Filler text for preview purposes....
(This text is just there so that actual content isn't in the preview.)
Ah, so many great ones. Tactically, #1.3 seems crucial and I really should have thought about it!
v chaotic
What do ants want? population growth, possibly: curiosity, much less signalling (in the way we know). Individual ants would work towards their queen's best interest? Would they try to defect to other queens?
Digging (foundations of new houses and such) would be a bad idea.
Ants would naturally have a slow communication rate.
Ants could communicate faster than walking by flying, putting their pheramones in the air somehow, using human internet, using human intermediaries.
Ants can increase their population quickly. I would rough guess doubling every month at least for the first month
Ant main-line cognition speed would be slower than humans, but multitasking greater. Therefore they would likely execute multiple plans at once instead of making one big plan.
Ants would look for technologies to enhance their cognition even further. Could be dense, 3d habitats that allow the colony to live closer to eachother to reduce transmission time.
Increasing speed of individual ants. I don't think ants tend to travel at even half of their max speed, so they could think faster by just burning more energy in a way humans can't.
Ants are everywhere. Some humans would try to escape ants by fleeing to cold places with permanently frozen soil, like northern Canada. Because of their small size, ants have extreme difficulty in those conditions. Ants couldn't go there without vehicles.
Given that ants primarily sense touch and smell, they may still lack good eyesignt and hearing, even with better communication. This means they may be hard for them to read computer screens and eavesdrop on humans. For example, I doubt a single ant could spy on a computer screen. Perhaps 100 or more ants would be required for that. Same with hearing, although it would be easy for 1000 ants to hide within earshot of human conversations.
Therefore humans may communicate more by text to hide from ant spies.
How would ants fight against poison? My guess is by just attacking until poison is used up.
Humans need to prepare for war with ants before they show signs of aggression. They could be too powerful for humans to stop.
Ant colonies would begin communicating with each other. An ant can travel at perhaps 3km/hour. Assuming this is their mode of communication, somewhere like the Amazon would take like a year to send a message across. I don't think it's reasonable for ants to first-contact "native" ants through a faster means, just because they wouldn't be able to decode it.
Would ants resent humans for often carelessly killing their kind? They may not consider worker deaths very important, but human activities would definately "anger" (anthropomorphizing) the ants before most humans knew ants were smart.
Creating supersmart supercolonies. I think this is reasonable, but linear processing speed would again be slower the more space the colony took up. Because of the speed limitation, it would take a long time before we have to worry about a global coordinated attack.
How would ants and humans communicate? By sound. Human microphones and software would detect ant vibrations, and ants would either learn to understand human speach, or hear ant noises produced by translation software. Probably the latter, because humans have vastly more expertise than ants.
Individual ants live around 2 years, queens up to 30. Intelligent ants would merge colonies whose queen dies, or produce extra queens to keep colonies alive. "individual" ant colonies could outlive humans.
Would ants war with other ant species (more than they already do). I think it's likely the first thing that'll happen. Bigger colonies, with more intelligence, would quickly kill off smaller ant colonies.
Which ants would win the ant-wars? Depending on how ant intelligence works, either smaller ants that can get closer together, or larger ants with more complex behavior, would come out ahead. Large ants could have advantages like better eyesight, wings, that become vastly more useful with intelligence.
Ants would destroy their predators and overeat their food. Much like humans, who killed off large mammals, ants would kill off all their predators and risk over-harvasting their food. They would start both farming and stealing from humans as well.
Ant predators include spiders, other insects, reptiles, and amphibians. This would cause some sort of ecosystem collapse.
Eventual ant technologies: ant computer interface, may be like a braile display that pokes different individual ants, or ant sould based. Because ant colonies would be good at multitasking, they could absorb material faster than human, given that it's not all highly connected.
Human would publish this, be highly questioned. Would produce simple tests individuals could make at home and give to ants to get idea through to people.
Govts would probably put up a far worse performance than COVID. Politicians & beaurocrats are too old, too social to deal with this kind of stuff.
Immediately some young right-ists would call for the eradication of ants. It would take a few weeks for right politicians to follow suit, at least pushing for "safety against ants"
People would buy tons of bogus "ant communication devices" or "ant protection devices"
There must already be ant colonies in secure scientific experiments. They would be studied. New colonies would be taken into labs.
How much do ant colonies work with each other? Given that there are already ant-mega-colonies (their main trait is they "smell like friends" of each other), those ants would work together. They would likely work together with "smells like enemies" ants as well. I don't expect average ant colonies to sacrifice for each other immediately, but maybe later?
