All of Selueen's Comments + Replies

Selueen
120

What would Russia gain from nuking Ukraine?

He did not threaten to nuke Ukraine. He threated to use nukes against NATO countries if they get directly involved in that conflict. Not a direct quote, but a summary would be "We know we can't win war against NATO, but we still have nuclear weapons - there will be no winners". 

Selueen
180

Gwern makes good case for use of sidenotes, and offers a few existing technical solutions.
I like how he uses it on his website and wonder why LW does not want to follow his example.
Are there any known problems with the idea/existing implementations that I'm missing?

6Trevor Hill-Hand
Came here to mention/upvote gwern style sidenotes. I footnotes are useful too, for citations, etc., but sidenotes are more what I want most of the time.

"People think killing is bad" is one of the many reasons to think that "killing is bad". Other reasons might include "people die if they are killed", "I don't want to get killed", "I don't want my loved ones to get killed", "I don't want to get traumatized by killing", "I don't want to traumatized by witnessing murder" and so on and so forth.
Lots of reasons to dislike murder. And we usually see dislike of murder developing naturally and independently in various cultures around the world. Sometimes it's only extended to people within a group, but it is inva... (read more)

If the capability is there, the world has to deal with it, whoever first uses it. If the project is somewhat "use once, then burn all the notes", then it wouldn't make it much easier for anyone else to follow in their footsteps.

That's true if capability is there already.
If capability is maybe, possibly there but requires a lot of research to confirm the possibility and even more to get it going, I'd suggest that we might deal with it by acessing the risks and not going down that route.
I mean, that's precisely what this community seems to think about GoF re... (read more)

Answer by Selueen
40

My (admittedly limited) knowledge of psychology and neurosciences suggests that this is not currently possible. Thankfully.

I feel like if you start seriously considering things that are themselves almost as bad as AI ruin in their implications in order to address potential AI ruin, you took a wrong turn somewhere.
If you can create a virus or something of the sort that makes people genuinely afraid of some vague abstract thing, you can make them scared of anything at all. Do I really need to spell it out how that would be abused? 
On the other hand, do ... (read more)

2Donald Hobson
Why do you think that this is easy to do and bad. There are currently a small number of people warning about AI. There is some scary media stories, but not enough to really do much.  If the capability is there, the world has to deal with it, whoever first uses it. If the project is somewhat "use once, then burn all the notes", then it wouldn't make it much easier for anyone else to follow in their footsteps. Typical human priors are full of anthropomorphism when thinking about AI. Suppose you have something that has about the effect of some rationality training, of learning about and really understanding a few good arguments for AI risk. Yes the same tech could be used for horrible brainwashy purposes, but hopefully we can avoid giving the tech to people who would use it like that. The hopeful future being one where humanity develops advanced AI very cautiously, taking as long as it needs to get it right, and then has a glorious FAI future.  This does not look "almost as bad as AI ruin" to me.
1rosyatrandom
Can we develop a drug that makes people afraid of people who suggest making drugs to make people afraid of something?

I understand your point, and I for the most part agree. It is important to understand the basics.
What I was trying to say is.. If you did not get the basics from your first attempt to learn those, maybe try to approach them differently.
Look for a different textbook, ask someone who is not your current teacher, maybe look for popular explanation (if you are compltetly lost), or for more technical one (if original was not detailed enough), etc etc.
Try to learn the basics, but switch the approaches if you are stuck.
I feel like it might help with motivation too, as it should be more exciting than plain repetition. 

2DirectedEvolution
Agreed. I think of this as the problem of "source selection." C.f. The Best Textbooks on Every Subject if you haven't checked that out, though I don't know if I agree with the recommendations or this anecdotal approach to the problem.
Answer by Selueen
30

It might be inefficient for pure memorization, but maybe it can help you form more accurate maps, which is more valuable in itself.
But is it the best way to help you form higher level concepts and practise more zoomed-out perspective? Is it the best way to understand things rather than just memorize them? I'm not sure.

