to! That said, it's not all about drop-shipping. A much wider variety of people probably could find a way to work remotely or reduce their hours than we normally think, although it might require some hard work to get there. In so far as the goal is to optimise for your own happiness, I generally agree with his idea of the good life.

Further highlights:
- Doing the unrealistic is easier than doing the realistic as there is less competition
- Leverage strengths, instead of fixing weakness. Multiplication of results beats incremental improvement
- Define your nightmare. Would it really be permanent? How could you get it back on track? What are the benefits of the more probable outcome?
- We encourage children to dream and adults to be realistic

Comment by chris_leong on Chris_Leong's Shortform · 2019-09-03T10:31:58.108Z · score: 14 (6 votes) · LW · GW

Book Review: Civilization and its discontents

Freud is the most famous psychologist of all time and although many of his theories are now discredited or seem wildly implausible, I thought it'd be interesting to listen to him to try and understand why it sounded plausible in the first place.

At times Freud is insightful and engaging; at other times, he falls into psychoanalytic lingo in such a way that I couldn't follow what he was trying to say. I suppose I can see why people might have assumed that the fault was with their failure to understand.

It's a short read, so if you're curious, there isn't that much cost to going ahead and reading it, but this is one of those rare cases where you can really understand the core of what he was getting at from the summary on Wikipedia (

Since Wikipedia has a summary, I'll just add a few small remarks. This book focuses on a key paradox; our utter dependence on it for anything more than the most basic survival; but how it requires us to repress our own wants and desires so as to fit in with an ordered society. I find this to be an interesting answer to the question of why there is so much misery despite our material prosperity.

It's interesting to re-examine this in light of the modern context. Society is much more liberal than it was in Freud's time, but in recent years people have become more scared of speaking their minds. Repression still exists, it is just off a different form. If Freud is to be believed, we should expect this repression to result in all kinds of be psychological effects, many of which won't appear linked on the surface.

Further thoughts:
- I liked his chapter on methods humans deal suffering and their limitations as it contained what seemed to be found evaluations. He points out that that the path of a yogi is at best the happiness of quietness, that love cannot be guaranteed to last, that sublimation through art is available only to a few and is even then only of limited strength, ect. He just didn't think there was any good solution to this problem.
- Freud was sceptical of theories like communism because he didn't believe that human nature could really change. He argued that aggression existed in the nursery and before the existence of property. He didn't doubt that we could suppress urges, but he seemed to believe that it was much more costly than other people realised, and even then that it would likely come out in some other form
- Freud proposed his theory of the Narcissism of Small Differences, that the people who we hate most not those with values completely foreign to our own, but this who we are in close proximity to. He describes this as a form of narcissism since these conflicts can flare up over the most minor of differences.
- Freud suggested that those who struggled the most with temptation were saints, since their self-denial led to the constant frustration of their desires
- Freud noted how absurd, " Love your neighbour as yourself" would sound to someone hearing it for the first time. He imagines that we'd skepticalky ask questions, "Why should I care about them just as much as my family?" and "Why should I love them if they are bad people or don't love me?". He actually goes further and argues that "a love that does not discriminate does injustice to its object"

Comment by chris_leong on Probability as Minimal Map · 2019-09-02T11:00:43.029Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I hope that I'm not becoming that annoying person who redirects every conversation towards their own pet theory even when its of minimal relevance, but I think there are some very strong links here with my theory of logical counterfactuals as forgetting or erasing information (

In fact, I wasn't quite aware of how strong these similarities were before I read this post. Both probabilities* and logical counterfactuals don't intrinsically exist in the universe; instead they seem to draw their existence from our epistemic situation. Zoom into the universe enough everything is deterministic and there is only one thing that an agent ever could have chosen; zoom out and there are multiple possibilities.

I'm currently writing a post where I'll argue that logical counterfactuals are an answer and not a question and I think this applies to probability too. Both exist in the map and not in the territory; this means that they are human created terms that exist for human purposes. Arguing what they are or aren't in the abstract indicates confusion; instead, we need to choose a purpose (or question) and then we can choose to notion appropriate to that. This is part of why these notions come apart with questions like Sleeping Beauty and Counterfactual Mugging.

