Comment by estokes on I Want To Live In A Baugruppe · 2017-03-17T13:15:35.548Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

i like the idea of living in ingroupy housing (insofar as i am correctly understanding it as also being suitable for people with low socialization satiety thresholds)

Comment by estokes on Open Thread, Feb 8 - Feb 15, 2016 · 2016-02-09T09:44:14.368Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I'm thinking a bit about AI safety lately as I'm considering writing about it for one of my college classes.

I'm hardly heavy into AI safety research and so expect flaws and mistaken assumptions in these ideas. I would be grateful for corrections.

  1. An AI told to make people smile tiles the world with smiley faces but an AI told to do what humans would want it to do might still get it wrong eg. Failed Utopia #4-2 . However, wouldn't it research further and correct itself (and before that, have care to not do something un-correctable)? Reasoning as follows: let's say a non-failed utopia is worth 100/100 utility points per year. A failed utopia is that which at first seems to the AI to be a true utopia (100 points) but is actually less (idk, 90 points). Even were the cost of research heavy, if the AI wants/expects billions or trillions of years of human existence, it should be doing a lot of research early on, and would be very careful to not be fooled. Therefore, we don't need to do anything more than tell an AI to do what humans would want it to do, and let it do the work on figuring out exactly what that is itself.

  2. Partially un-consequentialist AI/careful AI: Weights harms caused by its decisions (somewhat but not absolutely) heavier than other harms. (Therefore: tendency towards protecting what humanity already has against large harms and causes smaller surer gains like curing cancer rather than instituting a new world order (haha).)

Thanks in advance. :)

Comment by estokes on Why CFAR? The view from 2015 · 2015-12-24T17:02:50.481Z · score: 14 (14 votes) · LW · GW

Donated 200$.

Comment by estokes on We really need a "cryonics sales pitch" article. · 2015-08-04T23:38:35.854Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Ah, I also wish there were some posts about the practical parts of signing up. An overview of options, like Alcor or CI, standby service, life insurance costs, whether to consider relocation to Phoenix or whatnot, whether to get one of those bracelet things or something, and for god's sake let the guide not be so US-centric.

Though possibly this masterpost-thing exists and I haven't heard of it, or my unusual distaste for not having every detail planned out beforehand is biasing me.

Comment by estokes on Stupid Questions July 2015 · 2015-08-04T23:25:43.437Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

So basically what your saying is that it is possible for a man to "really" be a woman even though not only all the physical/biological evidence points that way, but he isn't even aware of it? This raises even more questions whether you definition of "really a woman" corresponds to anything in reality.

Hm, good question! I'd say: in the same way one might discover one prefers, say, some obscure flavor of ice cream one hadn't tried before to one's previous favorite of chocolate ice cream. Does that mean that the person's favorite wasn't really chocolate before? It was, but also they "actually" preferred something else... I think it comes down to how the individual's narrative of their past or somesuch.

So you agree that the claim that my explanation "necessitates a lot of people lying" that you made in the grandparent is BS. That raises the question why did you make it?

I think we must've talked past each other; I'm having trouble connecting the dots. In any case, to try to elucidate my meaning: In the past, being transgender was more and more widely low-status. If transgenderism isn't real, then it becoming less low-status on average means that more and more people would lie about being transgender. If it is real, then it becoming less low-status on average means that more and more people would be exposed to the concept and feel safer in coming out.

It's similar, the difference being that "gay" properly refers to a person's behavior rather than an intrinsic property. And yes, the current attempt to claim that "gayness" is an intrinsic property is similarly problematic.

I see. I might have a different (though not diametrically opposed) idea on this, but afaict that disagreement doesn't have a bearing on the main idea of this discussion at the moment so for time and clarity's sake I think I'll not take this up, if you're amenable.

Comment by estokes on Stupid Questions July 2015 · 2015-08-03T04:11:54.268Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I'm not sure I follow. Is the logic that my claim necessitates more lying because people lied about not being transgender in the past (or as I would put it, were unaware or in the closet)? The fact of it being more widely low-status in the past explains that in my explanation as well as yours. Furthermore, if that is what you mean, then do you not also think that the higher amount of openly gay people these days is similar?