I suspect it's better to look for other approaches - practical applications of newly acquired knowledge, ways to test your understanding, trying to see if you understand all the implications, maybe looking for alternative explanations, or dif... (read more)

3DirectedEvolution
Good thoughts. I agree that having a convenient practical application is very nice. Programming is lovely, because even a complete novice can make things that feel interesting to them with just a few pieces of basic knowledge. By contrast, there's a fair bit of precursor knowledge required to figure out how to apply, say, differential equations to a biological modeling problem. Even though chemistry is in theory practical, the danger, regulation, and expense of setting up a laboratory to mess around in makes practical projects a less appealing way to learn (though it's perhaps counterbalanced by other factors like the hands-on aspect). The problem I'm focusing on here is less about the difficulty of wrapping your head around a concept and ultimately committing them to memory, and more about motivating yourself to keep on trying. For example, if you're reading a math textbook, you might find it difficult to understand. That's one problem. But you might also find it relatively easy to understand, yet find yourself getting distracted, losing focus, feeling stressed, or just not feeling like studying it. My theory here is that in those cases, it's common for people to think that the reason they're feeling that way is that it's "too hard," or that they're "not smart enough." My guess is that for many, the reason is that math is a Jenga Tower topic and they haven't spent enough time establishing a comfort zone with the basics. They could, in theory, keep pressing forward, just reviewing old concepts when those old concepts are explicitly referenced in the new material. But that may produce two kinds of experiences: an experience of "I can't believe I've forgotten this already," and an experience of "I don't understand this new stuff," neither of which is pleasant. As an alternative, if students can press through some new material until they get tired, and then just "swim around," reviewing old material, sort of basking in the experience of what they've just learned,
Selueen
120

I see a few problems with trust networks that are not generally present in the markets.
I'm glad that your experience was mostly positive, but I'm aware of many examples where things are more tricky.
Part of it comes from two very different but common attitudes towards transactions between friends/family. Some people think that every work should be paid, always. Others expect and provide free help. 
These positions are clearly non-compatible and predictably lead to conflicts, especially when people don't communicate their position clearly. They often thi... (read more)

I have not tried the square test before, and it's weird. At my first attempt I just completely failed. I've certainly seen enough squares in my life to imagine them, but it just did not happen. Then I imagined drawing that square - not the tactile sensition of it, but just the process of going from A to B to C to A, but that only gets me the 3rd type of square. I can push it to the 4 with additional effort, but I can't seem to get past that just yet. So it's far from red.
The shape is certainly easier for me to imagine than color, colors tend to be really b... (read more)

Answer by Selueen
50

When I first learned about aphantasia, I thought It described me - I don't naturally visualize when I read. But after closer inspection, I found out that I can visualize if I put some effort into it. Images might not be terribly vivid, but recognizable enough.
So technically I don't have aphantasia, but my experience is pretty close, and it's all kinda confusing . For the most part of my life, I did not even realize that was not normal. 

I was always fast reader because of that, you can save time and mental resources by not visualizing, so that's an upside. As for downsides, I can't imagine them, haha.
 

1Crackatook
When I first saw this test, I choose #6 directly without really imagining a red square. And I realized it and tried again. For first some moments I saw #1-3! And could not move to #6 really when I concentrated on. Although at this time, closing my eyes, I tried to “see” the image crystal clear, and it will be a hallucination if it happens.  I am a bit confused now how to balance between aphantasia and hallucination. I know I am not aphantasia based on several moments that mental images striked my memory. I am also not seeing hallucination, it normally does not happen and I haven’t experienced it yet. But I can't really see the exact and obvious red square except the feeling I am imagining it. Which one do you think is your case?

Thanks for your answer!

Yeah, additional requests definitely defeat the point.

I suppose, any other attempts to solve this on the browser side make no sense either, because of same safety concerns that caused the problem in the first place? 
In which case it looks like your solution is the only reasonable way to go.
 

Where should you store it in your cache? Well, it depends what the user is going to do. If they are going to click on a link to b.test/index.html, then when they need the HTML they will be visiting b.test and so you want to store it as b.test:b.test/index.html. On the other hand, if it's going to load in an iframe, the user will still be on a.test and so you want to store it as a.test:b.test/index.html. You just don't know. Just guess?

