paper-machine comments on New report: Intelligence Explosion Microeconomics - Less Wrong

45 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 29 April 2013 11:14PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (244)
Tags: paper intelligence_explosion economics econ opfai fai

Comments (244)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 30 April 2013 08:29:15PM *  0 points [-]

What happens when you click on "this online post" in footnote 21?

Nothing. Adobe Reader 11.0.2 on Windows 7.

We did use a couple editors on the paper, like we do with all our papers.

Yeah, I saw the percent signs were interpreted correctly. It's a work in progress.

Comment author: malo 01 May 2013 09:19:16PM *  0 points [-]

MIRI's LaTeX document template uses the /href command to hyperlink text and styles links (both internal and external) using the pdfboarderstyle specification from Abode. We aren't doing anything unusual.

Links are working (and styled) for me in OS X Preview and Adobe Reader 10.1.6, on OS 10.8.3. They even work in Chrome's pdf viewer which currently doesn't support pdfboarderstyle, i.e., the text is linked even though there is no underline or box to indicate that it is.

I suspect something fishy is going on with your Reader install . . .

Also, to clarify Luke's comments, we have a dedicated technical editor (who I have been very impressed with so far), and the papers are reviewed by a couple other people (once they have been typeset) before they are published. I'd be interested to hear about (possibly more appropriate through PM or email) other things in this document that made you think we didn't have a technical editor.

EDIT: I should clarify that the editing and proofreading I'm talking about is done once the content has been finalized. See a definition of technical editing here.

Comment author: [deleted] 01 May 2013 11:36:00PM *  0 points [-]

PM sent.

EDIT: I'm no longer sure that sending all of that over a PM (which I unwisely forgot to retain) was such a great idea. Your edit makes it sound like my objections weren't really under the aegis of "technical editing", but I don't recall objecting to anything that doesn't fall under that objection. Anyone who doubts my sincerity, please feel free to PM me.

Comment author: malo 02 May 2013 06:09:04PM 3 points [-]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that at all. I just reread my message an it occurred to me that it might not be clear to everyone what technical editing was.

Your PM was indeed about technical edits.

BTW you can see all PMs you sent by visiting, http://lesswrong.com/message/sent/

Comment author: wedrifid 03 May 2013 03:56:22AM 3 points [-]

BTW you can see all PMs you sent by visiting, http://lesswrong.com/message/sent/

Ohh! Thanks. I hadn't noticed that feature.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit