All of hankx7787's Comments + Replies

Completely wrong.

As a software engineer at a company with way too much work to go around, I can tell you that making a "good effort" goes a long way. 90% of the time you don't have to "make it work or get a zero". As long as you are showing progress you can generally keep the client happy (or at least not firing you) as you get things done, even if you are missing deadlines. And this seems very much normal to me. I'm not sure where in the market you have to "make it work or get a zero". I'm not even convinced that exists.

0Grant
The quote refers to the (end) market and users, not the internal workings of a software development firm.
-2Eugine_Nier
But eventually you do have to make sure that things are done and work.
1Mestroyer
The essay is about startups. Perhaps they are different from your company. Also, getting things done but not in time for deadlines is not the same as not getting them done but making a good effort.

Anyone can join the group, right?

0Nova_Division
Yes! I have it on the following settings: * Privacy: Anyone can see the group, who's in it, and what members post * Membership Approval: Any member can add or approve members which are the least restrictive options in both categories. If someone (who was not already invited and approved by a member) asks to join the group, it pops up a notification for me to approve them, but I have approved (and will approve) all requests that aren't obviously spammers.
-1hankx7787
Anyone can join the group, right?

Definitely looking forward to any new people

1Nova_Division
Yeah! I've had new people interested in the facebook group who are going to come!
0hankx7787
Definitely looking forward to any new people
6TimS
You aren't writing informatively either, because you have a clear axe to grind beyond informing others of what happened. Also, a well written piece doesn't require additional clarification. If you can't write a good essay without including information you would hesitate to reveal publicly, then no publicly available good essay is writable. I wrote elsewhere about different possible meanings of believing you. Suffice it to say that one could believe iceman and still not believe you. That's essentially where I'm at - and I have no intention of investigating further, because I'm not someone who seriously cares about this issue. You seem to think the social pressure that led iceman to post has caused a serious harm to iceman (or others). I acknowledge the social pressure, but don't see the serious harm that you seem to see. Given that I've never heard of this event before, retaliation by the organizer beyond exclusion from future events is so remote as to be unimaginable by me. And I'm tapping out.
5TimS
"It would hurt the program's budget to treat them fairly" could be perfectly rational behavior. You don't know the event organizer's instrumental goals - although there does appear to be some disconnect between the expressed goals and the revealed preferences. The event organizer's actions might even be legal ("Your contract is garbage," without a lot more context, is not a legal argument). It's still a jerk move. And I sympathize with the people being hurt by it. Still, I don't care about Cryonics events. I'm writing only to try and help you calibrate how to write persuasively and informatively.

I found most of the conference to otherwise be overly regimented without enough unstructured time.

I actually agree with this completely. That was my main piece of constructive advice for the conference: more unstructured time. The best conversations were around the hot tub. Funny how that works.

3TimS
Hank, That is not your call to make. If you don't like how the conference is run, don't go. Encourage others not to go by telling them how the event is organized, not by throwing around wild, entitled accusations of mental illness. There is no evidence that the conference organizer is mentally ill. Writing "lol" is the functional equivalent of pointing and laughing - what gave you the right to point and laugh? You shouldn't be surprised that appearing and being petty is not rewarded in this forum. If you had written what iceman wrote, you wouldn't have been downvoted. NPOV writing enhances credibility, and you are going out of your way to avoid NPOV. In fact, you seem surprised that your wisecracking is not being appreciated. I'm sympathetic to the people hurt by the conference organizer. I have suspicions about behind the scenes issues that the conference organizer has not revealed because the issues would make the organizer look bad - even if they aren't illegal or immoral or even the organizer's fault. By contrast, your original post seems uninterested in their problems or in the quality of the conference, except as a bloody shirt for you to wield to support your ad hominem attacks.
8Salivanth
Thank you. I apologise for not asking you for verification sooner. My downvote is revoked and I've upvoted your post. I learnt that I should have asked for verification sooner, either immediately, or as soon as you informed me you had reasons for wishing to keep said verification private. I also learnt that I should assign a higher initial probability to claims made by LessWrong members I don't know, which is a lesson I'm very glad to have learnt, since I do enjoy trusting people.
7Salivanth
Okay, I've sent a PM asking you for verification.
6TimS
The question is not precisely whether you are making this up, but whether your judgment of who is in the wrong is correct. I believe that a conference organizer offered to let someone attend for free, then midway through the conference, revoked that offer. I am not certain whether the conference organizer or attendee is in the wrong. In short, your story has a perspective - and there is nothing wrong with that. But the tone of your essay is not internally consistent, or consistent with the message of the essay. To put it differently, the organizer might say: Such an organizer might be legally liable for some costs (on a breach of contract or other legal theory). Such organizer might be morally wrong, or a very stiff necked jerk. But such a person would not be delusional or mentally ill.
7Salivanth
I never actually claimed you were making this up, merely that the likelihood of your story being true was low. You inventing the story is only one possible reason why your story might be false. You could also simply be mistaken, have witnessed actions that looked much worse out of context (For example, maybe your friends did something to deserve their treatment, but didn't tell you because it would make them look bad) or some other reason I haven't thought of. In addition, you ask why I care so much about lack of transparency when I can think of reasons why you'd want to keep information private. You gave none of this information in the original post, so if I were to come up with potential reasons why you might want to keep the information secret, I'd be rationalising. With that in mind, evidence that your story is false: * The prior probability of your claim is low. Not extremely low, but as when making any claim that isn't obvious, the "burden of proof" is upon you. (Naturally, I don't expect PROOF, hence the inverted commas, but you do need to provide sufficient evidence to overcome the initial low probability.) * You claim to have references, yet don't provide them in the initial post or explain in the initial post why you won't publicly provide them. (Yes, you've given me an explanation now, which reduces the strength of this evidence, but does not eliminate it.) * I have been unable to find any collaborating evidence for your story. * The reaction on LessWrong, a site where the average member tends to be at least somewhat rational and probably at least as rational as myself, if not more so, is nearly universally negative. * You've failed to provide verification. You claimed your story was easily verified, yet there's a conspicuous absence of any verification. Unlike your references, if your story is "easily verified", that means it's verifiable using public knowledge, and you haven't provided that knowledge. (If the story is verifiable by asking you, t

