Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time? 2017-05-23T16:38:35.338Z · score: 4 (3 votes)
Building Safe A.I. - A Tutorial for Encrypted Deep Learning 2017-03-21T15:17:54.971Z · score: 2 (3 votes)
Headlines, meet sparklines: news in context 2017-02-18T16:00:46.212Z · score: 4 (3 votes)


Comment by korin43 on What to draw from Macintyre et al 2015? · 2020-04-06T15:43:28.964Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Unfortunately that study doesn't cover the question we want answered:

The control arm was ‘standard practice’, which comprised mask use in a high proportion of par- ticipants. As such (without a no-mask control), the finding of a much higher rate of infection in the cloth mask arm could be interpreted as harm caused by cloth masks, efficacy of medical masks, or most likely a combination of both

So the study found evidence that surgical masks are better than cloth masks, but doesn't say anything about whether cloth mask are better than nothing.

The study authors speculate that cloth masks are detrimental, but after reading through the study again, I'm pretty sure they provide absolutely no evidence for that (2 out of 1607 people in their study didn't wear masks).

Comment by korin43 on The horse-sized duck: a theory of innovation, individuals and society · 2020-04-02T19:26:44.823Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

It seems like Patreon is sort-of fixing this, at least when the thing people are obsessed with is interesting enough.

Comment by korin43 on COVID-19 transmission: Are we overemphasizing touching rather than breathing? · 2020-03-25T03:41:23.664Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

But we could supply the entire country with fabric masks in like a week, even assuming there's not already enough of them sitting around. People who sew live for this kind of thing.

Comment by korin43 on What are some articles that updated your beliefs a lot on an important topic? · 2020-03-12T00:46:29.291Z · score: 14 (8 votes) · LW · GW

Random Critical Analysis has a lot of articles about healthcare spending, and this one convinced me that US healthcare spending isn't particularly unusual given our standard of living, and it probably won't be easy to lower it (if we even wanted to):

Several other posts cover various objections and show similar graphs using different data.

I think this was the first time I had encountered this argument. The parts that make it convincing are the frequent attempts to show that a particular measure wasn't cherry picked and how the author breaks down data as much as possible instead of just showing the high level view and assuming it's enough.

Comment by korin43 on Mazes Sequence Roundup: Final Thoughts and Paths Forward · 2020-03-07T20:07:16.817Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

... restaurants generally aren't mazes.

Why do you believe that? Have you worked in a restaurant?

Isolated demand for rigor, but yes I have.

There are no bullshit jobs in restaurants, there's no ambiguity about what people should be doing, people's employment status usually depends much more heavily on performance than in mazes, etc.

I would suspect the reason that restaurants aren't maze-like is that most of them are small and relatively flat hierarchies. A LOT of them don't make any money, ever, either.

I agree with you here, but I think this isn't an accident. Larger companies become more maze like, but mazes can't survive competition, so companies under intense competition have to stay small to avoid becoming mazes.

Comment by korin43 on Coronavirus: Justified Practical Advice Thread · 2020-02-29T16:26:57.095Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

It wonder if this would be a good use case for normal face masks. Presumably they decrease the distance the virus would travel if you coughed (and also warn other people to keep their distance). Unfortunately I'm having trouble finding any research on this (everyone seems interested in masks to protect the wearer, or long term use, not short term use to prevent infecting others).

Comment by korin43 on Mazes Sequence Roundup: Final Thoughts and Paths Forward · 2020-02-06T18:00:39.103Z · score: 11 (7 votes) · LW · GW

I held off commenting more because you said this would be addressed at some point, but the early articles talked about what you call "Moloch's Puzzle" and then the later ones talk about something completely different (how maze-like organizations are created by politics / insufficient information / mismatch between organization and personal goals).

Sufficiently strong optimization pressure, whether or not it comes from competition, destroys all values not being optimized, with optimization pressure constantly increasing.

Yet all is not lost. Most of the world is better off than it has ever been and is getting better all the time. We enjoy historically outrageously wonderful bounties every day, and hold up moral standards and practical demands on many fronts that no time or place in the past could handle. How is this possible?

I maintain that the answer is right there: In a sufficiently competitive market environment, the values being optimized are the things that you're surprised still exist. Of course wonderful bounties etc. exist because that's what competitive organizations optimize for! If they optimized something that people don't want to buy, they would be out-competed by someone else.

I'm sorry to keep pushing on this, but it's important because your solution is exactly wrong (reducing competition!?). Less outside competition increases slack inside the organization, creating more space for internal politics.

