Posts

GreaterWrong Arbital Viewer 2019-06-28T06:32:22.278Z · score: 61 (14 votes)
What societies have ever had legal or accepted blackmail? 2019-03-17T09:16:55.560Z · score: 33 (10 votes)
An alternative way to browse LessWrong 2.0 2018-02-19T01:52:06.462Z · score: 104 (33 votes)

Comments

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Social Class · 2019-10-12T02:29:08.846Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

So this is a write-up of discussion points brought up at a meetup, it’s not intended to be a comprehensive overview about every single thing about social class.

Okay... but it still seems like a surprising omission. I'm only familiar with two concepts of class, the somewhat vacuous American one where everyone is middle class (which you seem to be criticizing) and the Marxist one.

it’s now pretty common to be wealthy without owning any productive capital

I would have thought almost all wealthy people own either stocks or real estate... what do you mean by this?

Comment by clone-of-saturn on A simple sketch of how realism became unpopular · 2019-10-12T02:12:38.829Z · score: 21 (8 votes) · LW · GW

It's relatively easy to be a master ninja of philosophy relative to anyone in 1710, because you've had a chance to crib from the work of all the smartest people who've lived since then.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Social Class · 2019-10-11T20:18:45.601Z · score: 11 (2 votes) · LW · GW

No mention of selling your labor versus owning productive capital or state-granted monopoly rights?

Comment by clone-of-saturn on "Mild Hallucination" Test · 2019-10-11T18:38:49.424Z · score: 7 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I could already see all 3 of these.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on What do the baby eaters tell us about ethics? · 2019-10-07T08:58:17.679Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

How would you know if you had?

Comment by clone-of-saturn on The first step of rationality · 2019-09-30T21:54:00.015Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I think it's completely fair to describe that as "sexual misconduct."

Comment by clone-of-saturn on The first step of rationality · 2019-09-29T21:26:36.217Z · score: 6 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Also related: https://engagedharma.net/2019/08/19/culadasa-charged-with-sexual-misconduct/

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Feature Wish List for LessWrong · 2019-09-27T11:36:56.281Z · score: 7 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I added web push notifications to GreaterWrong, you can activate them on your inbox page. If your browser and device have the proper support, they should show up even when you don't have a GreaterWrong tab open.

This is pretty experimental, let me know how it works for you.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Honoring Petrov Day on LessWrong, in 2019 · 2019-09-27T03:41:52.081Z · score: 11 (5 votes) · LW · GW

Good point. We're unlucky that nuclear war didn't break out in 1983.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Feature Wish List for LessWrong · 2019-09-20T07:06:48.758Z · score: 5 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I want to see a backlink feature, so people can find replies to a post that aren’t in the form of a comment.

Added to GreaterWrong.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Feature Wish List for LessWrong · 2019-09-17T04:40:13.793Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Thanks! While I have you here, any rea­son why vot­ing is dis­abled in the in­box and re­cent com­ments on GW?

Voting from recent comments was enabled for a while, but Said objected to it because he thought people might vote on comments in a knee-jerk way without understanding the context. For the inbox, though, it's more of an oversight (I just never missed having the buttons there).

Also, I sub­mit­ted a fea­ture re­quest on the GW is­sue tracker to dis­play AF karma (the num­bers next to the Omega signs on LW).

Sure, that should be doable. Originally I thought it would require two independent sets of voting buttons, which seemed too weird and confusing, but it looks like that's not actually the case.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Feature Wish List for LessWrong · 2019-09-17T03:01:20.533Z · score: 5 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I sug­gest a “I already replied” in­di­ca­tor for mes­sages in my in­box.

Added to GreaterWrong.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Divergence on Evidence Due to Differing Priors - A Political Case Study · 2019-09-17T02:08:51.252Z · score: 16 (6 votes) · LW · GW

It's probably worth noting that the two tweets don't actually contradict each other.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Realism and Rationality · 2019-09-16T08:25:47.927Z · score: 16 (7 votes) · LW · GW

It seems like you've set up a dichotomy between there being universally compelling normative statements versus normative statements being meaningless, but what about the position that specific subsets of possible statements are compelling to specific people? Would that be realist, anti-realist, or neither?

