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

Comment author: gbear605 15 September 2017 04:23:12AM 3 points [-]

I'd love to see achieved the goal of an active rationalist-hub and I think this might be a method that can lead to it.

Ironically, after looking at the post you made on lesserwrong that combines various Facebook posts, Eliezer unknowingly demonstrates the exact issue: "because of that thing I wrote on FB somewhere" On one of his old LW posts, he would have linked to it. Instead, the explanation is missing for those who aren't up to date on his entire FB feed.

Thanks for the work that you've put into this.

Comment author: gbear605 15 September 2017 03:38:06AM *  4 points [-]

If it doesn’t, we’ll likely turn LW into an archive.

To clarify, does this mean that once the open beta conclude either A) we will switch permanently to the LW 2.0 or B) LW as a whole will close down to new posts/comments?

EDIT: From http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/pes/lesswrong_20_strategic_overview/ it is clear that this is in fact the case.

Comment author: pepe_prime 13 September 2017 01:20:21PM 10 points [-]

[Survey Taken Thread]

By ancient tradition, if you take the survey you may comment saying you have done so here, and people will upvote you and you will get karma.

Let's make these comments a reply to this post. That way we continue the tradition, but keep the discussion a bit cleaner.

Comment author: gbear605 13 September 2017 06:36:31PM 21 points [-]

I took the survey. I feel like the questions that ask for numeric answers about the probability of AI risk should have been optional because I have very weak fews about them

Comment author: gbear605 13 September 2017 05:57:16PM 4 points [-]

For being diagnosed with depression, do you include only major depressive disorder or do you also include persistent depressive disorder and adjustment disorder?

Comment author: gbear605 16 August 2017 05:03:45PM 2 points [-]

I suggest, as a corollary to Clarke's third law: any sufficiently advanced technology will be assumed to be magic.

Comment author: Alicorn 17 March 2017 01:46:56AM 21 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: gbear605 17 March 2017 03:15:20AM 1 point [-]

I think that this is a great idea and would be theoretically interested in it in the future, but there's no chance I'll be living in the Bay Area in the next four years.

Comment author: gbear605 05 February 2017 07:41:42AM 0 points [-]

The link links back to this page. I suggest resubmitting the link.

Comment author: gbear605 26 January 2017 11:07:22PM 0 points [-]

The link just links back to this page.

Comment author: James_Miller 16 January 2017 10:36:59PM 1 point [-]

What did you post? I study game theory and might be able to give you more feedback.

Comment author: gbear605 16 January 2017 10:46:04PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: Flinter 16 January 2017 10:31:18PM *  0 points [-]

I am new and a moderator already made a clearly irrational action against me and I am dumbfounded. I mean to present a very difficult subject that no one else can present, and I did so perfectly and in the only way possible and the moderator moderated the attempt out of existence.

Doesn't irrationality run counter to this site's stated mission?

To be clear, I am presenting the most important topic in the world, with the assumption that it is probably significant and correct because it's John Nash's (most significant) work.

Why is Less Wrong censoring out Nash's work and implying that it is irrational?

Comment author: gbear605 16 January 2017 10:44:12PM 1 point [-]

Epistemic status: I do not speak for that moderator or the rest of LW. I rarely post here but have been a long time lurker. I believe that the following is correct, but I haven't thought about it for a significant length of time.

I believe the issue is that you are asserting a specific issue as being the most important ever, with little proof other than that John Nash worked on it, which could be an appeal to authority. You provided little proof about why it is important. You gave no actual suggestions, merely comments.

You also posted three individual posts in a short time span, when all three could have been combined into a single one. It is considered polite to limit the number of posts started.

If I were you I would have presented the three separate posts in a single one, with more explanation about why you think the topic is significant, relying solely on the merits of the topic, not on an appeal to authority. I would also have given a suggestion, since you clearly seem to think that there should be something done about the issue, rather than relying on the community to give a suggestion.

Also, this might be just me, but I still have no clear picture on what the topic actually is after skimming the beginning of Nash's lecture.

View more: Next