Wow.

I feel inspired by all that coordination.

* rationalist Haiku*

AI risk is a reverse lottery. So is the risk of climate change But MAOI’s for antidepressants make sense then

Psychology is most evidence-integrated proximal discipline for the plane a cognitivist should think in where possible.

You can dissolve the philosophy 'problem of other of other minds' as actually a problem of empathy and learned helplessness and external locus of control.

Once the problem of other minds is entirely enacted and person-centred, non-egocentric ethics becomes silly

:)

Only in very extreme case. Have you looked up on every alternatives?

I feel the onset of hypomania. Please bear with me if I post dumb stuff in the near future.

I feel the onset of hypomania. Please bear with me if I post dumb stuff in the near future.

• I had an idea to connect bunker owners all over Switzerland (it’s law that everyone must have one but no-one lives there day to day) with interns and others looking for accommodation in Switzerland (many people come to work for the UN there and housing prices are astronomical)
• Looks like locals beat me to it:
• Turns out the pilot model is profitable: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1077791/Pictured-The-worlds-star-hotel-guests-sleep-disused-nuclear-shelter.html
• Turns out it’s already planned to be scaled: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_Stern_Hotel
  I do like the Spartan premise - perhaps I could host boot camps there for extreme personal development!

Restating stuff in different words is a good rationalist exercise, and "words used in empirical economics and psychology" is probably a better choice than most others.

Not sure how the language of empirical economics and psychology would help with the quantum physics, or even Bayesian equations, though.

GCRI’s mission is to develop the best ways to confront humanity’s gravest threats.

Even just converting science into a Wikipedia-like format would be useful for the sake of open access. Imagine if all citations in a paper were a hyperlink away, and the abstract would display if you hovered your mouse over the link.

YES! YES! YES! And this could be done pretty much automatically. Also, links in the reverse direction: "who cited this paper?" with abstracts in tooltips.

But there is much more that could be done in the hypothetical Science Wiki. For example, imagine that the reverse citations that disagree with the original paper would appear in a different color or with a different icon, so you could immediately check "who disagree with this paper?". That would already require some human work (unfortunately, with all the problems that follow, such as edit wars and editor corruption). Or imagine having a "Talk page" for each of these papers. Imagine people trying to write better third-party abstracts: more accessible, less buzzwords, adding some context from later research. Imagine people trying to write a simpler version of the more popular papers...

The science could be made more accessible and popular.

1. Gain vocabulary from empirical economics and psychology
2. Mentally translate the sequence as you read it as it relates to actual economic and psychological evidence
3. Discard that which is unfounded
4. That which remains is understood not memorised