LESSWRONG
LW

All of david reinstein's Comments + Replies

Announcing the Double Crux Bot
david reinstein10

Is there a version of this bot (or something similar) that one can use in an LLM model or website?  I want to use this on a podcast without having to link this to a Slack

Reply
1sanyer
Is your goal to identify double-cruxes in a podcast? If so, our tool might not be the best for that, since it's supposed to be used in live conversations as a kind of a mediator. Currently, the Double-Crux Bot can only be used either as a bot that you add to your Slack / Discord, or by joining our Discord channel. Probably more useful for you is this: In a recent hackathon, Tilman Bayer produced a prompt that was used to extract double-cruxes in from a debate. As a model they used Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking, you can see the prompt here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Igs6T-elz61xysRCMQmZVX8ysfVX4NgTItwXPnrwrak/edit#slide=id.g33c29319e5a_0_0 
Which things were you surprised to learn are not metaphors?
david reinstein10

I only realised the latter when I saw the Dutch word for this “middellandse zee”. The sea in the middle of the lands.

“Terranean” had never scanned separately to me

Reply
Which things were you surprised to learn are not metaphors?
david reinstein210

Related; when you never realized a compound word had a literal meaning....

Cup board -- board to put cups on -- cupboard

Medi terrain -- between two continents -- Mediterranean

Etc.

Reply
1david reinstein
I only realised the latter when I saw the Dutch word for this “middellandse zee”. The sea in the middle of the lands. “Terranean” had never scanned separately to me
CstineSublime130

Scripts and screenplays are very interesting examples of this.
Manuscript is a handwritten script (manual script), which seems a bit redundant before modern presses. A screenplay is a play written for the (silver) screen. i.e. a mirror upon which a film projector bounced off images from.

It only just occurred to me that a playwright is not someone who writes plays but akin to a Cartwright.

Mesopotamia -- literally "between the rivers. "

Hippopotamus -- water horse

Welcome -- "well-come" - coming in a state of wellness (I don't know if this approximates the mode... (read more)

Reply
Which things were you surprised to learn are not metaphors?
david reinstein30

I think the gut thing is usually metaphorical though

Reply
Eric Neyman120

Let's test this! I made a Twitter poll.

Reply32
An academic journal is just a Twitter feed
david reinstein10

(How) does this proposal enable single-blind peer review?

For ratings or metrics for the credibility of the research, I could imagine likes/reposts, etc., but could this enable 

  • Rating along multiple dimensions
  • Rating intensity (e.g., strong positive, weak positive, etc.) 
  • Experts/highly rated people to have more weight in the rating (if people want this)
Reply
The Best Textbooks on Every Subject
david reinstein10


Microeconomics and macroeconomics are different subjects and have different content. Why are they grouped together?

Reply
Checking public figures on whether they "answered the question" quick analysis from Harris/Trump debate, and a proposal
david reinstein1-1

I think saying “I am not going to answer that because…” would not necessarily feel like taking a hit to the debater/interviewee. Could also bring scrutiny and pressure to moderators/interviewers to ask fair and relevant questions.

I think people would appreciate the directness. And maybe come to understand the nature of inquiry and truth a tiny bit better.

Reply
1Shankar Sivarajan
"Directness" is the very thing Trump is renowned for, and his people certainly appreciate it, but do you think the same is true of the other side? I'd expect them to generally prefer the circumlocution of the typical politician.
1gb
The problem is that quite often the thing which follows the "because" is the thing that has more prejudicial than informative value, and there's no (obvious) way around it. Take an example from this debate: if Trump had asked earlier, as commentators seem to think he should have, why Harris as VP has not already done the things she promises to do as President, what should she have answered? The honest answer is that she is not the one currently calling the shots, which is obvious, but it highlights disharmony within the administration. As a purely factual matter, that the VP is not the one calling the shots is true of every single administration. But still, the fact that she would be supposedly willing to say it out loud would be taken to imply that this administration has more internal disharmony than previous ones, which is why no one ever dares saying so: even an obvious assertion (or, more precisely, the fact that someone is asserting it) is Bayesian evidence.
[Crosspost] ACX 2022 Prediction Contest Results
david reinstein10

Anyone know where I can find some of the analysis and code that was done on this? Like Jupiter notebook or Quarto or  Google Collab or Kaggle or  something. 

Either the modeling someone used to make their predictions (including aggregating round 1 perhaps) or the models of what predicted success that was done ex post?

I want to use these in my own work, which I will share publicly. The big question I have (without having dug much in much into the research and methods) is 

suppose I had a model that was good at predict in the accuracy of an... (read more)

Reply
LessWrong Has Agree/Disagree Voting On All New Comment Threads
david reinstein10

I started a [link post to this on the EA Forum](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/e7rWnAFGjWyPeQvwT/2-factor-voting-karma-agreement-for-ea-forum) to discuss if it makes sense over there. 

One thing I suggested as a variation of thi:



> B. Perhaps the 'agreement' axis should be something that the post author can add voluntarily, specifying what is the claim people can indicate agreement/disagreement with? (This might also work well with the metaculus prediction link that is in the works afaik).


 

Reply
2Ben Pace
My first thought against would be that it would end up pretty misleading. Like, suppose the recent AGI lethalities post had this, and Eliezer picked "there is at least a 50% chance of extinction risk from AGI" as the claim. Then I think many people would agree with it, but that would look (on first glance) like many people agreed with the post, which actually makes a way more detailed and in-depth series of claims (and stronger claims of extinction), and create a false-consensus. (I personally think this is the neatest idea so far, that allows the post author to make multiple truth-claims in the post and have them independently voted on, and doesn't aggregate them for the post overall in any way.)