Comment by clone-of-saturn on The Power to Demolish Bad Arguments · 2019-09-05T06:15:02.164Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Right, but what's their motivation for transferring their wealth in this way?

Comment by clone-of-saturn on The Power to Demolish Bad Arguments · 2019-09-05T03:03:49.986Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Could you explain why shareholders are subsidizing Uber drivers, in your opinion?

Comment by clone-of-saturn on A Personal Rationality Wishlist · 2019-08-30T07:43:05.542Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW · GW

pulling laterally on the chain, a tiny amount, makes it move from one gear to another, even if the gears are very different sizes?

There are small grooves or bumps (depending on the design) on the sides of the gears that help lift the chain onto the next gear.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Six AI Risk/Strategy Ideas · 2019-08-28T01:14:25.955Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Oops, these links should be translated properly now.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Is LW making progress? · 2019-08-24T07:18:17.122Z · score: 11 (9 votes) · LW · GW

Right, your comment was informative in letting us know that Double Crux (among other things) has replaced Bayes' Theorem in the CFAR curriculum. But it also casually asserts that this is an example of progress and that the old curriculum was worse, in a way that suggests that you expected the reader to either already agree or immediately find it obvious. So I'm just letting you know that I don't find it obvious.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Is LW making progress? · 2019-08-24T05:29:06.456Z · score: 16 (14 votes) · LW · GW

for instance, CFAR no longer teaches Bayes’s Theorem

There might be some question about whether this can be described as "definitely making progress."

Comment by clone-of-saturn on GreaterWrong Arbital Viewer · 2019-08-20T02:33:13.381Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Fixed.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Partial summary of debate with Benquo and Jessicata [pt 1] · 2019-08-18T08:56:11.037Z · score: 21 (4 votes) · LW · GW

What makes you think A and B are mutually exclusive? Or even significantly anticorrelated? If there are enough very different models built out of legitimate facts and theories for everyone to have one of their own, how can you tell they aren't picking them for political reasons?

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Power Buys You Distance From The Crime · 2019-08-04T08:34:18.016Z · score: 8 (4 votes) · LW · GW

This seems like dramatically over-complicating the idea. I would expect a prototypical conflict theorist to reason like this:

  1. Political debates have winners and losers—if a consensus is reached on a political question, one group of people will be materially better off and another group will be worse off.

  2. Public choice theory makes black people worse off. (I don't know if the article is right about this, but I'll assume it's true for the sake of argument.)

  3. Therefore, one ought to promote public choice theory if one wants to hurt black people, and disparage public choice theory if one wants to help black people.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Drive-By Low-Effort Criticism · 2019-08-04T03:03:33.972Z · score: 13 (5 votes) · LW · GW

Sure, that all makes sense, but at least on LW it seems like we ought to insist on saying "rewarding results" when we mean rewarding results, and "deceiving ourselves into thinking we're rewarding results" when we mean deceiving ourselves into thinking we're rewarding results.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Drive-By Low-Effort Criticism · 2019-08-02T02:21:40.944Z · score: 9 (6 votes) · LW · GW

Strange. You bring up Goodhart's Law, but the way you apply it seems exactly backwards to me. If you're rewarding strategies instead of results, and someone comes up with a new strategy that has far better results than the strategy you're rewarding, you fail to reward people for developing better strategies or getting better results. This seems like it's exactly what Goodhart was trying to warn us about.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Drive-By Low-Effort Criticism · 2019-07-31T22:28:32.093Z · score: 17 (7 votes) · LW · GW

perhaps high-effort posts are more likely to contain muddled thinking, and hence more likely to have incorrect conclusions? but it’s hard to see why this should be the case a priori

I don't think high-effort posts are more likely to contain muddled thinking, but I do think readers are less likely to notice muddled thinking when it appears in high-effort posts, so suppressing criticism of high-effort posts is especially dangerous.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on When does adding more people reliably make a system better? · 2019-07-19T18:43:23.234Z · score: 9 (3 votes) · LW · GW

LW 1.0 had an additional problem that no one wanted to risk writing a worse than average post in Main, leading to ever increasing standards and fewer posts, but I believe user numbers were still increasing, and quality of Discussion posts decreasing, during that process.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Why artificial optimism? · 2019-07-16T04:20:55.107Z · score: 18 (5 votes) · LW · GW

Know­ingly al­low­ing some­one to get away with some­thing bad makes you bad.

