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

Comment author: Elo 29 March 2017 02:28:00AM 0 points [-]

A suggestion: IQ might be better understood less like Height and more like "how high can you jump". Where for example, people can train to jump higher, people can practice IQ tests. People can wear fancy shoes and jump a lot, causing different jumping results. People can fail to jump high unless they are wearing certain shoes, and you can claim that certain aids are cheating. For example - he's only a great musician and not really good at anything else, therefore not really a high IQ.

While this isn't a great analogy, it's more fitting than "how tall".

Comment author: dglukhov 28 March 2017 01:05:09PM 0 points [-]

Clarification - it's hard to quantify the direct relationship of cars to global warming

It is easy to illustrate that carbon dioxide, the major byproduct of internal combustion found in most car models today, causes global warming directly. If you look at this graph, you'll notice that solar radiation spans a large range of wavelengths of light. Most of these wavelengths of light get absorbed by our upper atmosphere according to chemical composition of said atmosphere, except for certain wavelengths in the UV region of the spectrum (that's the part of the spectrum most commercial sunscreens are designed to block). Different chemicals have different ranges over which wavelengths of light can excite their stable forms. Carbon dioxide, as it turns out, can be irradiated over a portion of the spectrum in the IR range, in the region around wavenumber 2351. When light is absorbed by carbon dioxide, it causes vibration in the molecule, which gets dissipated as heat, since this is technically an excitation of the molecule. This is why carbon dioxide is considered a greenhouse gas, because it absorbs solar energy in the form of light as an input, then dissipates that energy after vibrational excitation as output.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today far exceeds natural levels ever before seen on earth. There are, of course, natural fluctuations of these levels going up and down (according to natural carbon fixing processes), but the overall trend is very distinct, obvious, and significant. We are putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through our combustion processes than the earth can fix out of the atmosphere.

The relationship has been quantified already. Please understand, there is absolutely no need to obscure this debate with claims that the relationship is hard to quantify. It is not, it has been done, the body of research surrounding this topic is quite robust, similarly to how robust the body of research around CFCs is. I will not stand idly by while people continue to misunderstand the situation. Your urge to ignore this factor indicates either misunderstanding of the situation, or it indicates an aversion to a highly politicized topic. In either case, it does not excuse the claim you made. The less obscurity on the topic exists, the better.

Comment author: Elo 28 March 2017 02:06:27PM 0 points [-]

The relationship has been quantified already.


misunderstand the situation

Fourth clarification


Tapping out.

Comment author: dglukhov 27 March 2017 01:44:35PM *  0 points [-]

Cars also directly involve people in motor vehicle accidents, one of the leading causes of death in the developed world. Cars, and motor vehicles in general, also contribute to an increasingly alarming concentration of emissions into the atmosphere, with adverse effects to follow, most notably global warming. My point still stands.

A technology is only inherently good if it solves more problems than it causes, with each problem weighed by their impacts on the world.

Comment author: Elo 27 March 2017 01:58:40PM 0 points [-]

Cars are net positive.

Edit: ignoring global warming because it's really hard to quantify. Just comparing deaths to global productivity increase because of cars. Cars are a net positive.

Edit 2:

Edit: ignoring global warming because it's really hard to quantify

Clarification - it's hard to quantify the direct relationship of cars to global warming. Duh there's a relationship, but I really don't want to have a debate here. Ignoring that factor for a moment, net value of productivity of cars vs productivity lost by some deaths. Yea. Let's compare that.

Comment author: -necate- 25 March 2017 08:53:39AM 2 points [-]

Hello guys, I am currently writing my master's thesis on biases in the investment context. One sub-sample that I am studying is people who are educated about biases in a general context, but not in the investment context. I guess LW is the right place to find some of those so I would be very happy if some of you would participate since people who are aware about biases are hard to come by elsewhere. Also I explicitly ask for activity in the LW community in the survey, so if enough of LWers participate I could analyse them as an individual subsample. Would be interesting to know how LWers perform compared to psychology students for example. Also I think this is related enough to LW that I could post a link to the survey in discussion, right? If so I would be happy about some karma, because I just registered and cant post yet. The link to the survey is: https://survey.deadcrab.de/

Comment author: Elo 25 March 2017 09:12:19AM 0 points [-]

Look up a group called "the trading tribe" by Ed seykota.