Can ant colonies "mind meld" with each other? Given that the colonies themselves started working together intellectually a week ago, I think it's likely they could.
Ant cognition speed is the #1 variable to measure.
Humans might engineer ant-to-ant comms devices to prevent ant wars, make ants more predictable, and spy. All ants using bugged (get it) comms would be awesome.
Food left out in human homes would be quickly taken by ants. Ants would quickly bite through fridge seals and eat there too. Ants could use leverage to open alumanum cans and plastic boxes.
People would find ways to make ant poison at home
Humans would disrupt ant hearing and smell with ant-verbalization noise generators or some homemade chemical that confuses or dulls ants' senses.
Mosquitos developed resistance to DDT in "about 7 years". Ants different reproduction. Because of investment in queens, they can't experement genetically with them. Would need to test ant males. Could test males for pesticide resistance before mating, accelerating that evolution. ant males never go outside normally, so that would improve a lot.
There are roughly as many ant colonies as humans, so some EAs would immediately help ants. For short-termists, ants would likely be #1 priority by far. First would give comms and teach.
Evangelical Christians would attempt to convert ants. I would ROFL soooo hard if that actually worked.
Once ants learn the basics of human infrastructure and society but before they invent their own technology, what's their best bet to defeat humanity? There are on the order of a million ants per person. I'm guessing that they wouldn't be able to overpower humans just by swarming and biting except in very rural locations. If they did, they would strike at night. They can be silent, so you may 100,000 ants in your room without waking you up. They could suffocate you with their bodies, or with some tools. I think suffocating people at night with cloth/bodies would work. Even better, they could cut wires in cars / short circuit them, and swarm power plants / relay centers. Perhaps gnaw down trees to fall on power lines. Given the time taken to get power back after storms, and especially the Puerto Rico disaster, I'm not optimistic we could ever regain the grid. Again, I think they would take a while to coordinate that well, but we would need to secure the grid FAST.
Ants would hop onto cars, trains, boats, and eventually planes to explore & communicate with each other. Ants communicating this way may be able to jump off cars in large enough numbers to communicate, especially at lights & stop signs. Otherwise get off at the destination, talk to local ants, then all move out on new cars. This would be the fastest means of ant communication. Travel times from london to any inhabited place in the world are around 1/2 to 1 day. Ants would require maybe 4 extra hours to crawl between people & vehicles in airports and such. Some areas don't have enough car traffic to easily hitch a ride to, so that might cost an extra day if they aren't able to call taxis or manipulate humans into driving places or whatever. It would be reasonable for them to get 1-2 day global communication by physical transport.
Ants are in some respects pretty dope and even more advanced than humans.
For example they wouldn't need to start farming because they already have agriculture. Leaf-cutter ants are a thing (they grow a fungus). Many ants also are mutualistic for a lot of animal species where they mainly provide protection but extra very real chemical goods so they kinda have already animal domestication down.
Also continents don't isolate ants as they stumble upon boats in effect already exploring via vechicles (but I guess in a very passive manner).
OK, here goes:
So first up some analysis on the question. It also functions as padding to make sidebar not sidestep spoiler tags. If the "metaphorical" functioning is exactly like gpu the questions loses a lot of it's interestingness. A scenario like that would be fascinatin partly how such an organizaation would be dissimilar to a gpu model. Like squids are pretty smart but they don't run on a centralised processing paradigm. I will interpret the characteristic in that they have "power level" similar to computers and humans, they are not "weak". That is not to be about the quality of it, I don't assume that a human brains scan could be translated into ant connections.
Safeties
12 is an expansion of 9: There could develop a market for hives to have their ant population be made up of more desirable ants. Ants can be made to smell compatible for a hive and rich hives might want ants that are faster, mor reliable and more long lived and durable.
36 is a bit samey with 17: People would know and would learn a lot more about ants. Basic school biology would probably be part of civics and ant biology facts woudl be more everyday. In the sudden discovery phase there would be a need to package up these things so that a lto of people can get up to speed and to facilate either peaceful or more effectively hostile relations.
Some buffer text...
...
...
...
1) Destroying ant colonies becomes a criminal offence in many countries.
2) Some countries launch a campaign to exterminate the perceived threat.
3) There is a large outbreak of online conspiracy theories asserting that this is proof of the existence of aliens/Gods.
4) The person(s) who discovered ant colonies are intelligent becomes very famous and wins a lot of prizes.
