= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ArisKatsaris comments on Q&A with new Executive Director of Singularity Institute - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (177)
That was the most horribly designed thing I've ever seen anyone do on LessWrong, as I once described here so please, please, no video.
The questions are text. Have your answer on text too, so that we can actually read them -- unless there's some particular question which would actually be enhanced by the usage of video, (e.g. you'd like to show an animated graph or a computer simulation or something)
If there's nothing I can say to convince you against using video, then I beg you to atleast take the time to read my more specific problems in the link above and correct those particular flaws - a single audio that we can atleast play and listen in the background, while we're doing something else, instead of 30 videos that we must individually click. If not that, atleast a clear description of the questions on the same page (AND repeated clearly on the audio itself), so that we can see the questions that interest us, instead of a link to a different page.
But please, just consider text instead. Text has the highest signal-to-noise ratio. We can actually read it in our leisure. We can go back and forth and quote things exactly. TEXT IS NIFTY.
I disagree completely, as video has value not present in text, and text is easily derived from video. If this has not been done for Eliezer's videos, I volunteer to transcribe them - please let me know.
I just tried to find a transcript for Eliezer's Q&A and couldn't find one. So I'm taking you up on your offer!
Also, video is easily derived from text and I would actually enjoy watching a SingInst Q&A made with that sort of app :-)
Looks like you're right. I commit to working on this over the next few weeks. Please check in with me every so often (via comment here would be fine) to gauge my progress and encourage completion.
It's approximately 120 minutes of video; taking a number from wikipedia gives me 150 spoken wpm, divided by my typing wpm gives me about 6 hours, which will be optimistic - let's double it to 12, at let's say an average of 30 mins per day gives me 24 days. Let's see how it goes!
Checking in. Do you have the first 750 words done?
I have the first four, and six of the shortest answers done, so yes. I had a lot of spare time yesterday so I thought I'd get a head start. Today may be similar.
I am now roughly 60% done. I've been spending more time each day than I anticipated; I have been known to overcompensate for the planning fallacy :)
That's what you consider "easily derived"?
Relative to manifesting video of the person speaking the answers in a genuine manner after the fact, yes. But point taken, the irony of manually transcribing videos from an AI researcher is not lost on me. I feel somewhat like a monk in the Bayesian monastery.
Why not just play the audio to something like the Dragon Dictation app on an iPhone and then go back and proof it?
I'm skeptical of the time it would save. The app won't work for the length of the videos, but if you're aware of another great, free program, let me know.