What other peptide vaccines might it be useful to make? 2021-03-03T06:25:40.130Z
Credence polls for 26 claims from the 2019 Review 2021-01-09T07:13:24.166Z
Weekend Review Bash: Guided review writing, Forecasting and co-working, in EU and US times 2021-01-08T21:04:12.332Z
Thread for making 2019 Review accountability commitments 2020-12-18T05:07:25.533Z
Which sources do you trust the most on nutrition advice for exercise? 2020-12-16T03:22:40.088Z
The LessWrong 2018 Book is Available for Pre-order 2020-12-02T11:21:00.221Z
Why is there a "clogged drainpipe" effect in idea generation? 2020-11-20T19:08:08.461Z
Final Babble Challenge (for now): 100 ways to light a candle 2020-11-12T23:17:07.790Z
Babble Challenge: 50 thoughts on stable, cooperative institutions 2020-11-05T06:38:38.997Z
Babble challenge: 50 consequences of intelligent ant colonies 2020-10-29T07:21:33.379Z
Babble challenge: 50 ways of solving a problem in your life 2020-10-22T04:49:42.661Z
What are some beautiful, rationalist artworks? 2020-10-17T06:32:43.142Z
Babble challenge: 50 ways of hiding Einstein's pen for fifty years 2020-10-15T07:23:48.541Z
Babble challenge: 50 ways to escape a locked room 2020-10-08T05:13:06.985Z
Babble challenge: 50 ways of sending something to the moon 2020-10-01T04:20:24.016Z
Sunday August 16, 12pm (PDT) — talks by Ozzie Gooen, habryka, Ben Pace 2020-08-14T18:32:35.378Z
Sunday August 9, 1pm (PDT) — talks by elityre, jacobjacob, Ruby 2020-08-06T22:50:21.550Z
Sunday August 2, 12pm (PDT) — talks by jimrandomh, johnswenthworth, Daniel Filan, Jacobian 2020-07-30T23:55:44.712Z
$1000 bounty for OpenAI to show whether GPT3 was "deliberately" pretending to be stupider than it is 2020-07-21T18:42:44.704Z
Lessons on AI Takeover from the conquistadors 2020-07-17T22:35:32.265Z
Meta-preferences are weird 2020-07-16T23:03:40.226Z
Sunday July 19, 1pm (PDT) — talks by Raemon, ricraz, mr-hire, Jameson Quinn 2020-07-16T20:04:37.974Z
Mazes and Duality 2020-07-14T19:54:42.479Z
Sunday July 12 — talks by Scott Garrabrant, Alexflint, alexei, Stuart_Armstrong 2020-07-08T00:27:57.876Z
Public Positions and Private Guts 2020-06-26T23:00:52.838Z
Missing dog reasoning 2020-06-26T21:30:00.491Z
Sunday June 28 – talks by johnswentworth, Daniel kokotajlo, Charlie Steiner, TurnTrout 2020-06-26T19:13:23.754Z - A Petition 2020-06-25T05:44:50.050Z
Sunday June 21st – talks by Abram Demski, alkjash, orthonormal, eukaryote, Vaniver 2020-06-18T20:10:38.978Z
FHI paper on COVID-19 government countermeasures 2020-06-04T21:06:51.287Z
[Job ad] Lead an ambitious COVID-19 forecasting project [Deadline extended: June 10th] 2020-05-27T16:38:04.084Z
Crisis and opportunity during coronavirus 2020-03-12T20:20:55.703Z
[Link] Beyond the hill: thoughts on ontologies for thinking, essay-completeness and forecasting 2020-02-02T12:39:06.563Z
[Part 1] Amplifying generalist research via forecasting – Models of impact and challenges 2019-12-19T15:50:33.412Z
[Part 2] Amplifying generalist research via forecasting – results from a preliminary exploration 2019-12-19T15:49:45.901Z
Running Effective Structured Forecasting Sessions 2019-09-06T21:30:25.829Z
How to write good AI forecasting questions + Question Database (Forecasting infrastructure, part 3) 2019-09-03T14:50:59.288Z
AI Forecasting Resolution Council (Forecasting infrastructure, part 2) 2019-08-29T17:35:26.962Z
Could we solve this email mess if we all moved to paid emails? 2019-08-11T16:31:10.698Z
AI Forecasting Dictionary (Forecasting infrastructure, part 1) 2019-08-08T16:10:51.516Z
Conversation on forecasting with Vaniver and Ozzie Gooen 2019-07-30T11:16:58.633Z
Does improved introspection cause rationalisation to become less noticeable? 2019-07-30T10:03:00.202Z
Prediction as coordination 2019-07-23T06:19:40.038Z
jacobjacob's Shortform Feed 2019-07-23T02:56:35.132Z
When does adding more people reliably make a system better? 2019-07-19T04:21:06.287Z
How can guesstimates work? 2019-07-10T19:33:46.002Z
Can we use ideas from ecosystem management to cultivate a healthy rationality memespace? 2019-06-13T12:38:42.809Z
AI Forecasting online workshop 2019-05-10T14:54:14.560Z
What are CAIS' boldest near/medium-term predictions? 2019-03-28T13:14:32.800Z
Formalising continuous info cascades? [Info-cascade series] 2019-03-13T10:55:46.133Z