*Okay, it kind of does under some theories of quantum mechanics, but lots of the discussion of probability uses probability to deal with a lack of complete knowledge as opposed to intrinsically existing uncertainty, which is of a different kind and can't be explained by quantum mechanics

Comment by chris_leong on Troll Bridge · 2019-09-01T13:29:56.879Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I'm finding some of the text in the comic slightly hard to read.

Comment by chris_leong on Formalising decision theory is hard · 2019-08-30T13:55:26.949Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I'm pretty confident in my forgetting approach to logical counterfactuals, though I've sadly been too busy the last few months to pick it up again. I haven't quite formalised it yet - I'm planning to try to collect all the toy problems and I think it'll likely drop out fairly quickly that there are a few distinct, but closely related notions of logical counterfactual. Anyway, I think I've finally figured out how to more precisely state my claim that we ought to build upon consistent counterfactuals.

Comment by chris_leong on Formalising decision theory is hard · 2019-08-30T13:48:27.980Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Utilising a model that assumes we can decouple is different from assuming we can decouple. For example, calculus assumes that space is infinitely divisible, but using a formula derived from calculus to calculate the volume of a sphere doesn't require you to assume space is infinitely divisible. It just has to work as an approximation.

Comment by chris_leong on Chris_Leong's Shortform · 2019-08-30T09:30:14.283Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I think I spent more time writing this than reading the book, as I find reviewing fiction much more difficult. I strongly recommend this book: it doesn't take very long to read, but you may spend much longer trying to figure out what to make of it.

Book Review: The Stranger by Camus (Contains spoilers)

I've been wanting to read some existentialist writing for a while and it seemed reasonable to start with a short book like this one. The story is about a man who kills a man for what seems to be no real reason at all and who is then subsequently arrested and must come to terms with his fate. It grapples with issues such as the meaning of life, the inevitability of death and the expectations of society.

This book that works perfectly as an audio-book because it's written in the first person and its a stream of consciousness. In particular, you can just let the thoughts wash over you then pass away, in a way that you can't with a physical book.

This book starts with the death of Mersault's mother and his resulting indifference. Mersault almost entirely lacks any direction or purpose in life - not caring about opportunities at work, Salamano abusing his dog or whether or not he marries Marie. Not much of a hint is given at his detachment, except him noting that he had a lot of ambition as a young man, but gave up on such dreams when he had to give up his education.

Despite his complete disillusionment, it's not that he cares about nothing at all. Without optimism, he has no reason to plan for the future. Instead, he focuses almost exclusively on the moment - being friends with Raymond because he has no reason not to, being with Marie because she brings him pleasure in the present, more tragically, shooting the Arab for flashing the sun in his eyes with a knife.

In my interpretation, Mersault never formed a strong intent to kill him, but just drifted into it. He didn’t plan to have the gun with him, but simply took it to stop Raymond acting rashly. He hadn’t planned to create a confrontation; he just returned to the beach to cool off, then assumed that the Arab was far enough away to avoid any issues. When the Arab pulled out his knife, it must have seemed natural to pull out his gun. Then, with the heat clouding his judgement, his in-the-moment desire to make the situation go away; and his complete detachment from caring, he ends up killing a man when he didn’t need to as he was still far away. Then after he’s fired the first shot, he likely felt like he’d made his choice and that there was then nothing left to do but fire the next four.

While detachment involves no optimism in the emotional sense, in terms of logic it isn’t entirely pessimistic. After all, someone who is detached by their lack of care assumes that things cannot become significantly worse. Mersault falls victim to this trap and in the end it costs him dearly. This occurs not just when he shoots the Arab, but throughout the legal process where he shows what seems like a stunning naivety, completely unaware of what he has to lose until he is pretty much told he is to be executed.

I found his trial to be one of the most engaging parts of the book. A man is dead, but the circumstances relating to this death are almost tangential to the whole thing. Instead, the trial focuses much more on tangential factors such as whether he had felt a sufficient amount of grief for his mother and his association with a known low-life Raymond. This passage felt like a true illustration of human nature; in particular our tendency to fit everything into a particular narrative and also how “justice” can often end up being more about our disgust at the perpetrator as a person than about what they’ve done. Mersault undoubtedly deserves punishment for pulling the trigger early, but the trial he was given was a clear miscarriage of justice.