Actually this makes sense, in a twisted way. I guess I'll have to take the karma hit to make sure this isn't noticed by people who don't actually care :P

That's how it looks like from your perspective. From a reader's perspective, it looks like someone who isn't a notable community figure on LessWrong (At least, I assume this, based on your karma scores and the fact that I have never heard of you. If I'm wrong, I apologise.) has suddenly made a claim with a significant burden of proof on it, and not provided any concrete evidence, despite apparently sitting on some. "I have evidence but am not going to include this in this post, nor will I explain why I cannot include the evidence in this post." i... (read more)

Also, I was using "lol" to defuse the warning just a little bit, since people who are already financially committed may be liable to freak out just a little bit too much and I didn't want to be sending the wrong signal... Ok, enough said.

If you want to know how I reacted to it, go through you your post and substitute every instance of "lol" with "hahaha." Ask yourself "is this an appropriate point in a speech to laugh?"

If a person giving a speech laughs after they say things that are liable to give offense, it wil... (read more)

Emails don't have to be scholarly articles, but blog posts are neither, and still have to be blog posts. They're all different kinds of writing and place different burdens on you as a writer.

Don't ask a question if you don't want an answer.

the most important factor: You are talking like a jerk, not just in the original post, but in every response to every comment about this I've read. You seem completely unable to comprehend (or possibly just to admit) that your opinions shouldn't be taken as the obvious word of god that they are, and think anyone questioning your assertions is doing it out of idiocy or spite. Even if tone is not a legitimate way to evaluate truth value of statements (though I think it tends contain a lot of evidence), it's definitely one of the big factors that influences downvotes.

... This page is now the top Google hit for Young Cryonicists Gathering scholarship. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that not everybody knows what you are talking about.

7[anonymous]
Well, if I understand your post, you're accusing an Cryonicist (Note I think her name is Cairn Idun) of being literally crazy for being strict with free money, but you're not doing it very seriously, "(lol)" being used several times. If she really has gone insane, then you should take it more seriously. If she hasn't actually gone crazy, then this is pointless dramatics. Also, a quick search for her indicates this isn't the first time she/young cyronicists has received criticism. But that criticism doesn't seem very convincing to me: https://sites.google.com/site/cryonicsfactsheet/scam-4---the-young-cryonicists

Misuse of 'literally'; lack of enough context to understand what you are saying, and you come off like you are venting.

6Emile
Hey Bob, if you read this, I think I left the keys to the truck on top of the TV, could you pick them up for me on the way out? Thanks!

this should go without saying, but you should be highly skeptical of any decision based on inestimable ineffables.

...

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

This is the official ad campaign for MIRI from now on.

Oh, excellent. I'm one of today's lucky 10,000!

Yes, I invented the idea of "philosophical hurdles" ages ago. For every "topic" there are some set of philosophical hurdles you have to overcome to even start approaching the right position. These hurdles can be surprisingly obscure. Perhaps you don't have quite enough math exposure and your concepts of infinity are a bit off, or you're aren't as solidly reductionistic as others and therefore your concept of identity is marginally weakened - anything like these can dramatically alter your entire life, goals, and decisions - and it can t... (read more)

4Richard_Kennaway
Invented for yourself, but such hurdles are very old.

