Downvoters: consider "Deception increases predictability"

"Honesty reduces predictability" seems implausible as a thesis.

OpenAI successfully waging the memetic war, as usual

Awesome!

My faves are #4 Intuition Flooding and #12 Incremental Reading. Will try them when I have slack and a topic of interest.

#2 Immersive Reading seems intriguing. I've noticed in myself a sense of my reading speed being capped by mental critical filtering processes. I feel like I could increase my comprehension speed at the cost of absorbing contents less discriminately.

#3 Recursive Sampling and #7 Spot the Core are strategies I've discovered myself, but no less useful for that.

#8. Triangulating Genius seems effortful but like a great fit for particular cases. #9 Expert Observation is great where the material exists. (Someone should do youtube videos liveblogging their math learning or social situation navigation, for me)
 

Amusing instructive and unfortunate this post's actual meaning got lost in politics. IMO it's one of the better ones.

Am left wondering if "local" here has a technical meaning or is used as a vague pointer.

What people need to get is that Lying is the weaker subset of Deception. It's the type you can easily call out and retaliate against.

Which is why we evolved to have strong instinctive reactions to it.

I take away:

• While doubt may involve encountering disconfirming evidence for a held belief - and it's proper to immediately update on the doubt-creating evidence and thereby factor the expected result of further inquiry into your belief-state, -
• Doubt itself is a pointer to a location of yet-unseen evidence. To a specific line of inquiry that may or may not disconfirm the held belief in question.
• The inverse, or perhaps a generalization to positive and negative cases, is then Suspicion.
• Suspicion points to locations of likely belief-creating or belief-modifying evidence.

Edit: meditating on what this post points to - finding in myself instances of the sensation of rational-doubt, and dwelling on them - proved useful.

I find it important for rationalists to think and talk more about deception. 

While in honesty the post is a bit long for my taste, I like the way it approaches the overton window with this kind of dark-artsy, borderline-political topic and presents a plainly-insightful case study. 

I'd say Accidentally Load Bearing structures are (statistically speaking) always the work of another optimizer: - someone saw the structure, and built another (architectural, behavioral,) structure on top of it.

So the key question is whether or not this structure may at some point have seemed useful to someone. (In a way that can be retrospectively broken.)

I think the post loses out on mental succinctness not explaining this.

Thanks for starting this rebellion, Eliezer.