This book does a good job of illustrating the absurdity of life. How much of our daily lives are trivial, the contradictions in much of human behaviour, the irrationality of many of our social expectations and how our potential sources of meaning fail to be fundamentally meaningful. But then how also how we can find meaning in things that are meaningless.

Indeed, it is only his imprisonment that really makes him value life outside and it is only his impending execution that makes him value life itself. He survives prison by drawing pleasure from simple things, like seeing what tie his defence later will wear and that his happiness does not have to be constrained by his unfortunate circumstances. Mersault ultimately realises that he has to make his own purpose, instead of just expecting it to be out there in the universe.

Further thoughts: One of the most striking sub-plots in this book is that of Salamano and his dog. Salamano is constantly abusing his dog and complaining about how bad it's behaviour is, but when the dog runs away, Salamano despairs about what will happen to him now that he no longer has the dog. This is a perfect example of just how absurd human actions can be both generally and particularly when we are in denial about our true feelings.

Comment by chris_leong on Chris_Leong's Shortform · 2019-08-27T14:24:29.096Z · score: 13 (7 votes) · LW · GW

I really like the short-form feature because after I have articulated a thought my head feels much clearer. I suppose that I could have tried just writing it down in a journal or something; but for some reason I don't feel quite the same effect unless I post it publicly.

Comment by chris_leong on How does one get invited to the alignment forum? · 2019-08-27T13:53:58.853Z · score: 5 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I just got approved for the Alignment Forum. I don't suppose you could explain why I was approved? I had others ask me about what gets someone approved.

Comment by chris_leong on Chris_Leong's Shortform · 2019-08-27T06:08:24.923Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I used to find the discussion of free will interesting before I learned it was just people talking past each other. Same with "light is both a wave and a particle" until I understood that it just meant that sometimes the wave model is a good approximation and other times the particle model is. Debates about morality can be interesting, but much less so if you are a utilitarian or non-realist.

Comment by chris_leong on Chris_Leong's Shortform · 2019-08-27T04:35:31.951Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

The sad thing about philosophy is that as your answers become clearer, the questions become less mysterious and awe-inspiring. It's easy to assume that an imposing question must have an impressive answer, but sometimes the truth is just simple and unimpressive and we miss this because we didn't evolve for this kind of abstract reasoning.

Comment by chris_leong on Chris_Leong's Shortform · 2019-08-26T22:45:39.941Z · score: 14 (4 votes) · LW · GW

This is the first classic that I’m reviewing. One of the challenges with figuring out which classics to read is that there are always people speaking very highly of it and in a vague enough manner that it makes it hard for you to decide whether to read it. Hopefully I can avoid this trap.

Book Review: Animal Farm

You probably already know the story. In a thinly veiled critique of the Russian Revolution, the animals in a farm decide to revolt against the farmer and run the the farm themselves. At start, the seven principles of Animalism are idealistically declared, but as time goes on, things increasingly seem to head downhill…

Why is this a classic?: This book was released at a time when the intellectual class was firmly sympathetic to the Soviets, ensuring controversy and then immortality when history proved it right.

Why you might want to read this: Short (only 112 pages or 3:11 on Audible), the story always moves along at a brisk pace, the writing is engaging and a few very emotionally impactful moments. The broader message of being wary of the promises made by idealistic movements still holds (especially "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"). This book does a good job illustrating many of the social dynamics that occur in totalitarianism, from the rewriting of history, to the false confessions, to the the cult of the individual.

Why you might not want to read this: The concrete anti-Soviet message is of little relevance now given that what happened is common knowledge. You can probably already guess how the story goes: the movement has a promising start, but with small red flags that become bigger over time. The animals are constantly unrealistically naive, maybe this strikes you as clumsy, or maybe you see that just as how satire is?

Comment by chris_leong on Chris_Leong's Shortform · 2019-08-26T22:45:19.994Z · score: 14 (5 votes) · LW · GW

Wow, I've really been flying through books recently. Just thought I should mention that I'm looking for recommendations for audio books; bonus points for books that are short. Anyway....