5) Building things becomes more expensive due to the need to conduct surveys to ensure that no ant colonies are disturbed.
6) Special reservations are created where ant colonies can live free of human interference.
7) Computer games where you play as a simulated ant gain in popularity.
8) The UN tries to organise peace talks between warring ant colonies.
9) A large number of stories are written involving intelligent ant colonies.
10) A society for the promotion of the welfare of ants is formed
11) A lot of scientific research is diverted into trying to understand why ants colonies are intelligent, and how to communicate with them.
12) Companies that try to trade with ants lose money as it turns out that we don't have much they want.
13) A lot of people refuse to believe that ant colonies are intelligent, and go on anti-ant protests claiming it is all a conspiracy.
14) The SETI program gets a large infusion of cash to hunt for other intelligences out there.
15) Intelligent ant colonies are able to grow faster, and go onto devastate many ecosystems.
16) Toy ants become one of the best selling toys.
17) Documentaries/non fiction books about ants become more popular.
18) A lot of people think 'Oh that's interesting' - and then continue doing exactly what they would have done anyway.
19) Special jails have to be built to hold ant colonies that kill people.
20) It becomes illegal to keep ants as pets.
21) A movie with a totally unrealistic depiction of an ant colony as a hero wins the oscars.
22) It inspires a single love 'Love our Ants' which tops the charts for a record period of time.
23) A statue of an ant is put on the fourth plinth of Trafalgar square
24) Vegetarianism becomes more popular as some people start thinking other animals might also be intelligent.
25) Politicians make boring speeches about what this means about our place in the world, which are mostly ignored.
26) The US military gets a multi billion dollar budget for anti-ant super weapons, and the project goes hopelessly over budget.
27) Ant colonies become a convenient scapegoat for things like global warming.
28) It becomes illegal to keep ants as pets.
29) Ant colonies are given the vote in elections.
30) Ant colonies win an election as they outnumber the humans.
31) Ant colonies begin re-arranging the world to suit them.
32) There are a large number of anti-ant government protests.
33) Ant colonies decide that humans are an environmental menace and should be wiped out for the good of the rest of planet.
34) Ant colonies are able to use there numerical advantage to wipe the humans out.
35) Humans are able to use their advanced technology to make large ant colonies extinct.
36) Ants become temporarily the most googled keyword
37) Ant colonies inspire novel attempts to create AIs based on them.
38) Relations between different groups of humans becomes better as their differences looks small compared to their differences with ants.
39) People refuse to believe that ant colonies could be intelligent. It undermines trust in science, which is used by various special interest groups to undermine the scientific case whenever it is in their interests.
40) The number of people in prison increases as a lot of people are arrested for killing ants.
41) Fears that governments will ban pesticides that kill ants lead to people panic buying anti-ant pesticides.
42) Governments ban pesticides that could kill ants.
43) Reduced pesticide use leads to a drop in global food production.
44) Lack of food causes riots in several developing countries.
45) More people die of hunger.
46) Countries go to war over the lack of food.
47) School children are required to learn about ant colonies in school.
48) A campaign is launched to wipe out predators that could destroy ant colonies.
49) Zoos are no longer allowed to have ant colonies.
50) Zoos are no longer allowed to feed ants to their animals.
USA-centric.
Woops, your spoiler tag didn't work, but I edited your comment to fix it.
Welcome to the babble challenge!
I would be interested in some elaboration on how you feel last week's responses were unsatisfactory.
I can't speak for anyone else who answered, but I was treating it as a game in the same way as in previous weeks, and I don't see any obvious reason why I shouldn't have. If you want to actually solve a real problem then you don't just babble, you babble&prune, and the place for that is not for something that advertises itself as a "Babble Challenge". (And if you want to actually solve a real problem in your own life then you usually do it in private, or with carefully selected friends / advisers / therapists / whatever, not out loud and in public.)
So when you say "It felt a bit too me like the tennis player trying to swing their racket the same way as when they were doing a bicep curl." what I read is "I invited people to do some bicep curls while holding the racket, and they didn't read my mind and figure out that I was actually hoping they'd play some real tennis shots.".
Thanks for writing that -- I think my post was confusingly written, and your comment helps me clarify!
but I was treating it as a game in the same way as in previous weeks, and I don't see any obvious reason why I shouldn't have
The rules I'm upholding seem to me to be very basic ones.
I'm not disqualifying any submissions by "pruning them and not finding them creative enough", or "claiming that the person is not actually solving their problem". I think that would be too much prune, just like you mention.
