I'm also realizing that keeping a streak has its own very strong motivational value for some reason. I'm not sure whether this is particular to me or not.

This concept is usually credited to Jerry Seinfeld, as a method of taking full advantage of the streak's motivating power.

I use a beard trimmer and take it back to about an eighth of an inch whenever someone gets annoyed by it.

The actual length will vary for you: you should experiment until you find a length that is just longer than "sandpaper feel". But certainly, your argument is solid: there's no point going for the closest possible shave when just a close shave will do; and for me, there's no point going for a close shave when just a trim will do.

I'm changing the schedule (of summarising the minicamp classes) that I was holding myself to. It was too much and too micro-managed, and every failed day made the next day harder to succeed. Now it's just one lesson mindmap a night, on whichever is the most interesting remaining lesson.

I will be attending.

I think it's because you're wearing your rationalist shoes.

In the case of Luke's paper with Anna Salamon, the discussion on page 17 seems to imply that "Nanny AI" and "Oracle AI" are not types of Friendly AI. This is strange under their official definition of "Friendly AI." Why couldn't Nanny AI or Oracle AI have a stable, desirable utility function? I'm inclined to think the best way to make sense of that part...

I read through that section of the paper. It seems to me they mean to imply that "Nanny" or "Oracle" properties do not necessarily entail the "Friendly" property. Given that we care immensely about avoiding all AIs without the "Friendly" property, simply making an AI with "Nanny" or "Oracle" is not desirable.

In fewer words: Nanny AI and Oracle AI are not always Friendly AI, and that's what really matters.

It shouldn't be so surprising to me, seeing simulated annealing in so many places. It's a good approximation for optimising NP problems, it should develop organically in places dealing with NP problems.

Something less; people risk their status when they say or do or display some praise-worthy thing, and they need affirmation that they gained status (via compliment). I act as if I've already affirmed their status (going on to the next topic, bringing up a compliment-worthy thing of my own), which looks to them like I'm denying their status (because they don't see the praise that's in my head).

if I use this kind of metric on L. Ron Hubbard...

It provides evidence in favour of him being correct. If there weren't other sources of information on Hubbard's activities, I'd expect him to be of genius-level intelligence.

You're familiar with the concept that someone looking like Hitler doesn't make them fascist, right?

I had a bad habit of thinking positive things, but never actually sharing it with the people who I was thinking about!

It took me until very recently to realise that this habit is actually bad: it creates situations where I act like I've complimented people (because I thought of it) and they act like I haven't (because I haven't verbalised).