Book Review: Zero to One

Peter Thiel is the most famous contrarian in Silicon Valley. I really enjoyed hearing someone argue against the common wisdom of the valley. Most people think in terms of beating the competition; Thiel thinks in terms of establishing a monopoly so that there is no competition. Agile methodology and the lean startup are all the rage, but Thiel argues that this only leads to incremental improvements and that truly changing the world requires you to commit to a vision. Most companies was to disrupt your competitors, but for Thiel this means that you've fallen into competition, instead of forging your own unique path. Most venture funds aim to diversify, but Thiel is more selective, only investing in companies that have billion dollar potential. Many startups spurn marketing, but Thiel argues that this is dishonest and that PR is also a form of marketing, even if that isn't anyone's job title. Everyone is betting on AI replacing humans, while Thiel is more optimistic about human/ai teams.

Some elaboration is in order, I'll just mention that might prefer to read the review on Slatestarcodex instead of mine (…/…/31/book-review-zero-to-one/)
• Aren't monopolies bad? Thiel argues that monopoly power is what allows a corporation to survive the brutal world of competing to survive. This means that it can pay employees well, have social values other than making profit and invest in the future. Read Scott's review for a discussion on how to build a company that truly is one of a kind.
• Thiel argues that monopolies try to hide that fact by presenting themselves as just one player in a larger industry (ie. Google presents itself as a tech company, instead of an internet advertising company, even that this aspect brings in essentially all the money), while those firms competing try to present themselves as having cornered an overly specific market (ie. isn't clear that British food in Palo Alto is its own market as opposed to competing against all the other food chains)
• In addition to splitting people into optimists and pessimists, Thiel splits people into define and indefinite. You might think that a "definite optimist" would be someone who is an optimist and 100% certain the future will go well, but what he actually means is that they are an optimist and they have an idea of what the future will look like or could like like. In contrast, an indefinite optimist would be an optimist who has no idea how exactly the world might improve or could change.
• Thiel argues that startup returns are distributed according to a power law such that half of the return from a portfolio might be just one company. He applies it to life too; arguing that it's better to set yourself up so that they'll be one career that you'll be amazing at, rather than studying generally so that there'll be a dozen that you'd be only okay at.
• While many in the valley believe in just building a product and figuring out how to sell it later, Thiel argues that you don't have a product if you don't have a way of reaching customers

I'm not involved in startups, so I can't vouch for how good his advice is, but given that caveat, I'd strongly recommend it for anyone thinking of going into that space since it's always good to have your views challenged. But, I'd also recommend it as a general read, I think that there's a lot that'd be interesting for a general audience, especially the argument against acquired a broad undifferentiated experience. I do think that in order to get the most out of this, you'd need to already be familiar with startup culture; ie. minimum viable products, the lean startup, ect. as he kind of assumes that you know this stuff.

So should you read the book or just Scott's review? The main aspect Scott misses is the discussion of power law distributions. This discussion is basically the Pareto Principle on steroids; when a single billion-dollar company could make your more profit than the rest of your investments combined all that matters is whether a company could be a unicorn or not (the essay Prospecting for Gold makes a similar point for EA…/prospecting-for-gold-o…/) But besides from that, Scott's review covers most of the main ideas well. So maybe you could skip the book, but if you're like me you might find that you need to read the book in order to actually remember these ideas. Besides, it's concise and well-written.

Comment by chris_leong on Chris_Leong's Shortform · 2019-08-23T21:54:37.755Z · score: 17 (5 votes) · LW · GW

As I said before, I'll be posting book reviews. Please let me know if you have any questions and I'll answer them to the best of my ability.

Book Review: The AI does not hate you by Tom Chivers

The title of this book comes from a quote by Elizier Yudkowsky which reads in full: "The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made of atoms which it can use of something else". This book covers not only potential risks from AI, but the rationalist community from which this evolved and also touches on the effective altruism movement.

This book fills something of a gap in the book market; when people are first learning about existential risks from AI I usually recommend the two-part Wait by Why post ( and then I'm not really sure what to recommend next. The sequences are ridiculously long and Bostrom's Superintelligence is a challenging read for those not steeped in philosophy and computer science. In contrast, this book is much more accessible and provides the right level of detail for a first introduction, rather than someone who has already decided to try entering the field.

I mostly listened to this book to see if I could recommend it. Most of the material was familiar, but I was also pleasantly surprised a few times to hear a new take (at least to me). It was engaging and well-written throughout. Regarding what's covered: there's an excellent introduction to the alignment problem; the discussion of Less Wrong mostly focuses on cognitive biases, but also covers a few other key concepts like the Map and Territory and Bayesianism; the Center for Applied Rationality is mostly reduced to just double crux; Slatestarcodex is often quoted, but not a focus; and Effective Altruism isn't the focus, but there's a good general introduction. I also thought he dealt well with someone of the common criticisms of the community.

Even though there are notable omissions, these are understandable given the need to keep the book to a reasonable length. And it could have been possible to more fully capture the flavour of the community, but given how hard it is to describe the essence of a community with such broad interests, I think he did an admirable job. All in all, this is an excellent introduction to the topic if you've been hearing about AI Safety or Less Wrong and want to dive in more

Comment by chris_leong on The Curious Prisoner Puzzle · 2019-08-22T22:50:23.927Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

"Somewhere in Rationality, there's a post about this." - do you have any idea where such a post is?

Comment by chris_leong on G Gordon Worley III's Shortform · 2019-08-22T00:05:02.729Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I agree with KaJ Solata and Viliam that episteme is underweighted in Buddhism, but thanks for explicating that world view

Comment by chris_leong on Chris_Leong's Shortform · 2019-08-21T23:45:18.337Z · score: 6 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I'm going to start writing up short book reviews as I know from past experience that it's very easy to read a book and then come out a few years later with absolutely no knowledge of what was learned.

Book Review: Everything is F*cked: A Book About Hope

To be honest, the main reason why I read this book was because I had enjoyed his first and second books (Models and The Subtle Art of Not Giving A F*ck) and so I was willing to take a risk. There were definitely some interesting ideas here, but I'd already received many of these through other sources: Harrari, Buddhism, talks on Nietzsche, summaries of The True Believer; so I didn't gain as much from this as I'd hoped.

It's fascinating how a number of thinkers have recently converged on the lack of meaning within modern society. Yuval Harrari argues that modernity has essentially been a deal sacrificing meaning for power. He believes that the lack of meaning could eventually lead to societal breakdown and for this reason he argued that we need to embrace shared narratives that aren't strictly true (religion without gods if you will; he personally follows Buddhism). Jordan Peterson also worries about a lack of meaning, but seeks to "revive God" as someone kind of metaphorical entity.

Mark Manson is much more skeptical, but his book does start asking similar lines. He tells the story of gaining meaning from his grandfather's death by trying to make him proud although this was kind of silly as they hadn't been particularly close or even talked recently. Nonetheless, he felt that this sense of purpose had made him a better person and improved his ability to achieve his goals. Mark argues that we can't draw motivation from our thinking brain and that we need these kinds of narratives to reach our emotional brain instead.

However, he argues that there's also a downside to hope. People who are dissatisfied with their lives can easily fall prey to ideological movements which promise a better future, especially when they feel a need for hope. In other words, there is both good and bad hope. It isn't especially clear what the difference is in the book, but he explained to me in an email that his main concern was how movements cause people to detach from reality.

His solution is to embrace Nietzsche concept of Amor Fati - that is a love of one's fate whatever it may be. Even though this is also a narrative itself, he believes that it isn't so harmful as unlike other "religions" it doesn't require us to detach from reality. My main takeaway was his framing of the need for hope as risky. Hope is normally assumed to be good; now I'm less likely to make this assumption.

It was fascinating to see how he put his own tact on this issue and it certainly isn't a bad book, but there just wasn't enough new content for me. Maybe others who haven't been exposed to some of these ideas will be more enthused, but I've read his blog so most of the content wasn't novel to me.

Further thoughts: After reading the story of his Grandfather, I honestly was expecting him to to propose avoiding sourcing our hope from big all-encapsulating narratives in favour of micro-narratives, but he didn't end up going this direction.