Comment by jacobjacob on Book Review: The Secret Of Our Success · 2021-04-13T21:41:51.074Z · LW · GW

Strange indeed... but, here is a working version: 

Comment by jacobjacob on Monastery and Throne · 2021-04-11T19:27:19.359Z · LW · GW

I had nudging cached in my memory as, more or less, a UX movement.

Want to increase charity donation at your company? Make it opt-out, rather than opt-in. Want to increase completion rates of your survey? Make it shorter. 

And so forth. 

So I was surprised by Jacob Falkovich claiming that nudgerism caused the elaborate psychological theorising used to inform covid policy. Many such policies mostly seemed to be about oddly specific, second-order claims. Like, in the case of expected resistance to challenge trials, or vaccine hesitancy. Those arguments venture more heavily into psychoanalysing people; rather than appealing to simple behavioural economics and basic UX. 

(My cached memory of the nudge movement might be too narrow, though)

Comment by jacobjacob on Monastery and Throne · 2021-04-11T19:18:36.696Z · LW · GW

Habryka, is the reasoning that politicians have a real incentive to accurately predict public response -- because it entirely determines whether they remain in power -- whereas behavioral scientists have a much weaker incentive, compared to the dominant incentive of publishing significant results? 

Comment by jacobjacob on Holy Grails of Chemistry · 2021-04-09T12:03:05.253Z · LW · GW

I haven't looked at the links, but making problem lists like this seems really cool. I'm glad they tried it, and then followed up. 

I'm curious whether you know anything about why they tried it?

Hamming's original lecture talks about how most scientists he had lunch with sort of flinched away from their field's Hamming problems. He asked why they weren't working on them. It's implied that the conversation usually didn't go down very well, and the next day he had to eat lunch with someone else. 

Why were things different for the Accounts of Chemical Research people? Unusual amounts of curiosity, courage, accident, or something else?

Comment by jacobjacob on [deleted post] 2021-04-07T19:15:05.131Z

There is an argument that the use of willpower is undesirable.

Would be good to add a source.

Comment by jacobjacob on Brains and backprop: a key timeline crux · 2021-03-15T12:21:10.412Z · LW · GW

I'm currently on vacation, but I'd be interested in setting up a call once I'm back in 2 weeks! :) I'll send you my calendly in PM

Comment by jacobjacob on Brains and backprop: a key timeline crux · 2021-03-15T09:56:16.616Z · LW · GW

I appreciate you following up on this!

The sad and honest truth, though, is that since I wrote this post, I haven't thought about it. :( I haven't picked up on any key new piece of evidence -- though I also haven't been looking.