Comment by estokes on Stupid Questions July 2015 · 2015-08-02T13:53:37.275Z · score: 1 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I suppose that wasn't a good example, then. Of course, my answer is that their greater non-existence was because it was socially unacceptable to be transgender.

So those are like two side of a coin, no? I say that it was socially unacceptable and less so now, so more realize it and come forth, while you say it was sometimes high-status then and more so now, so more say they are this made-up thing. Why do you prefer your explanation, which necessitates a lot of people lying?

Comment by estokes on Stupid Questions July 2015 · 2015-08-01T23:32:28.954Z · score: 3 (5 votes) · LW · GW

I'm not exactly sure what your explanation is. That transgenderism is status-seeking? In that case, I suppose I'd ask about the existence of transgender people pre-SJ...?

In any case, I disagree with your assessment of cis-ness as unconnected to any real thing (that is what you're saying, no?). Hmm... maybe I'd put it akin to being a goth. Many non-goths would feel uncomfortable if suddenly they were forced to go about their lives clearly dressed as such. It communicates membership of a group they don't identify with.

Does that clarify anything?

Comment by estokes on Stupid Questions July 2015 · 2015-07-21T15:32:25.471Z · score: 2 (4 votes) · LW · GW

When I wasn't exposed to more transgender people and viewpoints, I didn't pay attention and connect the dots I had that pointed at my not being cis, since I'm non-binary with relatively mild dysphoria. So, I'm planning on getting top surgery in a year or two, and wouldn't have if I hadn't introspected and found myself to be not cis. This could be seen as being perfectly happy in the body I was born with until it became fashionable to be transgender, but the connotations are very different.

Comment by estokes on Open thread, Jan. 12 - Jan. 18, 2015 · 2015-01-16T14:55:37.172Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

FrameBenignly's comment reflects my opinion well

Comment by estokes on Open thread, Jan. 12 - Jan. 18, 2015 · 2015-01-12T17:17:44.049Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I disagree about asking a dietician and not LW.

Comment by estokes on 2014 Less Wrong Census/Survey - Call For Critiques/Questions · 2014-10-13T07:44:21.251Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Hm. Would an example w/r/t triggers be that many trans men don't like being called female-bodied? This doesn't stem from seeing sex and gender as synonymous, but is just due to the terminology rubbing the wrong way.* AFAB (assigned female at birth) and AMAB are the generally preferred terms.

*I'd speculate that "female-bodied" implies that the word "female" on its own has something to do with gender (why else add "-bodied"?) which in turn makes "female-bodied"'s implied meaning "body belonging to one of the female gender". Also, not merely referring to birth assignment means that the term breaks down during medical transition as the body changes.

Comment by estokes on 2014 Less Wrong Census/Survey - Call For Critiques/Questions · 2014-10-12T12:14:45.511Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Distinct?

Regardless, I take issue with your comment. It reads insultingly.

Comment by estokes on What's the right way to think about how much to give to charity? · 2014-09-24T22:28:23.735Z · score: 0 (4 votes) · LW · GW

The more is donated, the better, so figure out how much you expect to want for your own spending/saving and donate the rest. Don't give so much that it takes a toll on you; it must remain something achievable that you want to do.

Comment by estokes on Open thread, September 15-21, 2014 · 2014-09-20T16:21:00.780Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

AFAIK people with mismatched romantic and sexual orientations, though very much existent, are quite rare and the -romantic terms are most often used by asexual spectrum people to describe their romantic preferences.

Comment by estokes on Open thread, September 15-21, 2014 · 2014-09-20T14:45:55.957Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Ah, but it's quite likely that they're heteroromantic as well as heterosexual.

Comment by estokes on Open thread, 25-31 August 2014 · 2014-08-27T17:34:11.062Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Thank you, this is very useful!

Comment by estokes on Open thread, 25-31 August 2014 · 2014-08-26T17:21:45.776Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Good point! When I asked her earlier she said she wanted to save the rainforest to stop global warming, but I don't think she's completely inflexible about this.

