Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Habryka 14 March 2018 08:21:04PM 0 points [-]

Hmm, you can see all recent posts on /daily on the new LW.

Comment author: Dagon 15 March 2018 05:49:28PM 0 points [-]

True, after a brief confusing delay where you just see 5 days of "no posts found" while it loads. Is there an equivalent of the red mailbox that tells me someone replied to my comment?

Comment author: bogus 12 March 2018 08:34:17PM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure that I understand your question. It is obviously an annoyance, and something that high-karma LW1 users may specifically want to be aware of, since they're far more likely to be affected by it. There are users on the site with far more impressive commenting histories and/or karma scores than mine, and I think the assessment of whether this bug is a 'blocking' issue should be left to these users.

Comment author: Dagon 12 March 2018 09:40:16PM 0 points [-]

Ah, I see. No longer important, but the reason for my question was that I was confused about how your comment related to the topic of the post (retiring LW1.0, calling LW2.0 "lesswrong", with no "beta" tag).

Comment author: bogus 12 March 2018 10:55:58AM *  1 point [-]

There is an annoying bug/limitation on the new site, in that users who have posted more than 1000 comments (including yours truly, but this is affecting other prolific commenters to a far greater extent of course) cannot access their full commenting history, albeit they can here on lesswrong.com. (Tested on greaterwrong.com, but I assume that the same limit would apply on lesserwrong.) The comments do exist on the site, attached to discussions (albeit a similar issue may exist, affecting discussions with more than 1000 comments or so). This is annoying because I do want my commenting history to be easily accessible in full, and the same is likely true of many other users.

Comment author: Dagon 12 March 2018 08:17:50PM 0 points [-]

Is that bug a blocker in some way? Are you saying you're using the old site and want to keep it around until this bug is fixed?

Comment author: Dagon 12 March 2018 08:17:04PM 3 points [-]

I still prefer the old site, for ease of finding comments in reply to mine, and for seeing all recent posts (I bookmark /discussion/new), and for not being javascript hell.

and the old site is dead, regardless of my usage preference. There's no point in keeping it.

Comment author: Val 13 February 2018 07:29:51PM 0 points [-]

This brings up an interesting ethical dilemma. If strong AI will ever be possible, it will be probably designed with the values of what you described as a small minority. Does this this small minority have the ethical right to enforce a new world upon the majority which will be against their values?

Comment author: Dagon 14 February 2018 12:19:20AM 0 points [-]

Do you (or we) have the ethical right to enforce current world, the majority of which is against our values (as measured by the amount of complaining, at least).

Comment author: Dagon 16 December 2017 05:34:36PM 1 point [-]

If you rule out probabilities of 1, what do you assign to the probability that Omega is cheating, and somehow gimmicking the boxes to change the contents the instant you indicate your choice, before the contents are revealed?

Presumably the mechanisms of "correct prediction" are irrelevant, and once your expectation that this instance will be predicted correctly gets above million-to-one, you one-box.

Comment author: Elo 04 November 2017 08:32:22PM 0 points [-]

Lw 1.0 users with a karma threshold. But the vote may change. If it's obvious that 2.0 is going great, it might just keep going.

Comment author: Dagon 22 November 2017 03:56:04PM 0 points [-]

What if it's not obvious that LW2.0 is going great, but it's obvious that LW1.0 is dead?

Comment author: Dagon 09 November 2017 05:02:45AM 2 points [-]

I'm thankful for this state. Nobody represents my beliefs, not even me. They are free-floating and do not need a spokesperson or representative to make them true (or correct them when they're not). Actually, beliefs are only models anyway, and there is no "true" except to the extent that they correlate so some observed states of the universe.

Comment author: Lumifer 02 November 2017 04:13:56PM 2 points [-]

Less Wrong (1.0, this site) is the historical LessWrong now in the process of being replaced by Less Wrong 2.0 which represents new leadership and new software. Technically, the LessWrong 2.0 is in public beta right now and it's supposed to end soon. Once it ends, there will be a vote about replacing LW 1.0 with LW 2.0 and if it goes through, LW 1.0 will cease to exist. Its message archives will be migrated to LW 2.0.

Comment author: Dagon 04 November 2017 07:52:44PM 0 points [-]

I hadn't heard about the vote part. Do we know the actual text of the measure under consideration? More importantly, who has standing to vote, and upon whom is the vote binding?

Comment author: entirelyuseless 04 November 2017 05:45:42PM 0 points [-]

Not at all. It means the ability to explain, not just say what will happen.

Comment author: Dagon 04 November 2017 07:28:54PM 0 points [-]

When you say "ability to explain", I hear "communicate a model that says what will happen (under some set of future conditions/actions)".

There is no such thing as "why" in the actual sequence of states of matter in the universe. It just is. Any causality is in the models we use to predict future states. Which is really useful but not "truth".

View more: Next