The guess is a risky one: if you store it under the wrong key then you'll have fetch the same resource again just to store

... (read more)
3jefftk
Unfortunately, this won't work either, because the ways the browser fetches a resource to be displayed in an iframe on an existing page versus as a new top-level page have diverged. For example, browsers either don't send cookies in third-party contexts or won't soon, and if you are prefetching a resource from a different site the first example is third-party while the second example is first-party. Similarly, browsers that support Sec-Fetch-Dest explicitly tell the server what context the resource they are fetching will be displayed in: // Top-level navigations' destinations are "document" Sec-Fetch-Dest: document // <iframe> navigations' destinations are "iframe" Sec-Fetch-Dest: iframe https://www.w3.org/TR/fetch-metadata/ Overall, this means that if you wanted to have prefetch work for both of these you would be requiring prefetch make two separate requests to the server when the developer almost always could tell you which one of the two they needed.

When I've first learned about the phenomenon, I've seen discussions by professional artists, designers, architects, animators and the likes, that managed to work in these areas despite their aphantasia. It's been a while and I m not able to find the links, and it was not formal study to begin with, but it's so counterintuitive that I wanted to share anyways.
 

What about the first probability - the probability of emergence of Plutonia? There are many options, some are more likely, some are less. In my opinion, Russia is seriously likely to turn into Plutonia in the next decade, and it was going in that direction last 20 years. The alternative would be a democratic transformation, and, looking at similar cases, I would estimate the chance less than 50%.

How would "democratic transformation" solve that? Do you think current Russian government is the only reason behind things getting more tense on that front?
Have yo... (read more)

2ChristianKl
That country also has a history of threating to use nuclear weapons. It also worrisome that it's executive has a history of lying to it's population and it's legislative to make it easier for a generals to lunch nuclear weapons.
1Valentin2026
Well, "democratic transition" will not necessarily solve that (like basically it did not completely resolve the problem with the end of the Cold War), you are right, so actually, the probability must be higher than I estimated - even worse news.   Is there any other options for decreasing the risk? From a Russian perspective. Well, I didn't discuss it with officials in the government, only with the friends who support the current government. So I can only say what they think and feel, and of course, it is just anecdotal evidence. When I explicitly discussed with one of them the possibility of the nuclear war, he stated that this possibility is small and as long as the escalation will be beneficial for Russia he will support it.   I don't want to go here into politics and discuss what type of government would be better for Russia.  I was more interested to estimate the probability of the nuclear war (or other catastrophes mentioned on the main post).
Selueen
*40

It's not about knowledge. 

With all the truth-seeking that goes around here it's easy to forget that knowledge is not the ultimate value agreed upon by everyone and used as foundation for every other value. Not even close, and for good reasons.

Knowledge is not the goal behind most things we do. Yes, studying and research happen. Lots of other, not knowledge-focused activities happen aswell.

Knowledge is the byproduct of practically any activity. Whatever you do, it's hard to avoid gaining some knowledge in the process. And that is precisely why "I'll ha... (read more)

2orthogenesis
It's mainly about associations. The outgroup is bad. There are beliefs and behaviors associated with the outgroup. Therefore these beliefs and behaviors are bad. If I show any of these beliefs and behaviors people might think I'm bad. Fair, but I mentioned examples where the (not necessarily outgroup in an rivalrous way but non-ingroup) outsiders are not seen as bad per se, but neutral whereas the ingroup is good.  For instance a local citizen might not be seen as "bad" for being interested in foreign stuff (if the foreign countries in question are not seen as bad, just "other", or possibly fargroup, or even viewed positively just "not us"), but this would still take away from perception of patriotism (here, assumed as positive trait) that a similar local citizen who all else being equal totally lacks interest or curiousity in foreign stuff.  Also,  men and women aren't each other's outgroups usually (barring some more radical views) but a man who in too interested into "girl stuff" or vice versa can be seen as bad even in situations where there is no confusion where the ingroup can't be confused with the other group. I suppose the "outgroup stuff is bad" still works if you define "bad" relative to the person's social role.  Such as  "girl stuff" is "good" for girls", "bad for boys", even if boys and girls are equally good. "French stuff is good for French people but bad for British people", even if British and French folks are equally good.  Then it's about transgression of roles I guess and policing which stuff are for what people. The opposite is also true, I've known some people who seriously neglected their health because they associated exercise with not-so-bright folks. Notice how it has the same process behind it, but it's not related to knowledge the same way your example was.  I would agree that that reversed example of the nerd and jock is also bad, and perhaps could generalize that to avoid learning skills/abilities/things, instead of just intelle