You mention having worked in mazes, but given the composition of this site, I'm guessing the mazes you've worked for are highly profitable (and therefore low-competition). Companies like Google and Microsoft can afford to be mazes because of patents and copyright (legal competitive protection).

On the other hand, restaurants are so intensely competitive that you call it "super-perfect competition", but suspiciously, restaurants generally aren't mazes. Even more suspiciously, the more competitive the area, the less-maze-like the restaurants. Your response is that somehow they must actually not be as competitive as they seem, but there's a simpler answer: Mazes can't survive competition.

Comment by korin43 on Money isn't real. When you donate money to a charity, how does it actually help? · 2020-02-06T15:57:34.109Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

This is a big part of why I'm more optimistic about direct transfers like GiveDirectly. Standard charities act kind of like socialist economies and run into a lot of the same issues. When they're operating inside of capitalist economies, they get some advantages through price signals to indicate what products people might want, but they still run into a lot of problems with top-down planning.

Of course, it's complicated because some charities are plausibly more efficient because they use top-down planning and the planners correctly know that people should be spending their money on vaccines and not whatever else they would have bought for $0.50..

Comment by korin43 on Money isn't real. When you donate money to a charity, how does it actually help? · 2020-02-06T15:46:31.755Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I guess "temporarily motivating strangers" is a reasonable description of what money does. I should have argued against calling that motivation illusory or not-real.

Comment by korin43 on Money isn't real. When you donate money to a charity, how does it actually help? · 2020-02-05T21:49:24.497Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

My original response was a more abstract explaination of why I think describing money as "not real" is misleading but maybe I more direct response to the article would be more useful since I think that part actually isn't core to your question.

Money is a shared illusion. Neither paper, gold, nor electron patterns can stop a mosquito or feed a hungry person directly.

I'm assuming this is for rhetorical effect, but "money is a shared illusion because you can't eat it" is a strange definition.

[...] Transfer of money is a temporary, low friction way to motivate unidentified strangers to preform an action.

So what's the mechanism by which monetary charity works?

The mechanism by which monetary charity works is by motivating unidentified strangers to perform a charitable action.

Or alternately, if you mean charities like GiveDirectly, the charity works by giving money to poor people who can then motivate unidentified strangers to perform charitable actions (like building roofs for them).

Are we "just" exploiting a comparative advantage in dollar-gathering in order to force the people on the ground to behave the way we prefer? Do we have any evidence that it can create channels of behavior that are self-sustaining?

This depends entirely on the charitable action and has nothing to do with money. How can we answer if a particular charity is helpful if we don't know what the charity does? As you say above, money works indirectly so we need to know the thing we're doing with it.

On small (and not-so-small, but not universal) margins, money is a fine way to change some behaviors. I'm wondering if there are ways to shift the equilibria at the core rather than the margin.

If you come up with a way to shift the equilibria at the core, you could pay people to implement that..

Comment by korin43 on Money isn't real. When you donate money to a charity, how does it actually help? · 2020-02-02T17:53:27.278Z · score: 47 (22 votes) · LW · GW

Calling money an illusion and describing at as a way of temporarily motivating strangers seems like a misunderstanding of what money is. It's true that money itself is just a piece of paper that we agree to treat a specific way, but the way we treat it is as a representation of real work done and real favors owed.

When I give you a dollar, I'm saying that you've done something worth (at least) a dollar for me and that I now owe you a favor worth (at least) a dollar. This works without money ("IOU's", or just keeping track of favors). The innovation of money itself is that we can get favors repaid by complete strangers without having to figure out the chain of favors every time (and in some cases, being able to get a favor repaid before it's owed).

Which is all a long way of saying that if you do something to make someone owe you a favor, you can transfer that favor to a charity instead of calling it in yourself. The piece of paper won't feed a hungry person but the favor attached to it can.

Comment by korin43 on How has the cost of clothing insulation changed since 1970 in the USA? · 2020-01-13T04:31:55.207Z · score: 0 (3 votes) · LW · GW

It seems like the cost of insulation mostly depends on improvements in the insulation manufacturing process, which seems kind of different from innovation in clothing itself.

For example, if we stopped innovating in clothing design entirely, people might focus more on reducing the production costs of fixed amounts of materials, so insulation would get cheaper by your metric, and it's unclear if that counts as innovation in clothing.

