Not sure of the title. The tagline was "almost no one is evil; almost everything is broken." The address was http://blog.jaibot.com. Some specific essays originating there were "500 million, but not a single one more," "Foes Without Faces", and "The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics".
First blog that comes to mind is Jai's old one. A fair number of rationalist memes began there, I think, but it disappeared at some point. I'm not sure if it was rehosted elsewhere or what.
I can’t imagine integrating any of those things into my normal, day to day routine unless the content of what I was doing were, in normal course, exposed only to me.
I've had something like this issue. The places I most want to use LLMs are for work tasks like "refactor this terribleness to not be crap", or "find the part of this codebase that is responsible for X", or "fill out this pointless paperwork for me"; but I'm not going to upload my employer's data to an LLM provider. Also, if you're in tech, you might want to apply for a job at an AI company. If so, then anything you type into their LLM is potentially exposed to whoever is judging that application. Even if you're not doing anything questionable, you still have to spend attention on HR-proofing it.
(I'm sure privacy policies are a thing. Have you read them? I have not. I could fix that, but that is also an attention cost, and you have to trust that the policy will be honored when it matters)
The places where exposing things to the LLM provider is a non-issue (e.g. boilerplate), I mostly don't need help with and mostly do better than the LLM does.
(...for now)
Yeah, it's okay, conveying visuals is a legitimately not-terrible reason for it. My gripe with the trend just jumped to the front of my brain because I tried to C+P something and got a mouseful of image instead.
I feel dumb asking, but...what's the significance of "Stanley Peterson?" Google turns up no relevant hits on the name. Is it just an Americanized version of Petrov's?
I'm sorry I missed out on this. I follow the site with a feed reader, so I never saw the button. :-( Oh well, perhaps next year.
[edit]: Also, from the major-psychotic-hatreds department but not directed at you in particular: What is with the trend of the last 5-10 years of posting screenshots of text instead of quoting the actual text? It breaks copy/paste, ctrl-f, and anything that relies on the text actually being....text. It drives me up the wall every time I see it.
It's not obvious to me that those are the same, though they might be. Either way, it's not what I was thinking of. I was considering the Bob-1 you describe vs. a Bob-2 that lives the same 40 years and doesn't have his brain frozen. It seems to me that Bob-1 (40L + 60F) is taking on a greater s-risk than Bob-2 (40L+0F).
(Of course, Bob-1 is simultaneously buying a shot at revival, which is the whole point after all. Tradeoffs are tradeoffs.)
[epistemic status: low confidence. I've noodled on this subject more than once recently (courtesy of Planecrash), but not all that seriously]
The idea of resurrectors optimizing the measure of resurrect-ees isn't one I'd considered, but I'm not sure it helps. I think the Future is much more likely to be dominated by unfriendly agents than friendly ones. Friendly ones seem more likely to try to revive cryo patients, but it's still not obvious to me that rolling those dice is a good idea. Allowing permadeath amounts to giving up a low probability of a very good outcome to eliminate a high(...er) probability of a very bad outcome.
Adding quantum measure doesn't change that much, I don't think; hypothetical friendly agents can try to optimize my measure, but if they're a tiny fraction of my Future then it won't make much difference.
Adding the infinite MUH is more complicated; it implies that permadeath is probably impossible (which is frightening enough on its own), and it's not clear to me what cryo does in that case. Suppose my signing up for cryo is 5% likely to "work", and independently suppose that humanity is 1% likely to solve the aging problem before anyone I care about dies; does signing up under those conditions shift my long-run measure away from futures where I and my loved ones simply got the cure and survived, and towards futures where I'm preserved alone and go senile first? I'm not sure, but if I take MUH as given then that's the sort of choice I'm making.
This trips my too-good-to-be-true alarms, but has my provisional attention anyway. The main reasons I'm not signed up for cryonics are cost, inconvenience, and s-risks. Eliminating cost (and cost-related inconveniences) could move me...but I want to know how this institution differs such that they can offer such storage at low or no cost, where others don't or can't.
I loved Project Lawful/Planecrash (not sure which is the actual title), but I do hesitate to recommend it to others. Not everyone likes their medium-core S&M with a side of hardcore decision theory, or vice-versa. It is definitely weirder than HPMOR.
Something that threw me off at first: it takes the mechanics of the adapted setting very literally (e.g. spell slots and saving throws are non-metaphorical in-universe Things). That's not normal for (good) game fanfiction. The authors make it work anyway -- perhaps because clear rules make it easier to produce solvable puzzles -- but it took some getting used to.
The glowfic format is strange, yeah, but it doesn't read much different. It does make for a clearer delineation of character perspectives (e.g. compared to an omniscient narrator), and the portraits/icons carry more weight than one might expect. The main drawback I noticed was that, without chapters, clear "you can stop reading and go to bed" breaks were sometimes quite far apart.
(also I had to take Stylus to the CSS to render it comfortably readable, but that's every site on the internet these days)
I enjoyed the hell out of LessOnline and would love to go to this too. I'm not sure yet if I can make the budget work; is anyone I met at LO looking for roommates?
I thought about this after LO -- overcrowding is an attractor state for conventions -- and wondered if overcrowding could be managed by dynamic pricing. If you know the size of the space, it feels like you could fill it nearly exactly by making the price some function of
(time-before-event, number-of-remaining-slots). This is one of the few crowds where that sort of mathematical jiggery might not alienate people.(on the other hand, I expect it would make budgeting the event much harder, so I dunno).