Comment by chris_leong on Chris_Leong's Shortform · 2019-08-21T10:02:02.203Z · score: 11 (7 votes) · LW · GW

One thing I'm finding quite surprising about shortform is how long some of these posts are. It seems that many people are using this feature to indicate that they've just written up these ideas quickly in the hope that the feedback is less harsh. This seems valuable; the feedback here can be incredibly harsh at times and I don't doubt that this has discouraged many people from posting.

Comment by chris_leong on Matthew Barnett's Shortform · 2019-08-20T14:38:23.308Z · score: 1 (2 votes) · LW · GW

It's a strong argument, but there are strong arguments on the other side as well.

Comment by chris_leong on Buck's Shortform · 2019-08-18T14:48:57.381Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Thanks for posting this. After looking, I'm definitely tempted.

Comment by chris_leong on Matthew Barnett's Shortform · 2019-08-16T23:52:38.184Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I'm trying to find a balance here. I think that there has to be a direct enough relation to a problem that you're trying to solve to prevent the task expanding to the point where it takes forever, but you also have to be willing to engage in exploration

Comment by chris_leong on AI Alignment Open Thread August 2019 · 2019-08-15T14:18:18.582Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I've just been invited to this forum. How do I decide whether to put a post on the Alignment Forum vs. Less Wrong?

Comment by chris_leong on Emotions are not beliefs · 2019-08-08T11:13:28.126Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Thanks for linking me to that. It's pretty crazy how similar our approaches to the topic are, down to pointing out emotions aren't beliefs and suggesting the same solution of "getting out of the way". I suppose very few ideas are original, but it still weirds me out to how similar our approaches are. I suppose we both probably read Barbarians vs. Bayesians and maybe that has something to do with it?

I suppose I'm more skeptical than Nate about how easy it is to access these states when they are not coherent with your beliefs. He seems to act as though they are mostly or completely independent, while I feel that it is only in particular circumstances when an ordinary person would be able to intentionally create a disjunction.

Comment by chris_leong on Arguments for the existence of qualia · 2019-07-30T21:42:03.957Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

You said "That wasn't what I meant" - and yet you wrote "if people don't know what you mean from an example, then it doesn't seem to work as a primitive notion" and "to discuss the existence of points as something which is up to debate, seems to already presuppose that they are not a primitive notion" and "otherwise there would be no need to argue for the existence of points, nor could their existence to be disputed". So I don't know how that could possibly not be what you meant?

Anyway, dealing with your argument in this comment, someone could claim points aren't primitive because they are the intersection of lines and someone else could claim lines aren't primitive as they are made up of points. According to your reasoning, neither can be primitive by mere fact of disputation. That doesn't seem very convincing.

"Rather my argument is that if you are discussing the existence of a primitive notion, you have to explain what it would mean for it to not exist" - So what does it mean for a point not to exist? What would it mean for matter not to exist or logic not to exist.

Comment by chris_leong on Arguments for the existence of qualia · 2019-07-30T10:13:28.895Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

If you can't figure out what I mean, try talking to some regular people and understanding their views about consciousness. Notice that a good proportion will have views contrary to the materialist stance. Anyway, it's not my job to grab you and literally drag you to the point of understanding.

Edit: Okay let's try this. In dualism, sensations have a non-material component. Similarly, in property dualism.

Comment by chris_leong on Arguments for the existence of qualia · 2019-07-30T01:39:21.478Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Don't you think that there could be a logical component that goes beyond this?

Comment by chris_leong on Arguments for the existence of qualia · 2019-07-30T00:45:02.512Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Qualia is a word that different people use in different ways. In this post I have been using it to refer to some kind of sensation or experience, but in a sense beyond the materialist conceptions of these words. I will admit that in other contexts I've used it to refer to whatever makes I think we have these non-materialist sensations and that I should make my terminology more consistent, but I don't think I've used it this way in this post? I think this is a useful thing to have a term for and I wish I'd added a short section at the start to clarify my use of the term, but I also think it should be clear enough from context what I'm arguing for and against.