Going the other direction, if we invented a less insulating, expensive insulation with magical perfect durability, it would be a huge clothing innovation but the cost of insulation would go up by your metric.

Comment by korin43 on Imperfect Competition · 2020-01-02T16:03:20.608Z · score: 7 (4 votes) · LW · GW

I think I misread this article at first, and it's really just the same confusion as the previous article. These are all bad things which are "good" because monopoly rents are good.

I'm guessing this is based on Meditations on Moloch (5) "Capitalism":

Imagine a capitalist in a cutthroat industry. He employs workers in a sweatshop to sew garments, which he sells at minimal profit. Maybe he would like to pay his workers more, or give them nicer working conditions. But he can’t, because that would raise the price of his products and he would be outcompeted by his cheaper rivals and go bankrupt. Maybe many of his rivals are nice people who would like to pay their workers more, but unless they have some kind of ironclad guarantee that none of them are going to defect by undercutting their prices they can’t do it.

I think Scott is (unknowingly) pointing at a problem with barriers to competition on the worker side and thinking it's a problem with competition on the business side.

This becomes more clear if you turn the sweatshop into a worker-owned business. The same things Scott mentions still apply. Even though there's no bad guy to oppress them, the workers still can't raise wages because they're competing with other businesses. So why are they working at this business, and why don't they enter a different field? In the real world, the answer is that there are a lot of barriers in the way (imperfect competition), but if we're assuming perfect competition, then they should be able to switch to any other business with no effort (or they could produce their own food, shelter and luxuries), which implies that there is no better business to be in.

The problem in this example is that the entire world is a dystopia where no one produces anything more valuable than factory clothes. With monopoly rents, our workers could potentially make themselves better off than other workers in the same world, but it's a zero-sum game and it's definitely not obvious that that would be better.

Note: Our world was a dystopia similar to this once, although without perfect competition. We didn't get out of it by reducing competition (we're more capitalist now than we were then), but by improving efficiency. The thing left out of money-centric examples is the actual stuff being produced, and we produce way more stuff now than we did at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Comment by korin43 on An Emergency Fund for Effective Altruists · 2019-12-31T19:11:00.585Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

This sounds a lot like insurance, and effective altruists could indeed insure themselves against a myriad of risks. Unfortunately, this introduces the overhead of an insurance company. (When asking for a ballpark estimate at the insurer I interned at, I was told that at most one-third of all premium money is put back into payment of legitimate claims.) Besides, coverage will never be 100%, an insurer will reject claims whenever possible, and insurance requires monthly payment, which requires stable income.

The overhead of the insurance company isn't there for fun, it's because if you don't have that overhead, the insurance becomes more expensive. If you decide checking claims is too expensive, so instead you'll just not ever reject claims, I assure you you're not going to save money. To compare how much money you'd save by (effectively) starting your own insurance company, you need to look at profits, and insurance companies are not particularly profitable.

What are insurance sector companies usual profit margins? The insurance industry's net margin in 2017 ranged between 3 and 10.5%. Life insurance had the widest range between quarters, from 3% to 9.6%; property and casualty insurance were at 3% to 8%; and health insurance had the narrowest range of 4% to 5.25%.

It's possible that you could still save money by starting yourself, but my priors say your version sounds cheaper because you're being overly optimistic. You could probably get someone to take your bet though by asking a company to insure against people asking for their money back, with a clause that if payouts ever exceed x% of payments they can stop paying claims (similar to what would happen if your fund ran out of money).

Comment by korin43 on Imperfect Competition · 2019-12-31T18:13:30.275Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

It's really confusing that you wrote a big list of bad things and I think your argument is that these are good? Somehow it would be bad if people could buy individual foods regardless of distance and knew the exact contents of them and their nutritional value? It would be bad if multiple car manufacturers made similar cars and sold them in straightforward ways?

(And the restaurant example is talking about something completely different than market competitition)

I think this series is fundamentally flawed due the things I mention in my comment on your previous post (short version: you're using the world "value" to mean something like "monopoly rents" and then getting confused that competition is destroying monopoly rents but good things still exist). If perfect competition causes farmers to produce and sell food for the price that it would cost their buyers to produce and sell food, then food still gets produced and food is still traded with people who would rather produce something else. We just have less income/effort/work inequality.