While some peo­ple have a be­lief like this, this seems false from a philo­soph­i­cal eth­i­cal per­spec­tive.

I think a philosophical ethical perspective that labels this "false" (and not just incomplete or under-nuanced) is failing to engage with the phenomenon of ethics as it actually happens in the world. Ethics arose in this cold and indifferent universe because being ethical is a winning strategy, but being "ethical" all by yourself without any mechanism to keep everyone around you ethical is not a winning strategy.

The cost of explicitly punishing people for not being vegetarian is prohibitive because vegetarianism is still a small and entrepreneurial ethical system, but you can certainly at least punish non-vegetarians by preferentially choosing other vegetarians to associate with. Well-established ethical systems like anti-murder-ism have much less difficulty affording severe punishments.

An important innovation is that you can cooperate with people who might be bad overall, as long as they follow a more minimal set of rules (for example, the Uniform Commercial Code). Or in other words, you can have concentric circles of ethicalness, making more limited ethical demands of people you interact with less closely. But when you interact with people in your outer circle, how do people in your inner circle know you don't condone all of the bad things they might be doing? One way is to have some kind of system of group membership, with rules that explicitly apply only to group members. But a cheaper and more flexible way is to simply remain ignorant about anything that isn't relevant--a.k.a respect their privacy.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Why artificial optimism? · 2019-07-15T23:00:52.938Z · score: 18 (6 votes) · LW · GW

Po­lite­ness and pri­vacy are, in fact, largely about main­tain­ing im­pres­sions (es­pe­cially pos­i­tive im­pres­sions) through co­or­di­nat­ing against the rev­e­la­tion of truth.

People don't always agree with each other about what's good and bad. Knowingly allowing someone to get away with something bad makes you bad. Coordinating against the revelation of truth allows us to get something productive done together instead of spending all our time fighting.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Open Thread July 2019 · 2019-07-15T09:23:25.007Z · score: 10 (5 votes) · LW · GW

I thought your comment was fine and the irony was obvious, but this kind of misunderstanding can be easily avoided by making the straightforward reading more boring, like so:

Given that CfAR is an organization which is speci­fi­cally about seeking truth, one could safely assume that if the actual reason were “Many of the explanations here are intentionally approximate or incomplete because we predict that this handbook will be leaked and we don’t want to undercut our core product,” then the handbook would have just said that. To do otherwise would be to call the whole premise into question!

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Raemon's Scratchpad · 2019-07-08T06:56:30.226Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Knowing your plans could definitely make a difference--I do want to prioritize fixing any problems that make GW confusing to use, as well as adding features that someone has directly asked for. As such, I just implemented the related questions feature.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on GreaterWrong Arbital Viewer · 2019-06-29T04:57:13.157Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Oops, fixed.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on GreaterWrong Arbital Viewer · 2019-06-29T00:50:19.749Z · score: 14 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Thanks!

Comment by clone-of-saturn on GreaterWrong Arbital Viewer · 2019-06-28T13:54:20.135Z · score: 7 (3 votes) · LW · GW

(For future reference, I believe you mean this page)

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Discourse Norms: Moderators Must Not Bully · 2019-06-17T00:57:59.553Z · score: 17 (5 votes) · LW · GW

But you realize this isn't just random unmotivated nitpicking, because it's also fairly straightforward and reasonable to clump "Nazi" with "HBD", and from there to ban someone like Gwern for his GWAS and embryo selection research, right?

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Experimental Open Thread April 2019: Socratic method · 2019-06-16T08:48:03.884Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

What's different about these domains? Can you tell them apart in any way?