I could give you credences, but that would mostly just involve rereading this and loading up all the thoughts

Comment by jacobjacob on What other peptide vaccines might it be useful to make? · 2021-03-09T06:20:24.707Z · LW · GW

gum disease represents a very large and growing cause of both morbidity and economic burden for people in all economic situations.

Curious if you have some links for data/calculations on the disease burden?

Also, do we have a reason to believe this is an area where peptide vaccines would be especially helpful?

Comment by jacobjacob on What other peptide vaccines might it be useful to make? · 2021-03-04T06:17:17.979Z · LW · GW

I went down the neoantigen rabbithole, and it was quite interesting. 

I liked this talk on "Developing Personalized Neoantigen-Based Cancer Vaccines".

It seems a core part of their methodology is using machine learning to predict which peptides will elicit a T-cell response, based on sequencing the patient's tumour. (Discussed starting from around 11 minutes in.)

They use this algorithm, which seems to be a neural network with a single hidden layer just ~60 neurons wide, and some amount of handcrafting of input features (based on papers from 2003 and 2009). I wonder what one could accomplish with more modern tools (though I haven't yet read the papers deeply enough to have a model of how big of a bottleneck this is to creating an effective treatment, and how much room for improvement there is).

Comment by jacobjacob on What other peptide vaccines might it be useful to make? · 2021-03-03T18:53:32.653Z · LW · GW

I'm updating fairly hard on the four radvac team members who found antibodies using custom-built ELISA assays (rather than commercial tests). I wasn't super compelled by arguments that those might be false positives, but I do find it important that we don't know the denominator off how many of them took that test.

It maybe moved my probability from 17% to 45% that it would work for me (so still less optimistic than Wentworth!)

Though I think even a 5% chance of it working would make the original question worth asking. As they say: huge if true :)

(Also, the more competent version of me who solved it in a month would need to be competent on many other dimensions as well, not just knowing about peptide vaccines. Thinking about it, just the peptide delivery time could be longer than a month, as could the vaccine booster schedule. I do think there are worlds where it's actually a month, but I'll update the question to say "a few")

Comment by jacobjacob on Making Vaccine · 2021-03-03T03:28:14.520Z · LW · GW

<1%, because RaDVaC team has tried it and didn’t manage to get any positive result.

That's false, they got several positive anitbody results in ~June or so last year. See a comment elsewhere on this post. 

Comment by jacobjacob on Making Vaccine · 2021-02-23T00:52:35.702Z · LW · GW

Curious if anyone ended up running this process, and, if so, what your results were? 

Comment by jacobjacob on Potential factors in Bell Labs' intellectual progress, Pt. 1 · 2021-02-12T20:35:05.383Z · LW · GW

This actually flies against my sense that Bell Labs was able to build the transistor because of their resources and build-up of particular knowledge and expertise they had after 20-years. Possibly their ideas were just getting spread around via their external contacts, or actually, solid-state physics was taking off generally.


Woah, this was striking to me. It seems like pretty big evidence against Bell Labs actually having a secret sauce of enabling intellectual progress. I would have to look into it more, though. (Also the update is tempered by the fact that another argument for Bell Labs' greatness is the sheer number of inventions, like UNIX, satellites, lasers, information theory, and other stuff.)

Comment by jacobjacob on Making Vaccine · 2021-02-09T03:19:19.277Z · LW · GW

@Davidmanheim you're a pretty big outlier here, and this is also the kind of question where I'd trust your judgement a fair bit: 

So curious if you wanted to elaborate a bit on your model?

Comment by jacobjacob on Making Vaccine · 2021-02-08T02:25:23.457Z · LW · GW

Well, this post was just crying out for some embedded predictions! So here we go: 

Thanks johnswentworth for help with some of the operationalisations!

I included many different ones, as I think it is often good try to triangulate high stakes questions via different operationalisations. This reduces some some "edge-case noise" stemming from answering vague questions in overly specific ways.