Comment by korin43 on Perfect Competition · 2019-12-31T17:54:44.612Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

This has been mentioned in other comments, but I'm concerned that the author is missing the problem. The misuse of the term "value" is not a minor thing, and in fact invalidated the entire article (the article argues that perfect competition is bad but for various reasons it doesn't exist; this is completely wrong, perfect competition is good and would be better than the status quo). You're right that economists sometimes use value in a specific way and your usage would be valid in that context, but that's not how you're using the word in this article. I think the point where this article goes from confusing to explicitly wrong is here:

No matter how cheap prices of goods and quantities available might get, if you have zero surplus of any kind to spend on them, it doesn’t do you any good.

Before this you were very specific to use economic terms, but here you're suddenly using "surplus" to mean "everything of value". This equivocation is all over the post but becomes unmistakable here.

I think a big part of the problem is focusing on weird industries like VC funded redistribution schemes like Uber instead of real businesses. Look at farms, manufacturing, etc. - businesses that are trying to make a profit.

If I open the world's first apple orchard in a world of orange orchards, I can charge monopoly prices, earning a surplus on my sales, and use that money to buy more stuff than people who grow oranges. If suddenly the seeds go out and anyone could grow apples, in this articles terms, we would suddenly have closer-to-perfect competition and Moloch would destroy all "value".. leading to more apples being produced, more affordable food variety, and a decrease in work/income inequality.

We don't need to explain how competition isn't perfect and actually things are fine because roving barbarians burn down random orchards every year. Periodically destroying orchards is just bad and producing things more fairly is good.

I'm guessing the counter-point would be that in high-capital businesses like manufacturing, perfect competition destroys the economic surplus you need to build or maintain factories, but this is misusing terms in a different way. The cost of the factory isn't surplus and if your competitors are selling below cost, the problem is irrational competitors, not the fact that there's competition.

Comment by korin43 on The Towel Census: A Methodology for Identifying Orphaned Objects in Your Home · 2019-12-22T14:39:58.239Z · score: 8 (4 votes) · LW · GW

If you're only doing this every few months, wouldn't it be easier to just wash all of them?

Comment by korin43 on Could someone please start a bright home lighting company? · 2019-11-26T21:00:49.272Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Huh that company you link to at the end also has this section:

Maybe this is just a matter of buying this emitter and hooking up to a sufficiently quiet highsink + packaging it in a more usable form factor.

I wonder if there would be issues about heat dissipation / potential fires though?

Comment by korin43 on Elon Musk is wrong: Robotaxis are stupid. We need standardized rented autonomous tugs to move customized owned unpowered wagons. · 2019-11-04T14:49:25.053Z · score: 12 (6 votes) · LW · GW

You may be right, but I read this more as an argument that we'll keep personal cars, not that we're rent out half of them. If we're sticking with personal wagons, isn't it easier to just own your own engine too? Electric engines are cheap and battery prices are going down.

Comment by korin43 on Reflections on Premium Poker Tools: Part 1 - My journey · 2019-10-09T17:24:59.297Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Thanks for writing this. I've been considering trying a software startup at some point and I think your lessons from this will help me a lot. I've been considering doing something with RSS readers, since it's a tool I use and I have experience working with other people on them, but I definitely need to (1) do some market research to make sure it's even plausible that I could make money, (2) look into how to market it / whether I need a cofounder or if I could approach people who could help spread the word, and (3) if I do it, make sure I can come up with something fast that people could immediately use, since I was also leaning toward "do the same thing as the market leader but better", and I think you've convinced me that that's a scary place to go. I might plausibly be able to be better than the market leader _at one thing_ and then add more features though.

(I'm brendanlong on Slack by the way, so we've already talked about this but I still found the articles really interesting)

Comment by korin43 on What supplements do you use? · 2019-07-28T19:42:31.688Z · score: 5 (2 votes) · LW · GW

You might be interested in Testa's omega-3 supplements. They contain both DHA and EPA but come from farmed algae, so they don't have the mercury issues that fish oil does.

I take two per day based on some advice from someone on the LessWrong Slack.

Comment by korin43 on Explaining "The Crackpot Bet" · 2019-06-29T15:57:16.997Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

If he wins the bet, he gets a million dollars. If he loses the bet he gets a 21-year interest-free million dollar loan. Taking investment into account, the other party gives him several million dollars either way, and it doesn't really matter if he wins or loses the bet.

Comment by korin43 on Explaining "The Crackpot Bet" · 2019-06-29T15:51:41.675Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

The bet is extremely one-sided. At the outset, you get a 21-year million dollar zero-interest loan, and if you win you don't have to pay it back. There's no upside for the other person at all. Even if you "lose", the "winner" is giving you several million dollars in interest.