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Reasonable Explanations · 2019-06-16T07:46:51.506Z · score: 20 (9 votes) · LW · GW

meta: LW supports spoiler tags now.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Experimental Open Thread April 2019: Socratic method · 2019-06-16T06:56:06.259Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Is there anything that makes observations different or distinguishable from imaginations? If so, what?

Comment by clone-of-saturn on No, it's not The Incentives—it's you · 2019-06-15T19:08:31.034Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Right... but fraud rings need something to initially nucleate around. (As do honesty rings)

Comment by clone-of-saturn on No, it's not The Incentives—it's you · 2019-06-15T17:54:06.274Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I don't endorse the quoted statement, I think it's just as perverse as you do. But I do think I can explain how people get there in good faith. The idea is that moral norms have no independent existence, they are arbitrary human constructions, and therefore it's wrong to shame someone for violating a norm they didn't explicitly agree to follow. If you call me out for falsifying data, you're not recruiting the community to enforce its norms for the good of all. There is no community, there is no all, you're simply carrying out an unprovoked attack against me, which I can legitimately respond to as such.

(Of course, I think this requires an illogical combination of extreme cynicism towards object-level norms with a strong belief in certain meta-norms, but proponents don't see it that way.)

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Asymmetric Weapons Aren't Always on Your Side · 2019-06-09T10:32:40.007Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Of course, I completely agree with this, especially this part:

“we’ve put massive amounts of effort into punishing physical violence as a way to solve problems and as a tool it’s acceptable to use (generally, and in the domain of sexuality).

Punishing physical violence. With more efficient violence. What we've done is brought a very large coalition into extremely precise agreement about who it's acceptable to do violence to ("criminals" for short), who must do it, and how it must be done. Not only will uninvolved bystanders intervene to ensure these violent norms are followed, but we even have a class of professional violent bystanders (the police).

The sort of spontaneous lashing out that you brought up is exactly the kind of thing highly organized violence excels at suppressing. Lack of such violence, overall, tends to make life much worse for physically weaker non-criminals, even if it might let them get away with occasionally pepper-spraying a catcaller.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Asymmetric Weapons Aren't Always on Your Side · 2019-06-09T09:44:07.688Z · score: 9 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Right, and also the ability to do science and engineering, the ability to frankly discuss strategy without too much political backstabbing, etc. tends to favor less-hellish societies.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Asymmetric Weapons Aren't Always on Your Side · 2019-06-08T09:37:14.017Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

See my other reply.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Asymmetric Weapons Aren't Always on Your Side · 2019-06-08T09:36:23.732Z · score: 16 (4 votes) · LW · GW

My problem with this is that human history is heavily saturated with violent conflict; most places on earth have been violently conquered not just once but many times. If violence were really asymmetric in a bad direction, goodness ought to have been very thoroughly eliminated by now!

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Asymmetric Weapons Aren't Always on Your Side · 2019-06-08T03:37:08.229Z · score: 15 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Violence isn’t merely symmetric—it’s asymmetric in a bad direction, since fascists are better than violence than you.

This seems like a strange opinion to have, given that the fascists were in fact the losers of the most violent conflict in history, and their name became the default metonym for pure badness as a direct result of that loss.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Arbital scrape · 2019-06-07T04:23:01.514Z · score: 10 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I've been working on something similar, it should be ready soon-ish.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Major Update on Cost Disease · 2019-06-05T22:01:22.819Z · score: 22 (8 votes) · LW · GW

If we measure the Baumol effect in healthcare using "salary and benefits" where there's no increase in salary and the increase in benefits all goes to increased healthcare costs, that seems like a form of circular reasoning or begging the question. We've only concluded that healthcare costs increased because healthcare benefits increased.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Tales From the American Medical System · 2019-05-10T18:51:00.865Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

(but what would be the effects of making potentially dangerous medications freely available?)

Well, you can already walk into any hardware store and buy all sorts of deadly poisons, no questions asked. So my guess would be not much, except they'd be a lot cheaper.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Privacy · 2019-05-03T00:05:23.651Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Only if you assume everyone loses an equal amount of privacy.

Comment by clone-of-saturn on Counterfactuals about Social Media · 2019-04-24T05:22:44.947Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Would you mind being more specific about what you find lacking in other tools?