Comment author: gwern 11 September 2012 08:29:47PM 61 points [-]

what is true is already so. Robin Hanson doesn't make it worse

OK, I'm impressed.

Comment author: negamuhia 12 September 2012 09:01:36AM 4 points [-]

In the new version of Newcomb's problem, you have to choose between a box containing Robin Hanson and a box containing an upload of a cult

Comment author: negamuhia 12 September 2012 08:52:30AM *  6 points [-]

Less Wrong is not a cult so long as our meetups don't include Unfriendly God.

Wow.

Edit: and this counterexample, immediately after.

politics is isomorpic to physics

Edit #2: Aargh.

In the new version of Newcomb's problem, you have to choose between a box containing timeless torture and a box containing torture

The thirty eigthth virtue of rationality is "always obey the guiding inluence of Robin Hanson"

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 19 June 2012 05:55:45AM *  23 points [-]

It's worth noting that your current name has advantages too; people who are interested in the accelerating change singularity will naturally run into you guys. These are people, some pretty smart, who are at home with weird ideas and like thinking about the far future. Isn't this how Louie found out about SI?

Maybe instead of changing your name, you could spin out yet another organization (with most of your current crew) to focus on AI risk, and leave the Singularity Institute as it is to sponsor the Singularity Summit and so on. My impression is that SI has a fairly high brand value, so I would think twice before discarding part of that. Additionally, I know at least one person assumed the Singularity Summit was all you guys did. So having the summit organized independently of the main AI risk thrust could be good.

Comment author: negamuhia 28 August 2012 04:33:03PM *  0 points [-]

I agree. You should change the name iff your current name-brand is irreparably damaged. Isn't that an important decision procedure for org rebrands? I forget.

EDIT: Unless, of course, the brand is already irreparably damaged...in which case this "advice" would be redundant!

Comment author: Karmakaiser 13 June 2012 05:24:30AM 11 points [-]

Every Right Wing Neo Reactionary Lesswrongian is now under suspicion.

Comment author: negamuhia 28 August 2012 04:16:42PM *  1 point [-]

You seem to be suggesting a Not-Glenn-Beck Turing-like Test.

Comment author: khafra 24 August 2012 03:22:08AM 10 points [-]

When I first joined, I barely commented, because I felt it would inexcusably lower the average comment quality. I still refrain on topics which I’m interested, but not competent in; but for the last 18 months or so I’ve felt more comfortable with the vector my comments apply to the site average.

Separately, I generally agree with Will Newsome about the high quality of your contributions.

Comment author: negamuhia 27 August 2012 12:20:24PM *  5 points [-]

This being my first comment, I found LW through Google Plus, and my first reading was So You Want To Save The World, which took me a couple of weeks due to the prerequisite papers, plus a ton of other stuff i was reading at the time. One might say, that that might have been an unnecessarily daunting introduction to a community - any community - but I'm glad of the way it happened because I'd never have gotten as interested in cogsci and "A-grade+ rationality" as i have been ever since. That was just before Christmas last year. Now, I've read most of the sequences, and even used some of the tools recommended here, but constantly struggle to find a good place to start making contributions to discussions. So it's taken me roughly 8 months of lurking to do this post. Does everyone do this, or am I a unique point in newb-space?

View more: Prev