There are two reasons that offering this bet doesn't make you look smart:

1. The problem with the bet is extremely obvious and doesn't win you any cleverness points

2. In context, you appear to be using this bet to flout rationalist conversational norms.

3. You may also be violating the norms of the mailing list you're using (sending jokes, sending the same email to multiple lists)

Specifically for the second point, rationalist argument norms generally expect people to do some combination of providing evidence, making a (real) bet, or acknowledging the lack of evidence (which is fine! not everything is legible, and sometimes you need time to acquire evidence).

In this situation, it seems you made an argument that at least one other person found unconvincing. They responded in a way that (from your account) sounds pretty rude. At this point you have two options, either responding to the unnecessarily personal attack or respond to their argument.

For example, it would be completely reasonable to say something like "I realize you're not convinced by my argument, but I'd ask that you respond to the argument itself, and not generalizations about me (calling me a crackpot)".

You decided to respond to them with a counterargument (that you are in fact a genius), at which point the conversational norms above come up. "Bob" seems to have picked "make a bet", and you decided that "winning a Nobel Prize" is an unreasonable standard. I think you're completely justified in turning down an impossible bet, and there are several productive responses available to you:

  • Turn down the bet, and choose a different avenue to make your argument ("I'm not sure if we can come up with a reasonable bet for this, but I'm working on something exciting right now. Let's table this for now and we can see what you think when my paper/project/whatever is published.")
  • Come up with a new, more reasonable bet (some options: a paper of yours is published in a sufficiently prestigious form; you're invited to give a talk somewhere sufficiently prestigious; a neutral expert is chosen to adjudicate the bet in one year -- but knowingly, not just by the accident of saying the word "genius").

Instead, you countered with an even more unreasonable bet, sent it to multiple mailing lists, and doubled down when people asked you to stop (although they were also rude, from your account).

I hope this overly-detailed response is helpful. To be clear, I've never been on any of these mailing lists so I'm entirely relying on your account. My advice to you is:

1. Find a friend who participates on these mailing lists and get their opinion on whether you should apologize to the list or if just ending this thread is enough (I suspect a short "Sorry for the annoying messages / fake bet" would be helpful, but in some contexts people may just want the thread to end and would prefer not to get any more messages about it). I don't know the full context but if this is everything, I suspect people will get over this fairly quickly if you stop making it worse.

2. In the future, if something like this comes up, don't argue about vague things. You're perfectly within your rights to ask people to be nicer, but in a situation like this I think it would be far more productive to go with the "Please don't generalize about me; is there something you don't like about the argument?" response.

3. When you are arguing a point, be aware that sarcasm is dangerous, and trying to play it straight is even more dangerous. In particular, the bet you made and the arguments around it are highly suspect in rationalist circles. No one wants to argue with someone who is being intentionally misleading. This sort of thing *might* be ok with friends and in person, but it's almost never the right thing to do on a mailing list. If someone is arguing a point you disagree with, either give your evidence or defer the argument until you can collect more evidence.

Comment by korin43 on Explaining "The Crackpot Bet" · 2019-06-24T16:43:06.408Z · score: 10 (5 votes) · LW · GW

So if I'm understanding the timeline correctly, you said things people find so unconvincing that even your friends warned you that you sound like a crackpot, you doubled down by trolling an email list with an obviously one-sided bet, got upset that your trolling made people angry, and now you're bragging about how smart you are? I don't know you, but if I was in control of this list I would have already banned you. Group cohesion is a hard enough problem without trolls trying to mess it up "for fun".

Comment by korin43 on Could waste heat become an environment problem in the future (centuries)? · 2019-04-04T15:36:18.336Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I'd like to question both assumptions (2) and (3).

For (2), it's not clear to me that "more energy" is the thing people want. Some things we do require a lot of energy (transportation, manufacturing) but some things that are really important use surprisingly little power (the internet).

For (3), it seems like we've been moving in the direction of more-efficiency for a long time (better engines and turbines to convert more of the fuel into useful energy, fewer losses to friction and transmission, etc.).

Overall, I think we're seeing an upward trend in power usage because more people are getting the full benefit of modern technology, not because modern technology is using more power per person. I wish I could find a long-term graph, but per-capital power consumption in the United States has been going down for a few years, and total power consumption in the United States has been flat since around 1995: Another way of putting this is that it's not that cars are using more gas, it's that a lot more people have cars. This means that in the short-term we can expect energy usage to continue going up for a while, but it could plausibly peak if/when the global population peaks and we finish the project of ending worldwide poverty.

