paper-machine comments on Why We Can't Take Expected Value Estimates Literally (Even When They're Unbiased) - Less Wrong

75 Post author: HoldenKarnofsky 18 August 2011 11:34PM

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

Comments (249)

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

Comment author: Will_Newsome 21 August 2011 12:30:43PM *  -2 points [-]

Unfortunately that is not currently possible for many reasons, including some large ones I can't talk about and that I can't talk about why I can't talk about. I can't see any way that it would become possible in the next few years either. I find this stressful; it's why I make token attempts to communicate in extremely abstract or indirect ways with Less Wrong, despite the apparent fruitlessness. But there's really nothing for it.

Unrelated public announcement: People who go back and downvote every comment someone's made, please, stop doing that. It's a clever way to pull information cascades in your direction but it is clearly an abuse of the content filtering system and highly dishonorable. If you truly must use such tactics, downvoting a few of your enemy's top level posts is much less evil; your enemy loses the karma and takes the hint without your severely biasing the public perception of your enemy's standard discourse. Please.

(I just lost 150 karma points in a few minutes and that'll probably continue for awhile. This happens a lot.)

Comment author: [deleted] 21 August 2011 01:51:46PM 5 points [-]

Unfortunately that is not currently possible for many reasons, including some large ones I can't talk about and that I can't talk about why I can't talk about.

Are we still talking about improving general reading comprehension? What could possibly be dangerous about that?