Comment by estokes on Open thread, 25-31 August 2014 · 2014-08-26T12:50:36.112Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I think there was a masterpost of tumblr rationalists at some point- ask ozy about it, maybe? Besides that, it depends on your other interests.

Comment by estokes on Open thread, 25-31 August 2014 · 2014-08-26T12:48:22.691Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

My sister is interested in environmental charities, a category which Givewell has no recommendations about. Does anyone know of any actually good ones?

Comment by estokes on AI is Software is AI · 2014-06-04T06:56:46.961Z · score: 1 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Surely brains have processes that compute people?

ETA: To rephrase: a person is a process in a brain

Comment by estokes on Open Thread, May 26 - June 1, 2014 · 2014-05-30T20:53:22.141Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Try keeping food nearby? Have food in the house that's easy to prepare? Buy tastier food (even at the expense of healthiness)?

Comment by estokes on Open thread, January 25- February 1 · 2014-01-25T21:08:30.881Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Some guesses on my part-

  • Maybe your tendency towards precision is at the wrong times? If practicing, for example, it might be counterproductive since you probably want quantity instead of quality, or maybe you're trying to get everything down precisely too early on and it's making your work stiff.

  • Manfred's point is good- "metaphor that captures the scene without the need for detail."... If you render background details overmuch, they can distract the viewer from the focal point of the work. Maybe put some effort into looking at how the "metaphors" of different things work? For example, how more skilled artists draw/paint grass in the distance, or whatnot.

  • I think it's a common thing to sort of notice something wrong in an area, and to spend a lot of time on that area in hopes of fixing it, which would make it less sloppy... Maybe sketch that thing a lot for practice.

  • If you're drawing from life, it's possible that lack of sloppiness comes from not making sense of the gestalt, so to speak. I'd think that understanding the form of the subject and how the lighting on it works means you can simplify things away. I don't do much (read: any) figure drawings from life, but I'd imagine that understanding the figure and what's important and what isn't would be helpful. Maybe doing some master copies of skilled, more abstract drawings of the figure would help. Maybe look up a comic artist or cartoonist you like and look at what they do.

ETA:

To address your actual question, I'd say I don't know any particular evidence for why that should be so.

Rationality-technique-wise: It's good that you asked people, since that would bring you evidence of the idea being true or false. In the future it might be even more useful to suppress hypothesizing until some more investigating has gone on- "biological limit" is the sort of thing that feels true if you don't understand how to do something or how to understand how to do something. I think there's a post about this, or something; let me see if I can find it... ETA2: The exact anecdote I was thinking of doesn't apply as much as I thought it did, but maybe the post "Fake Explanations" or something applies?

Comment by estokes on 2012 Less Wrong Census/Survey · 2012-11-07T07:18:15.184Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Thank you!

Comment by estokes on 2012 Less Wrong Census/Survey · 2012-11-07T05:51:47.135Z · score: 14 (14 votes) · LW · GW

If the right thing to do is the consequentialist thing to do, and an outcome turns out bad, but it was still the best choice with the information one knew at the time, would that be consequentialism or virtue ethics?

edit: Ok, I completed the survey and just guessed. Would still like to know the answer though.

Comment by estokes on Mentioning cryonics to a dying person · 2012-08-12T01:50:37.857Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Heck, I've been here quite a while and it still rubbed me the wrong way.

Comment by estokes on Open Thread, June 16-30, 2012 · 2012-06-15T21:57:30.002Z · score: 2 (4 votes) · LW · GW

I use LW casually and my attitude towards it is pretty neutral/positive but I recently got downvoted something like 10 times in past comments, it seems. A karma loss of 5%, and it's a lot, comparing the amount of karma I have to how long I've been here. I didn't even get into a big argument or anything, the back-and-forth was pretty short. So my attitude toward LW is very meh right now. Sorry, sort of wanted to just say this somewhere. ugh :/

Comment by estokes on Conspiracy Theories as Agency Fictions · 2012-06-10T22:54:17.908Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Though it might be good to tack on "though it doesn't mean it's not a valid statement" to the beginning or something. Not that I'm trying to police the way you comment, haha, I'm just trying to say this in a way that doesn't seem like aggression.