For (1) I could nitpick since fission could also power our civilization for a long time, although I don't think it really effects the question you're asking.

Comment by korin43 on Why didn't Agoric Computing become popular? · 2019-02-19T15:52:33.602Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

When dealing with resources on the internet, you're running into the "trading off something cheap for something expensive" issue again. I could *right now* spend several days/ weeks write a program that dynamically looks up how expensive it is to run some algorithm on arbitrary cloud providers and run on the cheapest one (or wait if the price is too high), but it would be much faster for me to just do a quick Google search and hard-code to the cheapest provider right now. They might not always be the cheapest but it's probably not worth thousands of dollars of my time to optimize this more than that.

Regarding writing a program to dynamically lookup more complicated resources like algorithms and data.. I don't know how you would do this without a general-purpose programmer-equivalent AI. I think maybe your view of programming seriously underestimates how hard this is. Probably 95% of data science is finding good sources of data, getting them into a somewhat-machine-readable-form, cleaning them up, and doing various validations that the data makes any sense. If it was trivial for programs to use arbitrary data on the internet, there would be much bigger advancements than agoric computing.

Comment by korin43 on Why didn't Agoric Computing become popular? · 2019-02-16T17:06:03.112Z · score: 9 (5 votes) · LW · GW

I think the problem with this is that markets are a complicated and highly inefficient tool for coordinating resource consumption among competing individuals without needing an all-knowing resource-allocator. This is extremely useful when you need to coordinate resource consumption among competing individuals, but in the case of programming, the functions in your program aren't really competing in the same way (there's a limited pool of resources, but for the most part they each need a precise amount of memory, disk space, CPU time, etc. and no more and no less).

There also is a close-enough-to-all-knowing resource allocator (the programmer or system administrator). The market model actually sounds like a plausibly-workable way to do profiling, but it would be less overhead to just instrument every function to report what resources it uses and then cental-plan your resource economy.

In short, if everyone is a mindless automaton who takes only what they need and performs exactly what others require of them, and if the central planner can easily know exactly what resources exist and who wants them, then central planning works fine and markets are overkill (at least in the sense of being a useful tool; capitalism-as-a-moral-system is out-of-scope when talking about computer programs).

Note that even in cases like Amazon Web Services, the resource tracking and currency is just there to charge the end-user. Very few programs take these costs into account while they're executing (the exception is EC2 instance spot-pricing, but I think it's a stretch to even call that agoric computing).

Also, one other thing to consider is that agoric computing trades off something really, really cheap (computing resources) for something really, really expensive (programmer time). Most people don't even bother profiling because programmer time is dramatically more valuable than computer parts.

Comment by korin43 on Minimize Use of Standard Internet Food Delivery · 2019-02-11T18:07:08.716Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · LW · GW

The thing I don't understand is how the market got (and stays) this way. Slice successfully created a new (much lower margin) service for this. Why is everyone else putting up with 30% fees on something that's trivial to replace? For example, why aren't all of the businesses using ChowNow?

Presumably part of this is that some ordering systems get top billing in places like Google Maps, but given that Google Maps seems to show every order system under the sun, it can't be *that* hard to get a new one in there.

Also that article seems to equivocate between services like UberEats that provide their own delivery drivers and are plausibly worth paying a large fee to and services like GrubHub that are just online order systems and could presumably be trivially replaced.

Comment by korin43 on "AlphaStar: Mastering the Real-Time Strategy Game StarCraft II", DeepMind [won 10 of 11 games against human pros] · 2019-01-24T21:34:55.912Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Looks like you can watch the game vs TLO here:

I can't find the later games vs MaNa yet.

Comment by korin43 on Clothing For Men · 2019-01-20T19:17:31.005Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Haha writing my comments was way easier since you already covered the hard parts in the article so I can just make short comments about the few places where I disagree.

Comment by korin43 on Clothing For Men · 2019-01-17T21:12:31.392Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I feel like this article is more optimized for European / conservative US fashion. In most of the places I've lived in the US, you could follow basically the same rules but go significantly more casual. For example, you still want to get basically the same colors, material, logos, etc. but get jeans, t-shirts, and (maybe) nice-looking hoodies instead of button-up shirts, chinos and sweaters.

Comment by korin43 on Clothing For Men · 2019-01-17T21:05:35.618Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I think shirts like this could help your status within small subcultures. I think the article is more about how to dress to maximize status for the overarching culture. Depending on your goals it could plausibly be worth it to optimize for a subculture instead, although I think the cases of that are probably uncommon (since most subcultures are fine with normal fashion too).

Comment by korin43 on Clothing For Men · 2019-01-17T20:56:49.609Z · score: 6 (5 votes) · LW · GW

I upvoted this article because the general advice is very good, although I disagree with most of the specific advice (the brands, which pieces of clothing are most important). Fancier companies are generally nice in ways that have nothing to do with fashion (nicer materials, more comfortable). Pretty much any brand works fine if you can find the right fit and colors. Although you may need to explore multiple brands to find clothes that fit you, it doesn't mean you have to go straight to expensive clothes. I can't find anything that fits me at Walmart but everything at Target does, and they're very similar prices.

I started wearing relatively expensive clothing in the last few years, but it's entirely for reasons that aren't obvious visually (jeans with a very slightly stretch around the waist are a lot more comfortable, wool shirts dry quickly and don't smell bad after physical activity).

Comment by korin43 on Double-Dipping in Dunning--Kruger · 2018-11-28T15:50:54.641Z · score: 2 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Please link more of your posts here. I looked through the history on your blog and there are quite a few that I think would be relevant and useful for people here. In particular, I think people would get a lot out of the posts about how to make friends. Some other other posts have titles that look interesting too but I haven't had time to read them yet.

Comment by korin43 on Real-time hiring with prediction markets · 2018-11-10T02:08:34.356Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I wonder if it's just the field I'm in, but this doesn't match what I've seen as a software engineer. Companies frequently retroactively create opening if someone good enough applies (I've seen this happen at every company I've worked at, and it's the official policy at my current company).

I also don't think the people in charge of hiring care that much about salary (they don't want to pay more than they need to, but realistically, how good someone is and how long they'll stay at a company matter a lot more). Part of it is that the pool of qualified applicants is much smaller than most people think so the situation of deciding between two (good enough) candidates for one opening is rare (it has never happened to me).

Comment by korin43 on Design 3: Intentionality · 2018-09-22T13:52:39.967Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I've been using Standard Notes. It's basically just a networked text editor which can display structured text nicely.

Comment by korin43 on Design 3: Intentionality · 2018-03-29T19:35:25.871Z · score: 14 (4 votes) · LW · GW

I know it's kind of a weird thing for this post to do, but this one finally gave the push I needed to setup decent journaling software, so I can do better planning, and also have something to reference in daily stand-up meetings instead of trying to come up with a summary of the previous day on the spot.

Comment by korin43 on [deleted post] 2018-02-07T15:24:53.354Z

Not sure why this got voted down so badly, but I can't get the link to work. Maybe you missed something when posting it?

Comment by korin43 on Security services relationship to social movements · 2017-12-17T16:39:49.107Z · score: 3 (1 votes) · LW · GW

This seems to be conflating two completely different phrases that use the word security. Security mindset has nothing at all to do with working for a government agency or being a spy. It's a similar concept to "antifragility" except that you're assuming that bad things don't just happen by chance.

Comment by korin43 on Fixing science via a basic income · 2017-12-09T18:48:23.745Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Wouldn't this just push the problem back, so everyone would fight over Phd programs so they can get a guaranteed income? I imagine this would select for people who are good at impressing schools over people who are good at research.

Comment by korin43 on The Critical Rationalist View on Artificial Intelligence · 2017-12-06T18:37:45.634Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

The purpose of this post is not to argue these claims in depth but to summarize the Critical Rationalist view on AI and also how this speaks to things like the Friendly AI Problem.

Unfortunately that makes this post not very useful. It's definitely interesting, but you're just making a bunch of assertions with very little evidence (mostly just that smart people like Ayn Rand and a quantum physicist agree with you).

Comment by korin43 on An Educational Curriculum · 2017-11-22T17:54:37.645Z · score: 10 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I don't know much about the specific goal you're working on, but my experience with CS has been that the best way to learn is to work on real problems with people who know what they're doing. I've learned significantly more from my internship and jobs than I did in school, and that seems to be pretty common. Rather than trying to design a curriculum, I'd advise trying to find someone doing what you're interested in and get a job/internship/apprenticeship working with them. After you've done that for a few years, I suspect you'll know what you're not getting out of the current deal and can either go off on your own or find a different set of teachers.

