Thank you! This is such an important crux post, and really gets to the bottom of why the world is still so far from perfect, even though it feels like we've been improving it FOREVER. My only critique is that it could have been longer
It's worse than that. I've been aware of this since I was a teenager, but apparently there's no amount of correction that's enough. These days I try to avoid making decisions that will be affected in either direction by limerance, or pre-commit firmly to a course of action and then trust that even if I want to update the plan, I'm going to regret not doing what I pre-committed to earlier.
Seconded. The perfect level of detail to be un-put-down-able while still making sure everything is explained in enough detail to be gripping and well understood
Those are some extreme outliers for age. Was that self-reported, or some kind of automated information gathering related to their Positly profiles?
This is targeted at all 3 groups:
There is a time coming in the next decade or so when we will have released a veritable swarm of different genies that are able to understand and improve themselves better than we can. At that point, the genies will not being going back in the bottle, so we can only pray they like us.
By this stage of their careers, they already have those bits of paper. MIRI are asking people who don't a priori highly value alignment research to jump through extra hoops they haven't already cleared, for what they probably perceive as a slim chance of a job outside their wheelhouse. I know a reasonable number of hard science academics, and I don't know any who would put in that amount of effort in the application for a job they thought would be highly applied for by more qualified applicants. The very phrasing makes it sound like they expect hundreds of applicants and are trying to be exclusive. If nothing else is changed, that should be.
I gave this an upvote because it is directly counter to my current belief about how relative/absolute pitch work and interact with each other. I agree that if someone's internalised absolute pitch can constantly identify out of tune notes, even after minutes of repetition, this is a strong argument against my position. On the other hand, maybe they do produce one internal reference note of set frequency, and when comparing known intervals against this, it returns "out of tune" every time. I can see either story being true, but I would like to hunt down some more information on which of these models is more accurate
I think your suggestion is effectively what everyone with absolute pitch is actually doing, if the reports from the inside I've heard are accurate. It's definitely how I would start converting my relative pitch proficiency into absolute
I know what you mean, and I think that similar to Richard Kennaway says below, we need to teach people new to the sequences and to exotic decision theories not to drive off a cliff because of a thread they couldn't resist pulling.
I think we really need something in the sequences about how to tell if your wild seeming idea is remotely likely. I.e a "How to Trust Your SatNav" post. The basic content in the post is: remember to stay grounded, and ask how likely this wild new framework might be. Ask others who can understand and assess your theory, and if they...
It's great that you have that satnav. I worry about people like me. I worry about being incapable of leaving those thoughts alone until I've pulled the thread enough be sure I should ignore it. In other words, if I think there's a chance something like that is true, I do want to trust the satnav, but I also want to be sure my "big if true" discovery genuinely isn't true.
Of course, a good innoculation against this has been reading some intense blogs of people who've adopted alternative decision-theories which lead them down really scary paths to watch.
I wor...
Within reason, I can see how it might be wise for you. I think the largest uncertainty this question hinges upon is whether hospitals in your area have the capacity to treat you if your case is unexpectedly bad. You can get a good sense of this by monitoring available ICU beds in the immediate/short term, but beyond a week it's hard to know.
And here's maybe a more important question, though far harder to model: will hospitals in my area have more/less capacity to treat me later, if I just catch it at the naturally occurring rate?
I'm in NSW, Australia, so e...
My use of MicroCovid.org so far has probably been very different to most LWers, as I'm based in Sydney, Australia. So far, I've mostly been content to follow public health guidelines and have used MicroCovid.org about 4 times a year for the last 2 years. Each time I used it, I found it very useful for thinking about risk and improving my implicit understanding for how risky different activities were. My usage pattern looks set to change pretty dramatically though, as Australia is in the early stages of Omicron going exponential.
Of all the current features,...
There's an easier solution that doesn't run the risk of being or appearing manipulative. You can contract external and independent councillors and make them available to your staff anonymously. I don't know if there's anything comparable in the US, but in Australia they're referred to as Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs). Nothing you discuss with the councillor can be disclosed to your workplace, although in rare circumstances there may be mandatory reporting to the police (e.g. if abuse or ongoing risk of a minor is involved).
This also goes a long way toward creating a place where employees can talk about things they're worried will seem crazy in work contexts.
Solutions like that might work, but it's worth noting that just having an average therapist likely won't be enough.
If you actually care about a level of security that protects secrets against intelligence agencies, operational security of the office of the therapist is a concern.
Governments that have security clearances don't want their employees to talk with therapists who don't have the secuirty clearances about classified information.
Talking nonjudgmentally with someone who has reasonable fears that the humanity won't survive the next ten years because of fast AI timelines is not easy.
You and I are quite similar, in that we both default to taking responsibility for the painful outcomes that come our way. I do think though that there is a flaw in one little bit of this mindset (or maybe it's just the way you expressed it, so tell me if I didn't get what you were pointing at). It sounds like your formulation is basically "if an outcome is my responsibility, then I refuse to give myself compassion." It is possible to accept a high degree of responsibility while still being compassionate to yourself. I know, because I have seen others do it
...Wow! Thank you so, so much for all of this!
I tend to think of myself as very engaged with LW2.0 (despite not commenting or posting often) but I didn't have a very good idea of how much work you were putting in to add features and fix bugs. I'd love to see more frequent posts like this, so we can all get excited together, and show appreciation for everything you and the team are doing. I'm sure that you have a very clear idea of all the features that are being implemented, and how much effort you've been pouring into it, but that isn&apo...
And it goes deeper. Because what if Mickey never actually woke up, and the brooms had been keeping him asleep the whole time? The Sleeping Beauty problem is actually present in quite a lot of Disney media where the MC goes to sleep. It's also a theme in Mulan. Maybe she never went to war and made her parents proud. It may well have been a dream she just didn't wake up from.