Comment by estokes on Conspiracy Theories as Agency Fictions · 2012-06-10T22:46:37.829Z · score: 2 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Oh, huh. I didn't mean to do that. Do you think you could point it out for me? I'm no expert.

And I'm not trying to say that such a large portion of straight white males aren't aware of these prejudices that you'd need to provide anecdotal evidence to the contrary, haha. ?

Comment by estokes on Conspiracy Theories as Agency Fictions · 2012-06-10T22:39:19.932Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Well, I'm not trying to say that you personally doubt they exist.

What I'd meant by the first comment, excuse me if I'd caused confusion by saying comment, is this:

The Heterosexual White Males example rubs me the wrong way.

The article deals tightly scapegoating and seeing malignant agency where there is none.

Comment by estokes on Conspiracy Theories as Agency Fictions · 2012-06-10T15:18:56.115Z · score: 1 (11 votes) · LW · GW

Well, hmm. I'm not really sure that it was in good taste nonetheless. I understand that you're joking, and that there are conspiracy theories like that. That Jews, the Illuminati, or Heterosexual White Males have a big conspiracy to rule the world is a pretty silly idea, that's true. Here's what I think the thing is. Straight white males are the least discriminated against and therefore probably most likely to be dismissive of the idea that racism, sexism ect still exist and such. People don't really like hearing that their group has it good and that they're ignorant, and can get defensive. As a reaction they might set themselves against that whole idea and dismiss it whenever possible. That's why your comment came off that way to me, because that seemed a likely way for it to have come about. And even as just a joke, I don't think it's a good idea, because it's a serious issue and joking about it makes it less serious, I guess? And even if you think that still isn't reason enough, multiple other people seem to have gotten the same sort of vibe from it, so. That's my two cents.

Oh, and your first comment, about scapegoating and seeing malignant agency where there is none- is that a jab at me supposedly doing that? Excuse me if it isn't, I'm looking at it and having trouble coming up with other things it could be... other than maybe saying this is off-topic. But I thought I was pretty careful in the way I phrased things to say what it came off as to me and not what it is.

Comment by estokes on Conspiracy Theories as Agency Fictions · 2012-06-10T01:34:18.432Z · score: 0 (20 votes) · LW · GW

The Heterosexual White Males example rubs me the wrong way. I haven't heard of what I'd call conspiracy theories about that, and it doesn't match the ridiculousness of Satan or the Illuminati. It reads like someone who wants to get back at feminists or whomever, you know. A politically motivated and sort of mean-spirited low blow. I mean, maybe there are a bunch of people that believe that on a level that matches the rest of the examples, but this is the vibe I got.

Comment by EStokes on [deleted post] 2012-05-11T13:40:20.539Z

To avoid repeating myself I will just say here that I've downvoted multiple replies of yours for hostility. Stating a preference for text isn't an attack on you; misrepresenting people's responses just comes off badly.

Comment by estokes on Our Phyg Is Not Exclusive Enough · 2012-04-15T11:20:37.150Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

What I did personally was read through them through relatively quickly. I might not have understood it at the same level of depth but if something is related to something in the sequences then I'll know and know where I can find the information if there's anything I've forgotten.

Comment by estokes on Decision Theories: A Semi-Formal Analysis, Part II · 2012-04-07T01:09:19.667Z · score: 1 (9 votes) · LW · GW

But then one wouldn't be able to provide negative reinforcement for his downvotes...?

Comment by estokes on The Future of Education · 2012-02-14T23:00:02.302Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Hmm, Creative Arts seems useless for its intended purpose. The only thing I can think of that might have a benefit is Performance Arts though I don't really know, and it seems to me there'd be more effective ways to teach communication skills in the personal development class.

Comment by estokes on What are you working on? February 2012 · 2012-02-05T21:48:05.518Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Oh boy, Homestuck music stuff. Nice. Salmon sounds a bit dark though- seems more like a Feferi and Condesce combo. Kingdom makes me think of his time on LOWAA, kind of actiony but dark or sad or something. Anyways, cool.

