Comment author: multifoliaterose 25 January 2012 05:31:49AM *  1 point [-]

I strongly endorse your second and fourth points; thanks for posting this. They're related to Yvain's post Would Your Real Preferences Please Stand Up?.

Comment author: Yvain 22 January 2012 04:51:00AM *  48 points [-]

Generic "ambition" is a serious case of putting the cart before the horse. If you have ambition to do something, that's great; if not, deciding you should be "ambitious" and then trying to figure out what to be ambitious about rarely ends well.

I think this is why I get creeped out by ambitious people sometimes. I'd much rather my doctor be passionate about medicine than be someone who decided medicine was more "prestigious" than nursing. As a personal anecdote, I am currently in medicine because I want to specialize in psychiatry. I am passionate about psychiatry and plan to be an awesome psychiatrist. I am not quite as passionate about organic medicine with its heart attacks and kidney infections, and although I work hard at it and am pretty good, some of my classmates who get up every morning super excited because they've dreamed of treating kidney infections their whole lives are better. I don't begrudge them this and if I ever got a kidney infection I'm going straight to them and not to the doctor who went into medicine as a subgoal of something else; if they ever get depression I hope they'll come to me for the same reason.

I understand it's the same in many other fields. Paul Graham writes that successful startup founders start with a problem they want to solve, eg Larry Page and Sergey Brin were frustrated with terrible online search; unsuccessful startup founders decide they would really like to earn fantastic amounts of money and only worry about what business they'll do it in as an afterthought.

The only problem here is charity: I do think it may be morally important to be ambitious in helping others, which might even include taking a lucrative career in order to give money to charity. This is especially true if the Singularity memeplex is right and we're living in a desperate time that calls for a desperate effort. See for example Giving What You Can's powerpoint on ethical careers. At some point you need to balance how much good you want to do, with how likely you are to succeed in a career, with how miserable you want to make yourself - and at the very least rationality can help clarify that decision.

Comment author: multifoliaterose 25 January 2012 05:26:10AM 5 points [-]

The only problem here is charity: I do think it may be morally important to be ambitious in helping others, which might even include taking a lucrative career in order to give money to charity. This is especially true if the Singularity memeplex is right and we're living in a desperate time that calls for a desperate effort. See for example Giving What You Can's powerpoint on ethical careers. At some point you need to balance how much good you want to do, with how likely you are to succeed in a career, with how miserable you want to make yourself - and at the very least rationality can help clarify that decision.

I don't know a single example of somebody who chose a career substantially less enjoyable than what they would otherwise have been doing in order to help people and successfully stuck to it. Do you?

Comment author: multifoliaterose 19 January 2012 01:50:47PM *  8 points [-]

(a) My experience with the sociology of academia has been very much in line with what Lukeprog's friend, Shminux and RolfAndreassen describe. This is the culture that I was coming from in writing my post titled Existential Risk and Public Relations. Retrospectively I realize that the modesty norm is unusually strong in academia and to that extent I was off-base in my criticism.

The modesty norms have some advantages and disadvantages. I think that it's appropriate for even the best people take the view "I'm part of a vast undertaking; if I hadn't gotten there first it's not unlikely that someone else would have gotten there within a few decades." However, I'm bothered by the fact that the norm is so strong that innocuous questions/comments which quite are weak signals of immodesty are frowned upon.

(b) I agree with cousin it that it would be good for SIAI staff to "communicate more carefully, like Holden Karnofsky or Carl Shulman."

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 17 January 2012 09:57:44AM *  4 points [-]

There definitely exists a stereotype that people that wear glasses are more intelligent. The cause of this common stereotype is probably that people that wear glasses are more intelligent.

Comment author: multifoliaterose 18 January 2012 10:34:23PM 3 points [-]

But what's the purported effect size?

Comment author: Craig_Heldreth 18 January 2012 06:34:18PM 0 points [-]

Fair question, but not an easy one to answer.

I signed up for the reading group along with the 2600 Redditors. It was previously posted about here. The book is an entry point to issues of Artificial Intelligence, consciousness, cognitive biases and other subjects which interest me. I enjoy the book every time I read from it, but I believe I am missing something which could be provided in a group reading or a group study. As I stated in the previous thread, I am challenged by the musical references. The last time I read music notation routinely was when I sang in a choir in middle school; many of the Bach references and other music references to terms such as fugue, canon, fifths & thirds, &c are difficult for me to grasp.

If one of those 2600 redditors felt moved to build some youtube tutorials with a bouncing ball along and atop the Bach scores illustrating Hofstadter's arguments, then I presume many others besides myself would enjoy seeing them.

Have you seen that Feynman video where he says he usually dislikes answering "why" questions? If not that, perhaps that Louis C. K. standup routine where he talks about his daughter asking "why?" It is a discussion prompt but it often does not point to anywhere. I have that feeling now that I am rambling.

Comment author: multifoliaterose 18 January 2012 10:31:50PM 0 points [-]

I know Bach's music quite well from a listener's perspective though not from a theoretician's perspective. I'd be happy to share some pieces recordings that I've enjoyed / have found accessible.

Your last paragraph is obscure to me and I share your impression that you started to ramble :-).

Comment author: Craig_Heldreth 18 January 2012 02:33:49PM 1 point [-]

It would be easier to discuss the merits (or lack) of the book if you specify something about the book you believe lacks merit. The opinion that the book is overly hyped is a common criticism, but is too vague to be refuted.

It was a bestseller. Of course many of those people who bought it are silly.

Comment author: multifoliaterose 18 January 2012 04:24:21PM 1 point [-]

I wasn't opening up discussion of the book so much as inquiring why you find the fact that you cite interesting.

Comment author: Craig_Heldreth 17 January 2012 03:29:52PM 1 point [-]
Comment author: multifoliaterose 18 January 2012 01:35:13PM 4 points [-]

Why do you bring this up?

For what it's worth my impression is that while there exist people who have genuinely benefited from the book; a very large majority of the interest expressed in the book is almost purely signaling.

Comment author: David_Gerard 17 January 2012 11:56:39AM *  8 points [-]

An outside view of LessWrong:

I've had a passing interest in LW, but about 95% of all discussions seem to revolve around a few pet issues (AI, fine-tuning ephemeral utilitarian approaches, etc.) rather than any serious application to real life in policy positions or practical morality. So I was happy to see a few threads about animal rights and the like. I am still surprised, though, that there isn't a greater attempt to bring the LW approach to bear on problems that are relevant in a more quotidian fashion than the looming technological singularity.

As far as I can tell, the reason for this is that in practical matters, "politics is the mind killer" is the mind killer.

Comment author: multifoliaterose 18 January 2012 01:33:27PM 0 points [-]

I agree

Comment author: MileyCyrus 16 January 2012 05:07:31AM 5 points [-]

What are some efficient ways to signal intelligence? Earning an advanced degree from a selective university seems rather cost intensive.

Comment author: multifoliaterose 18 January 2012 01:32:58PM 0 points [-]

Why are you asking?

Comment author: multifoliaterose 12 January 2012 01:32:09PM 2 points [-]

You didn't address my criticism of the question about provably friendly AI nor my point about the researchers lacking relevant context for thinking about AI risk. Again, the issues that I point to seems to make the researchers' response to the questions about friendliness & existential risk due to AI carry little information

View more: Prev | Next