"For example in a morph environment there might be a question of which actors are NPC and which are PC. And it's true there that on a game world level PCs and NPCs are similar functionning. But PCs can go "afk" and they require wetware to sit in front of a keyboard. Somebody that thought that the game world is the place where the cognitive machinery lies might think that there is no reason to posit that keyboards even exit and esoteric "biological" components would be explanationarily needless for understanding what happens in the game world. In particular examining part of the game code/world that is involved in netcode one might quess tht the cognition lies inside that bit of code instead of locating outside it." - this is actually very similar what I was planning to write in my next post. Not sure whether I'll still write this post now, but if I do I'll reference this comment.

Comment by chris_leong on Arguments for the existence of qualia · 2019-07-30T00:19:41.218Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

How would you characterise his views then?

Comment by chris_leong on Arguments for the existence of qualia · 2019-07-30T00:17:05.106Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

A thin definition of consciousness would be one such as in the relabelling argument above. People start by taking a collection of atoms or quarks or part of a wavefunction. They view them in a materialistic sense, so no consciousness properties above and in addition to the physical properties. Finally they just declare that particular arrangements count as being conscious. I address this most directly in the relabelling argument above. Maybe I will read Dennett, but reluctant to buy a book just to read one chapter.

Comment by chris_leong on Arguments for the existence of qualia · 2019-07-29T23:12:41.886Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Some things really are primitive notions. And for each primitive notion there will be *someone* who will deny its existence. Your claim seems to be that if I argue against them claiming that it actually does exist then I concede that it's not a primitive. That doesn't seem like a very good argument.

Comment by chris_leong on Arguments for the existence of qualia · 2019-07-29T11:33:03.898Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Thanks for pointing out this argument, I might add a variation to the list.

Comment by chris_leong on Arguments for the existence of qualia · 2019-07-29T11:21:44.226Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

"From an outside view, you have given a long list of wordy philosophical arguments, all of which involve terms that you haven't defined. The success rate for arguments like that isn't great." - Firstly, I didn't claim that qualia definitely exist, just that they are dismissed too quickly. Secondly, the outside view is widely ignored on Less Wrong - why is this? Do people on Less Wrong really just fall into the reference class of smart people, with nothing setting them apart? Thirdly, is it really accurate to describe these arguments as wordy? Most of the arguments seems concise to me. Indeed, if that is the case, haven't you just made a wordy argument yourself? Fourthly, if you need definitions, feel free to ask, although as I've commented below, I believe that qualia are a primitive concept.

"I expect there to be some set of equations, of which quantum mechanics and relativity are approximations, that predicts every detail of reality" - there's probably some set of equations that can predict all the physical details of reality, but who says all the details are physical? And even that comes with a major limitation, we can describe relations between physical entities, but what can't say what their nature is.

"The minds of humans, including myself, are part of reality. Look at a philosopher talking about consciousness or qualia in great detail" - yep, I've acknowledge this argument and linked to a post by Eliezer on this.

"You can choose a set of similar patterns of quantum fields and call them qualia" - See the relabeling argument and the discussion in failure to bite the bullet for reasons why defining qualia in the map leads to qualia not being of any real importance.

"This makes a qualia the same type of thing as a word or an apple" - it's a massive assumption to claim words and apples are the same kind of thing. Why should logical entities be the same kind of thing as physical entities?

Comment by chris_leong on Arguments for the existence of qualia · 2019-07-29T10:47:04.344Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Blindsight isn't merely a difference of qualia since there are actual, physical brain differences as well.

Comment by chris_leong on Arguments for the existence of qualia · 2019-07-29T10:39:33.681Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

What you've written is a reasonable point to make, I just don't find the term "illusion" productive here as people are more likely than not to try to draw an incorrect analogy. Making actual progress here requires to drop the term and use more precise language like you have. Maybe I'm making too much of an issue out of this, but this is certainly a peeve of mine.

Comment by chris_leong on Arguments for the existence of qualia · 2019-07-29T10:32:01.976Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I'm open to positions like property dualism. On the other hand, I'm against thin definitions of feelings (just combinations of atoms, at least where atoms only have physical properties) and some of the arguments given in the original post give reasons for not believing in this.

Comment by chris_leong on Arguments for the existence of qualia · 2019-07-29T10:17:34.857Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

These discussions are always complicated by different people using different words in different words.