Comment by estokes on How would you talk a stranger off the ledge? · 2012-01-23T22:49:32.382Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I... don't see how making someone feel silly is going to help in the long run? If it really is a problem for them, then wouldn't they have a harder time bouncing back from thinking they've said something silly/stupid, not to mention feel alienated and alone, possibly discouraging them from talking about it again instead of doing the deed? It seems to me that an expression of suicidal intent as a cry for help doesn't necessarily make it insincere. It doesn't sound unlikely to me that someone could say they've the intent to do it, because their view of how things are makes it seem like life's not worth it, but that they'd of course want to think otherwise, and so would still like to hear serious advice on the matter, or at least hear that someone cares. Honestly, it sounds very callous.

Comment by estokes on How would you talk a stranger off the ledge? · 2012-01-23T21:29:24.066Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Do you mean something like that if one has that many problems one could just walk away from them and become a bum...? I think that one could think that they or the world or some interaction of the two is the problem, and there's no escaping from that by becoming a bum.

Comment by estokes on The Ethical Status of Non-human Animals · 2012-01-09T15:30:45.648Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I don't like the idea of torturing puppies, but that alone doesn't really tell me whether it's wrong to do so

Comment by estokes on Describe your personal Mount Stupid · 2012-01-03T23:18:01.643Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

It seems to me that there would be priors that are useful and those that aren't would biases, and that there would be optimal priors to have.

I don't see why there should be a better strategy for every strategy, either, because one would finally be perfect.

Comment by estokes on Describe your personal Mount Stupid · 2012-01-03T21:11:42.673Z · score: 0 (2 votes) · LW · GW

It seems to me that there'd be a perfect rationality, and different strategies to produce results as close as possible to what it would produce.

Comment by estokes on Describe your personal Mount Stupid · 2012-01-03T21:09:15.455Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

What do you mean? It seems to me like the "one true rationality" would be the perfect and unbiased strategy that others tried to emulate, but I'm not sure how it wouldn't exist?

Comment by estokes on Describe your personal Mount Stupid · 2012-01-03T18:59:17.588Z · score: 2 (4 votes) · LW · GW

How could there be more than one true rationality?

Comment by estokes on January 1-14, 2012 Open Thread · 2012-01-01T13:12:05.744Z · score: 9 (9 votes) · LW · GW

Isn't that kind of missing the point of the question?

Comment by estokes on Stupid Questions Open Thread · 2011-12-30T02:05:40.545Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW · GW

If they have all the threory and coded it and whatnot, where is the cost coming from?

Comment by estokes on Drawing Less Wrong: Technical Skill · 2011-12-05T08:02:15.764Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Would it be possible to see some of your art? Do you have a website, perhaps?

Comment by estokes on Welcome to LessWrong (For highschoolers) · 2011-11-26T21:09:36.987Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Ultimately I'd like to get a job as a video game concept artist, as I like video games and drawing. However, it seems pretty tough to get a job in, and art school is probably going to end up costing a pretty sum, even looking at TAD which looks promising. The bachelor's in CS will be free here in Denmark, so I'll then use that to get a job as a programmer and save up some money for art school, and then I'll have something to fall back onto if art school doesn't work out and which can work as another way into the games industry.

Related to future plans, I also like the idea of donating 10% of income to charity.

Comment by estokes on Welcome to LessWrong (For highschoolers) · 2011-11-26T17:21:29.539Z · score: 6 (6 votes) · LW · GW

Er, I'm not new, but I assume this is for high schoolers regardless of how long they've been on here? That seems most convenient, at least.

  1. 16, junior
  2. Eh, not really. Nothing focused.
  3. Not a one, so far as I know.
  4. My plan is to get a bachelor's in computer science or the equivalent, save money by continuing to live with my mom, and then go to an art school.
  5. No
Comment by estokes on SIAI vs. FHI achievements, 2008-2010 · 2011-09-25T12:04:15.063Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Does it say anything about funding in here? If one has significantly more funding than the other this isn't really helpful.