Marshall comments on Rational Me or We? - Less Wrong

116 Post author: RobinHanson 17 March 2009 01:39PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (128)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 18 March 2009 12:28:58AM 15 points [-]

It's pretty hard to be isolated in a world of six billion people. The more key question is the probability of coordinating with any randomly selected person on a rationalist topic of fixed difficulty, and the total size of the community available to support some number of institutions.

To put it bluntly, if you built the ideal rationalist institution that requires one million supporters, you'd be in trouble because the 99.98th percentile of rationality is not adequate to support it (and also such rationalists may have other demands on their time).

But if you can build institutions that grow starting from small groups even in a not-previously-friendly environment, or upgrade rationalists starting from the 98th percentile to what we would currently regard as much higher levels, then odds look better for such institutions.

We both want to live in a friendly world with lots of high-grade rationalists and excellent institutions with good tests and good incentives, but I don't think I already live there.

Comment deleted 18 March 2009 05:33:46AM [-]
Comment author: MichaelBishop 18 March 2009 03:07:38PM 2 points [-]

I'm surprised to see this go negative.

Granted, Marshall didn't explain his position in any detail. But his position is not indefensible, and I'm glad he's willing to share it.

Comment deleted 18 March 2009 01:45:04PM *  [-]
Comment deleted 18 March 2009 06:48:51PM [-]
Comment deleted 18 March 2009 08:15:01PM *  [-]
Comment author: pjeby 18 March 2009 10:45:32PM 2 points [-]

It doesn't take much - just one jerk systematically downvoting a page or two of your existing comments. I lost like 37 points in less than an hour that way a few days ago. We really need separate up/down counts, or better yet ups and downs per voter, so you can ignore systematic friend upvotes and foe downvotes.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 18 March 2009 10:53:07PM 1 point [-]

Are we already getting this behavior? I'll have to start looking into voting patterns... Sigh.

Comment author: ciphergoth 18 March 2009 11:10:05PM 1 point [-]

Have you looked at Raph Levien's work on attack resistant trust metrics?

Comment author: Emile 19 March 2009 10:56:54AM *  0 points [-]

Couldn't it also be due to a change in the karma calculation rules in order to, say, not take your own upvote in account on karma calculations? I remember that was mentioned, but don't know if it was implemented in the meantime.

Edit: Well, it seems that it isn't implemented yet, since posting this got me a karma point :)