I think both Slider and Elizabeth did a bunch of great babbles in their submissions, and I'm happy they joined.
The particular instances that were disqualifying:
The intutive way of reading the question as (trying to) solve an actual problem seems very hard for me. (Challenge factor real) (Challenge factor personal). I get to essentially pick what I would try to solve and I feel overwhelmed by that (Challenge factor choice paralysis).
I still feel like sticking to a timelimit is helpful and actually working your brain is helpful. However I am going to massively chicken on this one. I don't f grow stronger if after putting shoes on and then practising trying shoelaces I am suddenly thrust into a marathon.
Faced with the sandbox of the universe, what one should do? (This problem is still somewhat relevant as depression and meaninglessness are actual rather than hypothetical issues)
Definitely kudos to Slider for at least doing something, and continuing to practice in a way that worked for them. Still, they didn't complete the challenge as stated, and so I don't count it towards the scoring.
So when you say "It felt a bit too me like the tennis player [...]
This sentence was entirely directed at myself! It seems it might have been read as a subtweet of other participants, which is definitely not the case.
I personally felt that it didn't make that much progress on my problem. Compared to, like you mention, sitting down with friends, advisers, therapists, etc. and using a toolbox of techniques where babbling is but one component.
Other people might actually have found it useful. If so, awesome! I'd be interested to hear.
To be clear, I wasn't commenting at all on the disqualification of Elizabeth's and Slider's earlier answers. (Except to whatever extent your regretful comments about last week's results related to those answers, which it seems clear they can't have for Elizabeth's since that was in an earlier week and it never occurred to me they did for Slider's.)
I hadn't at all understood that your comment about the tennis player was a reference to your own answer. Rereading what you wrote, it's hard to see how I could have missed that ... aha, it turns out you edited it. (It used to say "Last week we tried a more direct babble, on solving a problem in our lives. It felt a bit too me like the tennis player trying to swing their racket the same way as when they were doing a bicep curl. It felt like it went too directly at the problem, while misunderstanding the mechanism." and now it says "Last week we tried a more direct babble, on solving a problem in our lives. When I did it, I felt a bit like the tennis player trying to swing their racket the same way as when they were doing a bicep curl. I felt like I went too directly at the problem, while misunderstanding the mechanism." (Boldface added in the three places that changed.))
I would suggest not expecting an exercise like this to be practically useful for solving problems. If you're going to be in a boxing match and you are doing bicep curls to get stronger[1], the fact that the exercise is not knocking anyone out should not factor at all into how you feel about your progress, and trying to tweak the exercise so that it actually knocks people out would probably not be an improvement.
[1] I have no idea whatsoever whether bicep curls would in fact help you get stronger in a way that would be useful in a boxing match.
How did my interpretation fail to answer the challenge? I picked a problem that was an actual problem for me and then proceeded to answer that.
The feeling bad was largely because I wasn't following the gusto or the spirit of the exercise but it was so techically lax so it is easy to fullfill. Part of the thing is that you don't automatically assume that your pen is not allowed to go outside of the box. Instead you answer the question actually posed. Instead of doing the thing the most difficult route and shooting for style points if you are unsure whether you can do it at all you instead go where the fence is the lowest.
If the basis was not "not creative enough" or "not actually solving" what was it? It seems it is treated as if it should be self-evident but to me it is not. If I say "here are 25 bullet points" but then actually list 50 I am in the clear and answered the question. If I say "there are a lot of things but they are just essentially the same thing" but instead list 50 genuinely different things I am in the clear.
Part fo the reason to explain what I was doing is to fight fear of rejection, to explain as much as possible to avoid to come off as odd or needlessly complex. When in a "just do it" mindset and specifically looking to overcome mental obstacles an attitude of "I don't care if you cry while doing it if you do it" is very proper.
(Before I reply, I want to check whether you've read my comment on your post so that we both have full context?)
I don't see any discussion on why my last weeks submission was failed. I am not terribly surprised but this seems to incite a bad kind of paranoia in my mind.
Also submitting a fail for a week seems different from missing a week. For turning up and trying I went from 3 stars to 2 stars which seems a lot like punishing babble. I would have expected to keep at 3.
I didn't participate in last week's babble, and I also went from three stars to two stars - I think it might just be a miscount
The post acknowledges by name that I made a submission.