Comment by jacobjacob on Pseudorandomness contest: prizes, results, and analysis · 2021-01-30T04:53:59.622Z · LW · GW

Yep, this is indeed a reason proper scoring rules don't remain proper if 1) you only have a small sample size of questions, and 2) utility of winning is not linear in the points you obtain (for example, if you really care about being in the top 3, much more than any particular amount of points). 

Some people have debated whether it was happening in the Good Judgement tournaments. If so, that might explain why extremizing algorithms improved performance. (Though I recall not being convinced that it was actually happening there). When Metaculus ran its crypto competition a few years ago they also did some analysis to check if this phenomenon was present, yet they couldn't detect it. 

Comment by jacobjacob on Pseudorandomness contest: prizes, results, and analysis · 2021-01-29T02:13:00.944Z · LW · GW


And in doing so, I feel proud to assume the role of Patron Saint of LessWrong Challenges, and All Those Who Test Their Art Against the Territory.

Some reasons I'm excited about this post: 

1) Challenges help make LessWrong more grounded, and build better feedback loops for actually testing our rationality. I wrote more about this in my curation notice for The Darwin Game challenge, and wrote about it in the various posts of my own Babble Challenge sequence.

2) It was competently executed and analysed. There were nice control groups used; the choice of scoring rule was thought through (as well as including what would've been the results of other scoring rules); the data was analysed in a bunch of different ways which managed to be both comprehensive while at the same time maintaining my curiosity and being very readable. 

Furthermore, I can imagine versions of this challenge that would either feel butchered, in such a way that I felt like I didn't learn anything from reading the results, or needlessly long and pedantic, in such a way that getting the insight wouldn't have been worth the trek for most people. Not so with this one. Excellent job, UnexpectedValues. 

3) I want to celebrate the efforts of the participants, some of whom devised and implemented some wonderful strategies. The turtle graphic fingerprints, gzip checks, mean-deviation scatter, and many others were really neat. Kudos to all who joined, and especially the winners, Jenny, Reed, Eric, Scy, William, Ben, Simon, Adam and Viktor!

I would love to see more activities like these on LessWrong. If you want to run one and would like help with marketing, funding for prizes, or just general feedback -- do send me a message!

Comment by jacobjacob on Approval Extraction Advertised as Production · 2021-01-28T07:28:56.892Z · LW · GW

Nice, this is interesting! 

You need your business partners but they don't need you

I don't understand what this means and what it's measuring. 

Comment by jacobjacob on On the nature of purpose · 2021-01-26T02:54:10.365Z · LW · GW

Makes sense! An intro paragraph could be good :) 

Comment by jacobjacob on On the nature of purpose · 2021-01-23T03:03:53.483Z · LW · GW

Congratulations on your first LessWrong post! :) (Well, almost first)

As a piece of feedback, I will note that I found the "Rosenberg's crux" section pretty hard to read, because it was quite dense. 

I feel like if I would've have read the original letter exchange, I could then have turned to this post, and gone "a-ha!" In other words, it felt like a useful summary, but didn't give me the original generators/models, such that I could pass the intellectual Turing test of what Dennett and Rosenberg actually believe. 

By comparison, I think the section on the "cryptographer's constraint" was clearer; since it was more focused on elaborating on a particular principle and why it was important, along with considering some concrete examples more in depth. 

Comment by jacobjacob on [Part 2] Amplifying generalist research via forecasting – results from a preliminary exploration · 2021-01-18T19:32:28.438Z · LW · GW

The forecasters were only quite loosely selected for "some forecasting experience". Some of them I know are very able forecasters, others are people much less experienced, and who I don't think are affiliated that much with the rationality or effective altruism communities. 

Comment by jacobjacob on Thread for making 2019 Review accountability commitments · 2021-01-12T20:24:46.059Z · LW · GW

I failed to meet all my commitments. 

Operationalize three forecasting questions

Smashed this one and created 20+ questions. 

