STL comments on SIAI Fundraising - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (116)
Downvoted.
"high payouts"? Good programmers are worth their weight in gold. (As for AI researchers, bad ones are worthless, good-but-not-good-enough ones will simply kill us all, and good-enough ones are literally beyond value...) NYT:
"half pay (and half time)"? I'm just a programmer, not an AI researcher, but I'm confident that this applies equally: it is ridiculously hard to apply concentrated thought to solving a problem when you have to split your focus. As Paul Graham said:
A policy of downvoting posts that you disagree with will, over time, generate a "Unison" culture, driving away / evaporatively cooling dissent.
Though you're correct about interruptions and sub-day splitting, in my experience it is entirely feasible to split your time X days vs Y days without suffering context-switch overhead - that is, since we're presumably sleeping, we're already forced to "boot up" in the morning. I agree it's harder to coordinate a team some of whom are full time, some are half time, and some are the other half time - but you'd have 40k to make up the lost team productivity.
What do you think downvotes are for? It's just a number, it's not an insult.
(Now, if you want to suggest that perhaps I shouldn't announce a downvote when replying with objections, perhaps I could be convinced of that. I think I'd appreciate a downvote-with-explanation more than a silent downvote.)
The man-month is mythical.
Downvotes are for maintaining the quality of the conversations, not expressing agreement or disagreement. No matter what someone's opinion is, as long as its incorrectness would not be made evident by reading the sequences, downvotes should only express disapproval of the quality of the argument, not the conclusion. In a case like this, no argument for the opinion that you disapprove of was made. Unless he refused to acknowledge the substance of your disagreement, which was not the case here, no downvote was warranted.
It's not just that I disagreed with you, it's that you are wrong in a more objective sense.
How can you tell the two apart?