Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 18 August 2017 12:48:40PM 0 points [-]

Those sound like fixable problems.

Comment author: robirahman 18 August 2017 01:11:01AM 0 points [-]

It's another subsidy to agribusiness conglomerates, which leech huge sums of money from taxpayers already.

And it uses up the corn so it can't be sold to hungry poor people, which is bad because starvation is bad.

Comment author: timujin 17 August 2017 02:42:58PM 0 points [-]

What's wrong with ethanol made from corn, anyway?

Comment author: Regex 13 August 2017 05:32:33PM 0 points [-]

It appears I can't replicate it either. I may have updated Firefox since last week or something? 54.0.1 (32-bit) is my current version.

Comment author: Venryx 13 August 2017 02:08:46AM 0 points [-]

Maybe something like this? https://debatemap.live (note: I'm the developer of it)

Comment author: Venryx 13 August 2017 01:51:53AM 0 points [-]

"most online discussions are structured in a way that makes the accumulation of knowledge difficult."

It's a different kind of conversation, but I've been trying to improve on this problem by developing a "debate mapping" website, where conversation is structured in tree form based on claims, and then arguments underneath it which support or oppose each claim recursively.

This is the website if you're interested: https://debatemap.live

Comment author: srcs 10 August 2017 07:25:14AM 0 points [-]

You mean his tactical naivete caused them to throw away their lead. It didn't "see" anything.

Comment author: Document 10 August 2017 12:28:54AM 0 points [-]

Interesting to read this shortly after this. Does Ta-Nehisi Coates have "influence"?

Comment author: Document 10 August 2017 12:18:34AM 0 points [-]

Did you mean to post that somewhere else?

Comment author: srcs 09 August 2017 09:35:20AM 0 points [-]

"better" as defined by you, of course.

In response to The Modesty Argument
Comment author: srcs 09 August 2017 09:17:17AM 0 points [-]

logarithmic scoring rule link is dead.

Comment author: tdb 07 August 2017 08:34:21PM 0 points [-]

"cognitive archaeology", tee hee. I thought he was making it up, it turns out he's just misapplying it.


Comment author: Crab 06 August 2017 11:14:48PM 0 points [-]

It would be useful for me if some of you guys shared your methodology of choosing textbook / course / whatever for learning X, especially if X has something to do with math, computer science or programming.

My methodology (in no particular order):

  • Go to this thread and look at recommendations
  • Go to libgen, search for the keyword and sort by the publisher or by year
  • Check rating on goodreads and/or on amazon
  • Check top comments by usefulness on goodreads and/or amazon
  • Download the book, look at the Contents section, see how much I like what I see
  • Google best textbook on ${subject name}, ${book title 1} vs ${book title 2}. Pay special attention to results at . Do the same google search with site:reddit.com
Comment author: Crab 06 August 2017 11:08:11PM 0 points [-]

Post the title of your favorite textbook on a given subject. You must have read at least two other textbooks on that same subject. You must briefly name the other books you've read on the subject and explain why you think your chosen textbook is superior to them.

Subject: Probability Theory

Recommendation: Feller's An Introduction to Probability Theory is better than Jaynes' Probability Theory: The Logic of Science and MIT OpenCourseware: Introduction to Probability and Statistics

Jaynes' book probably has more insight for someone who already knows probability theory very well. MIT course should be better if you want ot learn some probability theory and statistics very fast skipping proofs and other stuff. Feller's book is better if you want to learn a lot of probability theory, you have a lot of time and Jaynes' book is too difficult for you.

Comment author: Venryx 05 August 2017 11:52:52AM *  0 points [-]

Yeah, I use Chrome myself, so compatibility in Firefox breaks sometimes. (and I forget to check that it's working there more often) I'll look into it relatively soon.

As for the submenus not closing when you re-press their sidebar buttons, I just haven't coded that yet. Should be a one line change, so it will probably be added by tomorrow. Thanks for checking it out.

EDIT: Okay, I tried opening it in Firefox, and could not reproduce the "black boxes" issue in your screenshot. What version of Firefox are you using? Also, I've now updated the submenu/sidebar buttons to close the menus when re-pressed. (and updated their appearance a bit)

Comment author: Regex 04 August 2017 09:00:11PM 0 points [-]

Playing around with the debates on firefox causes graphical glitches http://i.imgur.com/QsoLeqn.jpg

Chrome seems to work, but these submenus don't close after you click on them http://i.imgur.com/sbNBhZ1.png

In response to comment by DilGreen on Fake Explanations
Comment author: matteyas 03 August 2017 08:59:45PM 0 points [-]

Are you saying that in an environment for learning about- and discussing rationality, we should strive for a less-than-ideal rationality (that is, some form of irrationality) just because of practical contexts that people often run into and choose the easy way out of?

Would you become equally suspicious of the math teacher's point of view if some person from a math problem buys 125 boxes with 6 watermelons each, since he won't be able to handle that amount in most practical contexts?

Comment author: Venryx 02 August 2017 12:42:07PM *  1 point [-]

Hey everyone! It appears I'm six years late to the party, but better late than never.

I've been building a website for the last few months which is very close to the ideas presented in this article. I've summarized some features of it, and added an entry to the wiki page:

Debate Map: Web platform for collaborative mapping of beliefs, arguments, and evidence.


  • Collaborative creation, editing, and evaluation of debate/argument maps.
  • Open source. (under the MIT license)
  • Developed using modern web technologies. (react-js, redux, firebase)
  • Built-in probability and validity rating, and calculation of argument strength from these ratings.
  • Tree-based structure which can extend very deep without loss of clarity or usability.
  • Integrated term/definition system. Terms can be defined once, then used anywhere, with hover-based definition display.


  • Has a learning curve for casual users, as content must conform to the argument<-premise structure at each level.
  • Performance is currently less than ideal on mobile devices.

I'm the sole developer at the moment, but I'm very invested in the project, and plan to spend thousands of hours on it over the years to make it the best it can be. I'm very interested in your feedback! I've been a silent reader of this site for a couple years, and it'll be neat to finally get involved a bit.

Comment author: matteyas 28 July 2017 05:15:58PM *  0 points [-]

First paragraph

There is only action, or interaction to be precise. It doesn't matter whether we experience the intelligence or not, of course, just that it can be experienced.

Second paragraph

Sure, it could still be intelligent. It's just more intelligent if it's less dependent. The definition includes this since more cross-domain ⇒ less dependence.

Comment author: MaryCh 25 July 2017 03:32:51PM 0 points [-]

Thank you. I should have realised that.

(And is it not weird, how two questions of the same, well, validity, give two different answers and perhaps - in a situation, where it matters - lead to different formulations?)

View more: Next