Run one MTurk/Positly survey

I have a beginning draft of a survey for the Secret of Our Success. I hoped I could finish it up yesterday, but instead I had work on shipping the LessWrong Books. Will see if I can get it out later this week. 

Have at least one 2h conversation about a particular post, and write up a review after, almost regardless of how I feel the conversation went

Didn't happen and didn't really come close. 


My main post-mortem is that I had multiple calendar reminders about the commitment, but for all of them I postponed them into the future. Until it was the last weekend and I was out of time. I should've spent more meta-cognition during some of them, thinking about how much time I would need to complete the tasks on time. 

Comment by jacobjacob on Thread for making 2019 Review accountability commitments · 2021-01-12T20:19:27.061Z · LW · GW

Nice job. 

Reviews seem to me to have a lower karma on average than either posts, or comments on currently popular posts. 

Comment by jacobjacob on Thread for making 2019 Review accountability commitments · 2021-01-12T00:03:29.624Z · LW · GW

Following up on this: how did it go? 

Comment by jacobjacob on Unconscious Economics · 2021-01-11T20:05:23.114Z · LW · GW

Author here: I think this post could use a bunch of improvements. It spends a bunch of time on tangential things (e.g. the discussion of Inadequacy and why this doesn't come through in textbooks, spending a while initially setting up a view to then tear down). 

But really what would be nice is to have it do a much better job at delivering the core insight. This is currently just done in two bullets + one exercise for the reader. 

Even more important would be to include JenniferRM's comment which adds a core mechanism (something like "cultural learning").

Overall, though, I still stand by the importance of the underlying concept; and think it's a crucial part of the toolkit required to apply economic thinking in practice.   

Comment by jacobjacob on The Hard Work of Translation (Buddhism) · 2021-01-10T19:05:35.166Z · LW · GW

Ah, woe is me! Fixed now, thanks!

Comment by jacobjacob on Being the (Pareto) Best in the World · 2021-01-10T00:28:23.390Z · LW · GW

Yeah I thought about that. I'm curious whether one could operationalise the field-picking into an interesting poll question.

Comment by jacobjacob on Two explanations for variation in human abilities · 2021-01-10T00:25:12.787Z · LW · GW

Formulations are basically just lifted from the post verbatim, so the response might be some evidence that it would be good to rework the post a bit before people vote on it. 

I thought a bit about how to turn Katja's core claim into a poll question, but didn't come up with any great ideas. Suggestions welcome. 

As for whether the claims are true or not --

The "broken parts" argument is one counter-argument. 

But another is that it matters a lot what learning algorithm you use. Someone doing deliberate practice (in a field where that's possible) will vastly outperform someone who just does "guessing and checking", or who Goodharts very hard on short-term metrics. 

Maybe you'd class that under "background knowledge"? Or maybe the claim is that, modulo broken parts, motivation, and background knowledge, different people can meta-learn the same effective learning strategies? 

Comment by jacobjacob on Reframing Impact · 2021-01-09T23:46:29.575Z · LW · GW

Here are prediction questions for the predictions that TurnTrout himself provided in the concluding post of the Reframing Impact sequence

Comment by jacobjacob on Credence polls for 26 claims from the 2019 Review · 2021-01-09T23:44:16.629Z · LW · GW

Ey, awesome! I've updated the post to include them. 

Comment by jacobjacob on Babble Thread · 2021-01-09T22:45:21.603Z · LW · GW

Reading the OP quickly, I wasn't entirely sure what I was supposed to babble about... "100 ways to light a candle" is easier than "...anything" :) 

Consider giving some prompts that people could default to, unless they have something else in mind already?

Comment by jacobjacob on Two explanations for variation in human abilities · 2021-01-09T21:16:07.175Z · LW · GW

I made some prediction questions for this, and as of January 9th, there interestingly seems to be some disagreement with the author on these. 

Would definitely be curious for some discussion between Matthew and some of the people with low-ish predictions. Or perhaps for Matthew to clarify the argument made on these points, and see if that changes people's minds.

