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

Comment author: Lumifer 20 March 2017 06:24:55PM 2 points [-]

Ensure that the benefits of AI accrue to everyone generally, rather than exclusively to the teeny-tiny fraction of humanity who happen to own their own AI business.


Now, where have I heard this before..?

Comment author: fubarobfusco 20 March 2017 06:36:37PM 1 point [-]

String substitution isn't truth-preserving; there are some analogies and some disanalogies there.

Comment author: moridinamael 20 March 2017 03:09:47PM 2 points [-]

What is the steelmanned, not-nonsensical interpretation of the phrase "democratize AI"?

Comment author: fubarobfusco 20 March 2017 05:59:58PM *  4 points [-]

One possibility: Ensure that the benefits of AI accrue to everyone generally, rather than exclusively to the teeny-tiny fraction of humanity who happen to own their own AI business.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 17 March 2017 02:56:59AM 2 points [-]

Composing a comment and then deciding not to post it can be a good form of rubber-ducking.

Comment author: Alicorn 17 March 2017 01:46:56AM 19 points [-]

If you like this idea but have nothing much to say please comment under this comment so there can be a record of interested parties.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 17 March 2017 02:17:03AM 0 points [-]

I think this idea is worth seeking.

Comment author: SnowSage4444 15 March 2017 01:53:58PM 0 points [-]

Is there a guide on how to write Rationalist fanfiction?

Comment author: fubarobfusco 15 March 2017 11:47:11PM 1 point [-]
Comment author: gjm 15 March 2017 03:48:19PM 2 points [-]

The magic words you are looking for are "web hosting".

Comment author: fubarobfusco 15 March 2017 11:46:27PM 2 points [-]

And "domain registration", which many web hosting providers will do for you. You can also start with the domain and then add services such as web sites and email, for instance via Google Domains:


Comment author: Bound_up 11 March 2017 01:45:10PM 1 point [-]

A charity is a business who sells feeling good about yourself and the admiration of others as its products.

To make a lucrative product, don't ask "what needs need filling," ask "what would help people signal more effectively."

Comment author: fubarobfusco 11 March 2017 07:59:13PM *  2 points [-]

Your claim seems to factor into two parts: "There exist charities that are just selling signaling", and "All charities are that kind of charity." The first part seems obviously true; the second seems equally obviously false.

Some things that I would expect from a charity that was just selling signaling:

  • Trademarking or branding. It would need to make it easy for people to identify (and praise) its donors/customers, and resist imitators. (Example: the Komen breast-cancer folks, who have threatened lawsuits over other charities' use of the color pink and the word "cure".)
  • Association with generic "admiration" traits, such as celebrity, athleticism, or attractiveness. (Example: the Komen breast-cancer folks again.)
  • Absence of "weird" or costly traits that would correlate with honest interest in its area of concern. (For instance, a pure-signaling charity that was ostensibly about blindness might not bother to have a web site that was highly accessible to blind users.)
  • In extreme cases, we would be hearing from ostensible beneficiaries of the charity telling us that it actually hurts, excludes, or frightens them. (Example: Autism Speaks.)
  • Jealousy or competitiveness. It would try to exclude other charities from its area of concern. (A low-signaling charity doesn't care if it is responsible for fixing the thing; it just wants the thing fixed.)
Comment author: komponisto 07 March 2017 01:25:18AM 2 points [-]

Oh, you meant "might made right".

Comment author: fubarobfusco 07 March 2017 06:02:01PM 1 point [-]

See Scott's "The Goddess of Everything Else" for a poetical exposition on the subject.

Comment author: HungryHippo 23 February 2017 02:04:15PM *  0 points [-]

When I listend to his AMA, I noticed this line as well. It's a really clever "tool for thinking" that deserves to be noticed.

There's an interview with Dawkins somewhere where he mentions an anecdote about Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein is supposed to have said "Why did people ever believe that the sun revolves around the earth?", and his interlocutor supposedly answered: "Well, obviously it's because it looks like the sun is revolving around the earth." Then Wittgenstein whips out the counterfactual: "Well, what would it have looked like if it looked like the earth revolves around the sun?".

And the answer is obviously: exactly the same, lol!

Comment author: fubarobfusco 23 February 2017 04:35:58PM 1 point [-]

So what was the wrong idea "geocentrism" about, then?

Some tribal lore tells us that it had to do with the centrality of humanity in God's plan; or the qualitative difference between earthly and celestial things: the sun, moon, and stars belong to the heavens; the earth is below them; and hell is under the earth.

But maybe it's more to do with a wrong idea of "revolving" instead. The ancients had no concept of freefall. When they imagined an object revolving around another, they may have imagined a sling-stone being swung in a sling. "If the earth were swinging around the sun, surely we would fall off!" The earth has discernible features such as oceans, trees, and people which might "fall off" under motion, but the sun doesn't, being a seemingly featureless body of light: so the evidence of ordinary terrestrial experience favors the stability of the earth and the motion of the sun.

Even after heliocentric cosmology, it took more than a century to come up with the unification of celestial and terrestrial gravity: that the same rules govern the motion of the planets and moons that also govern cannonballs.

Comment author: ChristianKl 21 February 2017 09:53:25AM 0 points [-]

Politically taxing gasoline is very unpopular and there's no majority for carbon taxes.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 22 February 2017 04:24:24PM 0 points [-]

Politically, taxing gasoline is utterly commonplace and accepted. Every developed country except Mexico does it, and every U.S. state.

View more: Next