Comment by korin43 on The Copernican Revolution from the Inside · 2017-11-02T06:36:04.604Z · score: 34 (13 votes) · LW · GW

I feel like you may have gone too far in the other direction then, since what I got out of this was definitely "there wasn't any evidence for heliocentrism and people just liked it better for philosophical reasons". As far as I know, the standard science education explanation for heliocentrism involves newtonian physics, observations that people weren't able to at this time (like you said, Tycho tried), and hindsight.

Can you expand on what the evidence that should have convinced people was? I feel like this article is a puzzle that's missing key information.

Comment by korin43 on Satoshi Nakamoto? · 2017-11-02T05:55:45.121Z · score: 10 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Why would a human withdraw from the account but an AI wouldn't? It seems like you're assuming either:

  1. The correct decision is to not withdraw the money. No human could be smart enough to figure this out, but an AI would. Are you an AI?
  2. The correct decision is to withdraw the money, and the AI is stupidly not doing it. Why is the AI stupider than a human?

I suppose Bitcoin's wastefulness would be a good cover for an AI wanting to use a bunch of computers without making people suspicious. I doubt it's the fastest way a super intelligent AI could make money though.

Comment by korin43 on Research Syndicates · 2017-11-02T05:40:23.277Z · score: 6 (2 votes) · LW · GW

You explain why new researchers would want to join, but why would top researchers want to? It seems like they lose money and time in exchange for that warm feeling you get when helping people. Would that be enough?

In terms of legality, worker owned corporations exist, but I suspect it would be hard convincing people to give unrestricted funding to the corporation (I think most government grants are fairly specific about what you can spent the money on?).

My (outsider) perspective of the field is that private funding for academic style research is uncommon, and generally involves the funder directly hiring the researchers, which seems to have some things in common with what you're saying (although since the researchers typically doesn't own any portions of the organization, they have presumably have fewer incentives to mentor other people).

If non academic research counts (researching something so you can build a product), then a think something similar to what you're proposing happens in some parts of the startup scene. For example, a group of people get together with an idea for a new product, start a company, research how to create/improve the product. Once the company transitions from solving scientific/technical problems to solving organizational problems, the founders leave and join or found new startups. The main difference here is that it's a short term cycle instead of a long term commitment, but that doesn't seem to stop people for providing mentoring.

Comment by korin43 on Questions about AGI's Importance · 2017-10-31T22:15:25.048Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I suspect this has been answered on here before in a lot more detail, but:

  • Evolution isn't necessarily trying to make us smart; it's just trying to make us survive and reproduce
  • Evolution tends to find local optima (see: obviously stupid designs like how the optical nerve works)
  • We seem to be pretty good at making things that are better than what evolution comes up with (see: no birds on the moon, no predators with natural machine guns, etc.)

Also, specifically in AI, there is some precedent for there to be only a few years between "researchers get AI to do something at all" and "this AI is better at its task than any human who has ever lived". Chess did it a while. It just happened with Go. I suspect we're crossing that point with image recognition now.

Comment by korin43 on LW 2.0 Open Beta Live · 2017-10-31T22:03:35.925Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW


Also if anyone else gets a "schema validation error" when changing this setting, remove the "Website" from your profile:

Comment by korin43 on Feedback on LW 2.0 · 2017-10-05T15:10:40.866Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

One feature makes it worth it on its own: People are posting stuff without worrying as much about if it's "good enough" or fits the theme as well (suddenly we're getting posts from everyone again).

The site itself is kind of annoying though, so my main interactions are reading the article in my RSS feed, opening the page, voting, then closing the page.

I like the bigger font size, but agree that might be excessive (16px seems about right to me).

Commenting needs some serious UX attention. The comment box doesn't look like a comment box and the text is massive.

The front page doesn't make any sense. I understand showing top content for people who aren't logged in, but once someone is logged in, the front page should be new articles.

The site seems overly fancy with JavaScript load and whatever. Loading a page with nothing but text should be instantaneous but somehow manages to take several seconds.

Comment by korin43 on Feedback on LW 2.0 · 2017-10-05T15:04:49.445Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

This is huge for me: The site is actually usable on a phone. It's annoyingly slow, but LessWrong v1 is unusable on anything with a small screen (note: This could have been fixed in v1 also, but the two pull requests to fix it have been ignored for around a year).

Comment by korin43 on [deleted post] 2017-10-01T01:30:59.741Z

I just wanted to comment that I'm a huge fan of this series, so please don't stop just because the articles are getting shorter. I mean, honestly, short posts are easier to get through anyway.