Comment by jacobjacob on Bioinfohazards · 2021-01-09T20:11:29.382Z · LW · GW

(You can find a list of all 2019 Review poll questions here.)

Comment by jacobjacob on The Forces of Blandness and the Disagreeable Majority · 2021-01-09T20:04:49.760Z · LW · GW

I experimented with extracting some of the core claims from this post into polls: 

Personally, I find that answering polls like these make me more of a "quest participant" than a passive reader. They provide a nice "think for yourself" prompt, that then makes me look at the essay with a more active mindset. But others might have different experiences, feel free to provide feedback on how it worked for you.

(You can find a list of all 2019 Review poll questions here.)

Comment by jacobjacob on The Hard Work of Translation (Buddhism) · 2021-01-09T19:58:35.799Z · LW · GW

(You can find a list of all review poll questions here.)

Comment by jacobjacob on Being the (Pareto) Best in the World · 2021-01-09T19:09:47.608Z · LW · GW

I took some liberties in operationalising what seemed to me a core thesis underlying the post. Let me know if you think it doesn't really capture the important stuff!

(You can find a list of all review poll questions here.)

Comment by jacobjacob on The strategy-stealing assumption · 2021-01-09T19:08:36.347Z · LW · GW

(You can find a list of all 2019 Review poll questions here.)

Comment by jacobjacob on [Answer] Why wasn't science invented in China? · 2021-01-09T19:07:19.714Z · LW · GW

(You can find a list of all review poll questions here.)

Comment by jacobjacob on Make more land · 2021-01-09T05:59:29.045Z · LW · GW

I'm trying out making some polls about posts for the Review (using the predictions feature). You can answer by hovering over the scale and clicking a number to indicate your agreement with the claim. 

Making more land out of the about 50mi^2 shallow water in the San Francisco Bay, South of the Dumbarton Bridge, would... 

For some of these questions, I tried to operationalise them to be less ambiguous than Jeff's original formulation. 

Comment by jacobjacob on Book Review: The Secret Of Our Success · 2021-01-09T05:45:35.296Z · LW · GW

For the Review, I'm experimenting with using the predictions feature to poll users for their opinions about claims made in posts. 

The first two cites Scott almost verbatim, but for the third I tried to specify further. 

Feel free to add your predictions above, and let me know if you have any questions about the experience.

Comment by jacobjacob on Approval Extraction Advertised as Production · 2021-01-07T06:44:14.760Z · LW · GW

I can't quite tell why you think Twitch is bad. It is subject to network effects, kind of a social media company, is that why? And I don't know what is other than some AI company.


Scale's mission is something like accelerating AI progress, and they have no safety department. So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ For Twitch I think a bunch of good stuff happens there (chess streamers, Ed Kmett streaming Haskell, or just great gamers), but they're also in a domain where clickbait and similar Goodharting dynamics are strong, and in the worlds where it gets really big I expect those to dominate.

On the topic of tails, I wonder if your distribution would've come out differently had the scale been -10, -1, 0, 1, 10.

I think I would rarely have assigned 10s, due to it being a complex question and this just being a very rough draft.

Another interesting question is whether weighing the rankings by market cap would have made a difference. (But YC didn't make valuations available in their data, so it would require ~30 min of data entry.)

Comment by jacobjacob on Approval Extraction Advertised as Production · 2021-01-07T05:54:40.748Z · LW · GW

I wrote up a longer, conceptual review. But I also did a brief data collection, which I'll post here as others might like to build on or go through a similar exercise. 

In 2019 YC released a list of their top 100 portfolio companies ranked by valuation and exit size, where applicable.

So I went through the top 50 companies on this list, and gave each company a ranking ranging from -2 for "Very approval-extracting" to 2 for "Very production-oriented".  

To decide on that number, I asked myself questions like "Would growth of this company seem cancerous?" and "Would I reflectively endorse using this product?"

