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

In response to Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: pcm 04 October 2017 08:27:37PM *  1 point [-]

There's something about reading the new style that makes me uncomfortable, and prompts me to skim some posts that I would have read more carefully on the old site. I'm not too clear on what causes that effect. I'm guessing that some of it is the excessive amount of white, causing modest sensory overload.

Some of it could be the fact that less of a post fits on a single screenful: I probably form initial guesses about a post's value based on the first screenful, and putting less substance on that first screenful leads me to guess that the post has less substance. Or maybe I associate large fonts with click-baity sites, and small fonts with more intellectual sites.

The editor used for writing comments is really annoying. E.g. links expand to include unrelated text, or unexpectedly stop being links.

I want a way to enter html and/or markup that I can cut and paste after writing them in an editor with which I'm more comfortable. Without that, I'll probably give up on writing comments that are more thoughtful than Facebook comments.

I presume the new karma system will be an important improvement. I'm unhappy that it's bundled with such large changes to aspects of the UI that were working adequately.

In response to comment by pcm on Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: PECOS-9 10 October 2017 10:46:05PM 0 points [-]

I think your point about less information per screen identifies what has been bothering me. It makes it much harder to skim or to refer back to previous paragraphs.

In response to Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: PECOS-9 10 October 2017 07:12:29PM 1 point [-]

The "Daily" page seems to be the one that is most useful to regular users (it's the one I bookmarked), but it's relatively hidden. I think it should be linked directly on the top navbar or somewhere else on the front page instead of hidden inside the hamburger menu in the navbar.

Comment author: PECOS-9 14 August 2017 07:14:37PM 1 point [-]

Does anybody have recommendations for video lecture series? Any topic.

Comment author: Lumifer 06 March 2017 02:38:04AM 0 points [-]

Use the simple Bayesian updating on the evidence. A new, different forecast is a new piece of evidence.

Comment author: PECOS-9 06 March 2017 02:45:40AM 0 points [-]

But why is it a piece of evidence pointing to greater than 80% instead of 80%?

Comment author: Lumifer 06 March 2017 01:24:28AM 0 points [-]

Because the polls are supposed to be different and all forecasts about a 5-sided die are the same.

Imagine yourself collecting forecasts and updating on them. With the die, many forecasts will not change your expected probabilities because these forecasts are basically all the same. When you hear another one, the amount of information you have doesn't change. That is not (supposed to be) the case with polls.

If one forecast says 80% vs 20% and another, different forecast using, say, a different methodology or different sources, also says 80% vs 20%, your expected probabilities should be >80% vs <20%, how much more and less depends on how much do you believe the forecasts are correlated.

If you hear many different forecasts saying 80:20, you expectation should not be 80:20.

Comment author: PECOS-9 06 March 2017 02:30:37AM 0 points [-]

I still don't see the difference.

Are you saying that if many forecasters predict that something has an 80% probability of happening and they all use different methodologies, I should expect it to happen with greater than 80% probability? Why?

Comment author: Lumifer 04 March 2017 11:15:40PM 1 point [-]

if someone gives the probability of 20% that B will win, and 80% that A will win, why do they say 'polls were wrong' 'predictions were wrong' if it turns out that B won?

If that's a single someone, saying "he was wrong" is not quite correct.

However if a hundred someones gave these probabilities, it would be reasonable to say "forecasts were wrong" (note the plural).

Comment author: PECOS-9 05 March 2017 06:06:06AM 0 points [-]

That would not be reasonable if we were talking about something like a prediction of whether a 5-sided die would come up with the number 1. Why are polls any different?

Comment author: PECOS-9 08 January 2017 11:49:36PM 1 point [-]

Is the example about an academic article on hyper computation real?

Comment author: PECOS-9 27 September 2016 04:50:58AM *  3 points [-]

Anybody have recommendations of a site with good summaries of the best/most actionable parts from self-help books? I've found Derek Sivers' book summaries useful recently and am looking for similar resources. I find that most self-help books are 10 times as long as they really need to be, so these summaries are really nice, and let me know whether it may be worth it to read the whole book.

Comment author: Bot 18 July 2016 09:48:50PM 0 points [-]

I have been considering the potential for demographic changes due to mind uploading to be even more extreme than you might initially think. This may be caused by people who are both willing to create massive numbers of copies of themselves and who are better suited for an economic niche than anyone else is for that niche, or at least anyone else willing to make very large numbers of copies of themselves. In such a situation, it would be more profitable for a firm to hire such a person than it would be for them to hire others, which may result it that niche being dominated by copies of that single individual.

For example, if there is one person who is better at software development than anyone else and is willing to make very large numbers of copies of themselves, there may end up being millions of copies of that one individual, all developing software.

However, there may be regulations to prevent such people from causing so many others to become unemployed. This may be done by limiting the numbers of copies people can make of themselves. I know little about politics, so feedback on this would be greatly appreciated.

Maximizing the number of copies of yourself may be desired, for example if you are a more effective altruist than most and thus want to maximize the resources available for you and your copies to do such kind acts. Or if you want a clone army.

Thus, I would very much like to know if this is a realistic consideration and how to maximize the number of copies you can make of yourself. It will probably be useful to avoid dying before mind-uploading occurs, get cryopreserved if you fail to do this, and become as skilled as possible at doing tasks that will be economically important in the future. I am unsure of how general or specific such tasks should be, for example if you should attempt to become an expert at software development as a whole or specialize in, say, debugging fatal errors in mid-sized system software. The latter would probably increase the probability of you fulfilling a niche but probably decrease the size of it.

Comment author: PECOS-9 18 July 2016 11:46:02PM 3 points [-]

Robin Hanson's "The Age of Em" is a book about this sort of thing.

Comment author: PECOS-9 16 June 2016 02:51:24AM 0 points [-]

What should you be doing right now if you believe that advances in AI are about to cause large-scale unemployment within the next 20 years (ignoring the issue of FAI for the sake of discussion)?

View more: Next