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

Comment author: Capla 18 November 2014 12:37:26AM *  2 points [-]

Well I have read RW page on LW and on Eliezer, which aren't very nice, but I was under the impression that they are generally a, you know, rational resource.

I'll do better vetting before linking.

Comment author: Larks 18 November 2014 01:03:32AM 6 points [-]

Unfortunately they managed to overcome nominative determinism.

Comment author: AlexanderRM 15 November 2014 02:43:12AM 1 point [-]

That phrasing certainly sounds like ad hoc rationalization. The rational (rationalist?*) way to go about that would be to... recognize that you attach value to some things associated with freedom from employment, try to figure out what exactly that is and quantify it while ignoring what your current actions are, and then determine whether your current actions are consistent with that, and change them if not. If you determine your values based on what your current actions are, there's no point in being rational.

I have a vague feeling like "rational" should mean "the way a hypothetical rational actor, such as an AI built for rationality, would act", and "rationalist" would mean "the way a human who recognizes that their brain is not built for rationality and actively tries to overcome thing would act". An AI built to be rational would never need to do this because their behavior would *already follow logically from their values. I don't remember why I put in this note, but it's an interesting thing about this site generally.

Comment author: Larks 15 November 2014 06:20:10PM 0 points [-]

Good point. CronoDAS's other comments suggest a desire to be free from commitments in general.

Also, welcome to LessWrong!

Comment author: Larks 14 November 2014 02:04:26AM 12 points [-]

Could you have chosen a less political subject than polyamory for the top post? It is unnecessarily distracting to conservative readers.

Nor does it seem to do much to promote rational thinking about relationships at all. You compare the worst-case scenario for monogamous relationships to the best-case scenario for polyamourous ones - hardly a valid comparison. I can just as easily make up equally unfair comparisons in the opposite direction.

  • Let’s imagine Scenario 1, where Mary and Bob are a traditional couple representative of the American mainstream. Mary really struggles with what to do. On the one hand, Bob is a great husband, and she loves him. On the other hand, she’s head over heels for John, and wants to have a romantic relationship with him. Finally, she decideds to do the right thing, remaining loyal to her husband and honouring her vows. They live happily ever after.

  • Let’s imagine Scenario 2. Mary and Bob are part of the growing movement, especially widespread among young people like themselves, called polyamory. Polyamory, often abbreviated as “poly,” is the practice of having more than one romantic relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. Mary goes to Bob and tells him in an open and straightforward fashion about her attraction to John. Bob is glad to accept Mary’s desire to have a romantic relationship with John, and Mary and Bob discuss how to most effectively integrate her new relationship with their current one. Eventually, however, they realise that they were deluded that this could work, and ruin the most valuable relationship either of them ever had.

Comment author: Larks 02 November 2014 11:20:49PM 21 points [-]

I also filled in the survey! Hurrah for laboureous data gathering.

Comment author: Punoxysm 28 October 2014 07:02:10AM 6 points [-]

It's wildly premature. We wouldn't have wanted to apply today's commercial aircraft standards to the Wright Brothers.

Comment author: Larks 30 October 2014 03:00:20AM 2 points [-]

We might have wanted to apply today's anti-proliferation standards to early nuclear weapons (assuming this would have been possible).

Comment author: bramflakes 27 October 2014 07:53:59PM 14 points [-]

My thoughts on the following are rather disorganized and I've been meaning to collate them into a post for quite some time but here goes:

Discussions of morality and ethics in the LW-sphere overwhelmingly tend to short-circuit to naive harm-based consequentialist morality. When pressed I think most will state a far-mode meta-ethical version that acknowledges other facets of human morality (disgust, purity, fairness etc) that would get wrapped up into a standardized utilon currency (I believe CEV is meant to do this?) but when it comes to actual policy (EA) there is too much focus on optimizing what we can measure (lives saved in africa) instead of what would actually satisfy people. The drunken moral philosopher looking under the lamppost for his keys because that's where the light is. I also think there's a more-or-less unstated assumption that considerations other than Harm are low-status.

Comment author: Larks 28 October 2014 02:04:36AM 2 points [-]

Do you have any thoughts on how to do EA on the other aspects of morality? I think about this a fair bit, but run into the same problem you mentioned. I have had a few ideas but do not wish to prime you. Feel free to PM me.

Comment author: Username 20 October 2014 02:20:14AM *  1 point [-]

我决定读中文. So technically I guess I invested my time, not money.

Comment author: Larks 20 October 2014 11:42:25PM 1 point [-]

Good answer, one I hadn't thought of.

Comment author: Lumifer 17 October 2014 02:58:04AM 2 points [-]

By "anti-Ebola preparations" do you actually mean "minimizing your chance of getting infected"?

Take a tent and go solo camping. Somewhere up North :-)

Comment author: Larks 17 October 2014 11:07:56PM 0 points [-]

By "anti-Ebola preparations" do you actually mean "minimizing your chance of getting infected"?

No, because as garabik noted, I don't want to commit suicide.

Comment author: Larks 17 October 2014 02:39:39AM 4 points [-]

Does anyone have any serious thoughts about anti-Ebola preparations one could take? (Please keep 'it is not a big threat' responses to a minimum - I'm aware of that, but am interested in the question anyway).

Comment author: Username 13 October 2014 01:19:51AM 2 points [-]

My money's on China.

Comment author: Larks 17 October 2014 12:15:08AM 1 point [-]

Given the theme of the thread I must ask: in what exact way? Chinese Stocks? Australian Commodities? Currencies? Short Taiwan?

View more: Next