Companies that scored highly include Doordash, Dropbox and Gusto (all 2's), and companies that score low include (which builds tooling to speed up AI research) and Twitch (-2 and -1). 

For comparison, I also did the same exercise with the top 50 S&P500 companies by market cap, with high-scoring ones including Microsoft and Visa, and low-scoring ones including Coca Cola and Salesforce. 

This scale is Very Made-up and Maybe Useless. But, if nothing else, it seemed like a useful way to get grounded in some data before thinking further about the post. 

Overall, the distributions ended up very similar, though YC did come out with a higher mean, mostly driven by fewer negative tail companies. 

Spreadsheet here

Comment by jacobjacob on The LessWrong 2018 Book is Available for Pre-order · 2020-12-23T07:48:18.478Z · LW · GW

I was the lead designer on making these graphs, and I found this feedback pretty useful. Thanks!

Most of my response is "I'm a beginner, I'm still learning, and trying to ship things fast means making a bunch of sacrifices. Boy could I point out even worse things that would drive you crazy not being able to unsee them!" :) 

One reason for these (e.g. 4) is that the graphs were first plotted using Vega-lite in ObservableHQ, and then exported and retouched in Adobe Illustrator. 

Comment by jacobjacob on The LessWrong 2018 Book is Available for Pre-order · 2020-12-23T07:43:40.318Z · LW · GW

Yep, Gill Sans for sans-serif.

Comment by jacobjacob on Which sources do you trust the most on nutrition advice for exercise? · 2020-12-21T02:35:22.183Z · LW · GW

Subscribed for Henselmans email course. I like it thus far! Will see how things continue.

Might also check out the RP app. 


Comment by jacobjacob on Which sources do you trust the most on nutrition advice for exercise? · 2020-12-21T02:33:46.910Z · LW · GW

(FWIW; I've been working out 4-5x per week for the last months (from home), and cut out all fast food/candy/folk-nutrition-bad-seeming-foods for the same period. I have a very solid routine down and am at no risk of procrastinating. The major failure mode for me right now is plateauing or injury. In fact, the majority people I know who have had a gym habit seem to have plateaued.) 

Comment by jacobjacob on Babble challenge: 50 consequences of intelligent ant colonies · 2020-12-21T02:25:21.854Z · LW · GW

Not sure I understand what you mean here. 

Comment by jacobjacob on Secular Solstice 2020 · 2020-12-21T02:24:10.990Z · LW · GW

The first 5 min (that actually played, whereas the second half didn't) where also among my highlights.

Comment by jacobjacob on Babble challenge: 50 consequences of intelligent ant colonies · 2020-12-18T05:50:23.360Z · LW · GW

FWIW, I just posted [a new challenge-like thing](, and following your feedback, among others, I tried making the stakes and norms clearer upfront, and be more explicit about what people are opting in to. 


I'll try to elucidate the standards underlying my judgement call: 

  • You admitting it was due to an "ugh" field, and me being worried about my dojo-master-decisions making it seem generally acceptable to shy away from your ugh fields. (Which, well, sometimes it certainly is. They're there for a reason. But not always, and I wanted to build a space where people could confront challenges)
  • Not conforming to the experiment of "having babble be used to solve one very particular problem in your life". Instead doing something which seemed more theoretical, and less likely to yield creative solutions to one specific problem. The answered seemed to me in the spirit of babble, but not in the spirit of this week's challenge. (One might also say that I wanted depth-first and you did a breadth-first search... but I'm not sure that metaphor really holds up)

I don't think I had made it at all explicit or clear to everyone involved that these were actually the standards. But they are the ones I abode by, nonetheless. 

Comment by jacobjacob on [deleted post] 2020-12-18T05:37:21.535Z

Maybe a tag-split would be in order. I think the actual technical, economic field of Mechanism Design gets discussed a bunch of LW. I'm not a huge fan of "Institution design" as a name since it's not actually an established name for a field (I think?), but it might have slightly different connotations.