LessWrong team member / moderator. I've been a LessWrong organizer since 2011, with roughly equal focus on the cultural, practical and intellectual aspects of the community. My first project was creating the Secular Solstice and helping groups across the world run their own version of it. More recently I've been interested in improving my own epistemic standards and helping others to do so as well.
I have only read the first paragraph or two, but, would like the all-things-considered "how good is this?". I went into Sleep No More with literally zero spoilers and I liked it that way.
When obsolescence shall this generation waste,
The market shall remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a God to man, to whom it shall say this:
"Time is money, money time,---that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
This feels like it's referencing something literary I don't know, curious if that's correct
(I think would be good to copy-paste here for ease of reference)
Well in its defense a paragraph later we have:
Corpses don't cause atrocities.
Guy-stand-up.jpg
I dunno I think Coefficient Giving sounds fine.
I think what I meant with this phrasing is:
a) I expect the question-2 to prompt a range of answers, some more "different from usual" than others
b) regardless, question 3 is emphasizing the combination "still very different" but also "still feels actually appealing "
Okay, I think I get what you mean. Still disagree with your comment but I already listed why in the comment before, so not getting into it more.
I'm guessing it's net positive to tune people out unless either they clearly-at-a-glance have some insight, or, you've heard from some other channel that that they say interesting/useful things.
(I'm not that confident the calculus shakes out this way but generally I think people pay way too much attention to internet trolls. They don't just need to provide nonzero value, they have to provide more value than whatever else you were doing, on average)
Mm nod. (I would classify that under "you have some other reason to take them seriously" although it's a different kind of seriously)
See also: if you aren't financially stable, rather than "earn to give", "earn to get sufficiently wealthy you can afford to not have a job for several years while working on AI stuff".
BTW, I think "financial stable" doesn't mean "you can technically survive awhile" it's "you have cushion that you will not feel any scarcity mindset." For almost everyone I think this means at least 6 months more runway than you think you plan to use, and preferably more like a year.
(Note, AI automation might start doing wonky things to job market by the time you're trying to get hired again, if you run out of money)
I also don't really recommend people try to do this as their first job. I think there's a collection of "be a competent adult" skills that you probably don't have yet right out of college, and having any kind of job-with-a-boss for at least like 6 months is probably valuable.