Please see this excellent essay by Bruce Klein, founder of the Immortality Institute...

http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/151-immortalist-philosophy/

Immortalist Philosophy

Defined:
The immortalist philosophy is based upon the idea that humans only have one life and one chance to live. There are no alternative states to the current state other than oblivion. Thus, what we experience now and the life we have now is the only alternative.

Many people may look at the prospect of immortality with a large degree of skepticism. There is a pervasive feeling in so... (read more)

I agree with this completely. A lot of the times we simply don't have information beyond broad generalizations or estimates more accurate than within a order of magnitude or something, and yet people still insist on trying to formulate and act on precise quantifications, even though such information doesn't even exist.

0hankx7787
this should go without saying, but you should be highly skeptical of any decision based on inestimable ineffables.

I would guess walks in familiar areas (e.g. common routes within your house/apartment) would be more helpful. Since you see a lot of the same imagery it may help your imagination fill in the details. again be careful walking around with eyes closed.

another thing that could help is visualization by parts. work on getting just one piece clear in your mind before gradually expanding on that, and maybe with practice you can put the pieces together more quickly.

I guess I should point out that if you really don't have mental imagery to be careful walking around with your eyes closed, obviously.

  1. Pick a video game. Preferably something with a lot of consistent imagery/gameplay. A racing game running the same map would be a great example.

  2. Play this video game from when you wake up to when you go to bed, with minimal time for breaks or distractions.

  3. After hours of having these images burned into your retinas, randomly try closing your eyes for just a moment or two and rest your brain every once in a while.. When I'm playing video games intensely and then I shut my eyes, sometimes it's like I never even shut them in the first place - all the images

... (read more)
0hankx7787
I guess I should point out that if you really don't have mental imagery to be careful walking around with your eyes closed, obviously.
1SarahNibs
I may or may not try the video game thing. Spending time is easy, spending lots of consecutive time is more costly. :) I have taken walks as you describe, except in unfamiliar areas but where I don't expect to run into things all the time. I don't see my surroundings, I just know where they are approximately (and they update when I move). My guess is that visualizing something from nothing is also part of the spectrum...? I definitely had more success with visualizing fully-featured scenes (they end up mostly as not-quite amorphous blobs but totally in the right place and kinda painted over with Imagination) than geometry.

I like this a lot. It's often said by conservative commentators that conservatives completely understand liberals, but liberals do not understand conservatives at all. I think there's truth to that, I would love to see some experiments like this, hehehe...

0[anonymous]
This reminds me of Yvain2's post I like to listen to various commentators and try to guess whether they are conservative or liberal. Recently I listened heard the charismatic and articulate Chris Uhlmann on Television who sounds like a conservative. Apparently, he's a political editor for the ABC (and presumably nonpartisan), so I wonder what that says about my ability to understand either ideologues if I mislabel that cluster of beliefs.

It's an incredibly complicated software and hardware system. Maybe the most complex thing ever invented. There are bugs. There are unknown unknowns. There are people trying to steal the AI technology. There are people who already have AI technology who are going forward without hindering themselves with these restrictions. All of this doesn't happen in a bubble; there's context. This setup has to come from somewhere. The AI has to come from somewhere. This has to be implemented in an actual place. Somebody has to fund all of this - without using that power... (read more)

1Stuart_Armstrong
I agree.

I love what you're doing and was with up until the conclusion, "Given all these assumptions, then it seems that this setup will produce what we want: a reduced impact AI that will program a disciple AI that will build a paperclip and little else."

Obviously such a conclusion does not realistically follow simply from implementing this one safety device. This is one good idea, but alone isn't nearly sufficient. You will need many, many more good ideas.

3Elithrion
It would be helpful if you could explain how you think the current implementation would fail, since I don't find the failure obvious. The "safety device" in question is mainly the utility function which should make it so that the AI doesn't want to optimize everything, and in my view it is sufficient (for this limited scenario - the big challenge, I think, is in scaling it up and making it remotely implementable).

I don't think "compartmentalization" is an appropriate word for a virtue...

This is called AI boxing, google it. It's a really, really bad idea to rely on boxing for anything serious (and besides, you're missing about a dozen things I can think of off the top of my head from your little list of proposed boxing techniques.)

"What exactly do you mean by ‘machine’, such that humans are not machines?" - Eliezer Yudkowsky

1Shmi
Good point. The Wikipedia description certainly covers humans.

...

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
0NancyLebovitz
The added challenge for the skiers is that they were in a relatively unusual situation. Making a choice about smoking is very common. Reasonably high status adults don't usually get caught up in group enthusiasm for doing something that's much more dangerous than it looks.

It's at the bottom here, and I thought it was the most interesting thing of all that I found :)

I thought there used to be a much longer list of "Failures of Friendliness" but I can't seem to find anything else.

"If god has given us the brains to figure this stuff out, then who's to say what plans he has once we have figured it out?" - Jane Suozzi on cryonics

Load More