Comment author: Viliam 24 March 2017 11:59:59PM *  4 points [-]

Okay, so I recently made this joke about future Wikipedia article about Less Wrong:

[article claiming that LW opposes feelings and support neoreaction] will probably be used as a "reliable source" by Wikipedia. Explanations that LW didn't actually "urge its members to think like machines and strip away concern for other people's feelings" will be dismissed as "original research", and people who made such arguments will be banned. Less Wrong will be officially known as a website promoting white supremacism, Roko's Basilisk, and removing female characters from computer games. This Wikipedia article will be quoted by all journals, and your families will be horrified by what kind of a monster you have become. All LW members will be fired from their jobs.

A few days later I actually looked at the Wikipedia article about Less Wrong:

In July 2010, LessWrong contributor Roko posted a thought experiment to the site in which an otherwise benevolent future AI system tortures simulations of those who did not work to bring the system into existence. This idea came to be known as "Roko's basilisk," based on Roko's idea that merely hearing about the idea would give the hypothetical AI system stronger incentives to employ blackmail. Yudkowsky deleted Roko's posts on the topic, calling it "stupid". Discussion of Roko's basilisk was banned on LessWrong for several years before the ban was lifted in October 2015.

The majority of the LessWrong userbase identifies as atheist, consequentialist, white and male.

The neoreactionary movement is associated with LessWrong, attracted by discussions on the site of eugenics and evolutionary psychology. In the 2014 self-selected user survey, 29 users representing 1.9% of survey respondents identified as "neoreactionary". Yudkowsky has strongly repudiated neoreaction.

Well... technically, the article admit that at least Yudkowsky considers the basilisk stupid, and disagrees with neoreaction. Connotationally, it suggests that basilisk and neoreaction are 50% of what is worth mentioning about LW, because that's the fraction of the article these topics got.

Oh, and David Gerard is actively editing this page. Why am I so completely unsurprised? His contributions include:

  • making a link to a separate article for Roko's basilisk (link), which luckily didn't materialize;
  • removing suggested headers "Rationality", "Cognitive bias", "Heuristic", "Effective altruism", "Machine Intelligence Research Institute" (link) saying that "all of these are already in the body text"; but...
  • adding a header for Roko's basilisk (link);
  • shortening a paragraph on LW's connection to effective altruism (link) -- by the way, the paragraph is completely missing from the current version of the article;
  • an edit war emphasising that it is finally okay to talk on LW about the basilisk (link, link, link, link, link);
  • restoring the deleted section on basilisk (link) saying that it's "far and away the single thing it's most famous for";
  • adding neoreaction as one of the topics discussed on LW (link), later removing other topics competing for attention (link), and adding a quote that LW "attracted some readers and commenters affiliated with the alt-right and neoreaction, that broad cohort of neofascist, white nationalist and misogynist trolls" (link);

...in summary, removing or shortening mentions of cognitive biases and effective altruism, and adding or developing mentions of basilisk and neoreaction.


EDIT: So, looking back at my prediction that...

Less Wrong will be officially known as a website promoting white supremacism, Roko's Basilisk, and removing female characters from computer games.

...I'd say I was (1) right about the basilisk; (2) partially right about the white supremacism, which at this moment is not mentioned explicitly (yet! growth mindset), but the article says that the userbase is mostly white and male, and discusses eugenics; and (3) wrong about the computer games. 50% success rate!

Comment author: Elo 25 March 2017 12:45:18AM 0 points [-]

can we fix this please?

Edit: I will work on it.

In response to Act into Uncertainty
Comment author: Elo 24 March 2017 09:47:17PM 0 points [-]

make your beliefs pay rent perhaps?

In response to LW UI issue
Comment author: Elo 24 March 2017 09:07:46PM 9 points [-]

this is known, and not on purpose. It's being worked on.

Comment author: username2 24 March 2017 11:06:18AM 0 points [-]

Something happened to the mainpage. It no longer contains links to Main and Discussion.

Comment author: Elo 24 March 2017 12:14:36PM 0 points [-]

yes, we are working on it.

Comment author: username2 23 March 2017 02:57:08PM 0 points [-]

Won't that be a lot of work ? As far as I know discord doesnt bridge to xmpp so that means you ll have to write a bot or use one already written. Same goes for other closed protocols. That s a lot of work. I don t want to dissapoint you but in the end what makes you think people will hang out in public channels ? ( I apologise if I missed something )

Comment author: Elo 23 March 2017 10:19:35PM 0 points [-]

protocol is now going to be based on matrix.

Comment author: turchin 23 March 2017 11:12:46AM 4 points [-]

Link on "discussion" disappeared from the lesswrong.com. Is it planned change? Or only for me?

Comment author: Elo 23 March 2017 11:31:11AM 2 points [-]

Accidental css pull that caused unusual things. It's being worked on. Apologies.

View more: Next