This post was written to argue primarily against a view that has cropped up in conversations I've had with people personally, none of whom were professional philosophers. Most of these people were scientifically minded and many of them have been influenced by Daniel Dennett. Nonetheless, I feel I should be slightly cautious of saying that I'm arguing against Daniel Dennett's views as I have only been exposed to his ideas second-hand.

Keeping this in mind: Wikipedia says that Daniel Dennett "offers an argument against qualia", so it sounds like he rejects their existence; however the quote you listed makes it sound more like he supports a thin version of qualia instead. In practise the actual label is mostly irrelevant; two people can have exactly the same underlying views with one person saying they don't believe in qualia and the other saying they only support a thin definition.

So I'm not just arguing against people who say qualia don't exist, I'm also arguing against those who assert a thin definition by denying a thick definition. Some of my arguments might only work against those who claim non-existence, but others apply to both.

At this point, it would be natural to ask what exactly I mean by a thick definition, but there is a sense in which you can already predict what I mean by that. I'm sure you can already guess that if you give me your definition of qualia, then I'll respond that what I mean by qualia is not the mere arrangement of atoms or particular, but some feeling that exists beyond that. And that definition won't satisfy you because I haven't clearly stated what it is, but as I already argue in a comment below we should take the definition of qualia as primitive, so that we can only say what it is not, not what it is.

Comment by chris_leong on Arguments for the existence of qualia · 2019-07-29T10:12:52.628Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Why doesn't it strike you as useful?

Comment by chris_leong on Arguments for the existence of qualia · 2019-07-29T05:02:13.190Z · score: 0 (2 votes) · LW · GW


Comment by chris_leong on Arguments for the existence of qualia · 2019-07-28T14:37:37.201Z · score: 1 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I suspect that qualia are a primitive, so any definition I could attempt to provide would never be satisfactory. All we can attempt to do is to provide negative definitions that identify what qualia are not. For example, I could say the subjective element of experience and this is eliminates a large proportion of the possibility space, but this is still open to misinterpretation. For example, a materialist could interpret this as neurons being in a particular state, which would what was being identified, at least if they were neurons as conceived in materialism as opposed to neurons conceived in property dualism.

Comment by chris_leong on Thoughts on the 5-10 Problem · 2019-07-22T02:39:54.277Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I suggested a similar approach in deconfusing logical counterfactuals where we erase information about the agent so that we end up with multiple possible agents, though I wouldn't be surprised if other people have also tried asking their agent to ask about how other agents reason. Your approach is different in that the original agent isn't included among the set of agents considered and that seems like a useful adaption that I hadn't considered as long as we can provide appropriate justification. I also provide some more just

Anyway, it's good to see someone else thinking along a similar (but different) track and I'd be curious to hear what you think about my approach.

Comment by chris_leong on Against Excessive Apologising · 2019-07-19T23:30:49.054Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

"You should be extremely cautious about apologising because that's what you think a nice person would do" - I edited in a "when it's" to make it clearer. I only suggesting being careful about apologising based on a particular motivation.

Comment by chris_leong on 1st Athena Rationality Workshop - Retrospective · 2019-07-17T21:54:34.214Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Very glad to hear that it was a success. What component did people find most valuable? I'm particularly interested in techniques that don't overlap CFAR.

Comment by chris_leong on A Key Power of the President is to Coordinate the Execution of Existing Concrete Plans · 2019-07-17T01:19:50.044Z · score: 0 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I find it strange to say that we don't have any plan. Surely the government could set up scholarships or research institute or some kind of committee to look into this?

Comment by chris_leong on What would be the signs of AI manhattan projects starting? Should a website be made watching for these signs? · 2019-07-04T21:37:21.408Z · score: 6 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Would having this information actually be beneficial. Perhaps it'd be good for us to know what is going on, but it might be negative for certain governments to know about this as it might increase the chance of an AI arms race.

Comment by chris_leong on How/would you want to consume shortform posts? · 2019-07-03T05:38:19.877Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I'd suggest initially making short-form a seperate section of the site as my suspicion that if it really is a compelling feature it should be able to succeed on its own without homepage integration. Otherwise, it likely doesn't provide enough value to make up for the loss of nuance.