It seems the scoring is effectively "everybody that passed gets a new star, others lose 1 star". I made a submission, tried pretty hard, did not get any mentions that my submission was insufficient (such as not containing 50 entries (which other have got)). What is did was not a "no show" but a "swing and a miss" at most. And I would even argue that it was a swing and a babble hit. Given that the goal is to reward for consistency having this kind of rule makes it so that If I turn up to see what is up this week feel it is hard I am better going home to sleep and save the embarcement and work.
I get that there needs to be a line between to flimsy go and a proper act, but distinguishing between trying and not trying is important too. Otherwise it migth lead into a situaiton where you will try only if you know you will succeed. By somewhat famous lyrics "I've tried so hard - And got so far - But in the end - It doesn't even matter "
Yeah, I should have left a comment explaining it underneath your post, sorry about that and the stress caused by the uncertainty.
As for why I didn't count your comment, it's probably just the reasons you expect. Like you wrote in the first paragraphs, you didn't complete the challenge as stated, instead changing the prompt:
The intutive way of reading the question as (trying to) solve an actual problem seems very hard for me. (Challenge factor real) (Challenge factor personal). I get to essentially pick what I would try to solve and I feel overwhelmed by that (Challenge factor choice paralysis).
I still feel like sticking to a timelimit is helpful and actually working your brain is helpful. However I am going to massively chicken on this one. I don't f grow stronger if after putting shoes on and then practising trying shoelaces I am suddenly thrust into a marathon.
Faced with the sandbox of the universe, what one should do? (This problem is still somewhat relevant as depression and meaninglessness are actual rather than hypothetical issues)
I'll explain my reasoning further with a metaphor.
Say your dojo has a "break this plank" challenge. I show up, but I realise if try breaking the plank, I'll just injure myself. I can do at least three things.
You chose 2. You owned up to not wanting to try it, had the courage to admit that publicly, and still did some practice. I really respect that. That seems like a plausibly right move in order to eventually be able to break plank_A. Just keep fighting at levels slightly outside your comfort zone, instead of taking too huge a leap at once. I certainly don't think you should be embarrassed! Remember that the majority of people who read that post never even tried. Option 2 is much better than Option 1.
At the same time, I care about the challenge being actually break plank_A. I need to trust that if I say that's what this week's challenge is, people will try to do that. This is important because I often have a model behind why I choose a particular question. Sometimes there are reasons I didn't choose a nearby question. Choosing the questions has a big influence on how the challenge affects LessWrong culture, and how it helps people grow.
I am better going home to sleep and save the embarcement and work
Well, no! Even though you didn't get a point, you practiced, and you're closer to breaking plank_A.
To build on on the metaphor say that I break it with my knee instead of when everybody else has been chopping it up with their hands.
I understand the need to control what the challenge is. But one should oversee the question that one does pose and not one wished they posed.
I didn't change the prompt. I fullfilled it with the problem choice "Faced with the sandboxs of the universe, what one should do?". It could have been shortened to "what I should do?"
The prompt is also a very wild card. In the dojo example if most lessons are done to practice a specific form but then one lesson is "free-form" "pick-whatevder you like" type. And then you have a free pick and then the master comes to tell your that your pick of exercise was wrong. If we are doing punch day then kicks are a distraction but rigth hook versus left straight shouldn't matter.
But one should oversee the question that one does pose and not one wished they posed.
Sure, I think I can improve how clear the questions are, and gjm also complained about that last week.
I didn't change the prompt.
I think you answered the question: "What are 50 problems I could solve?" If that would have been the challenge, your submission would have been great (like #31, #41 and #50). Actually, I had been thinking about asking that question for a future challenge, I still might do that.
The challenge, though, asked "What is one problem, that you can find 50 solutions to?"
An example of a cognitive process that I think you could have done: pick a less imposing personal problem. Like #32 or #39.
So now the set of babble challenges is posed and drawing into a conclusion. In the parent post there is an outline of a condition of what would have been passing. In reply to that I argued that the passing condition is infact fullfilled. Not having it answered seems like thinking that conditon is not fullfilled.
I feel like have done atleast 6/7 challenges. In the beginning of the last one there are 1 participants with 4,5 and 6 scores. Assuming everybody gets a pass that will mean having 1 fumble in the middle is worse than starting late (atleast in stars). Treating two 6/7 accomplishments differently is consistent with the idea of rewarding continuity.
Because the stars are given within the "hot" week not being aware of faults makes for irrepairable injury. Not knowing which norms are materially important feels capricious. Vexing over things after the fact feels bad but I also feel that if there is an invite to an activity then detailing it out is some kind of promise. It is okay if they are just inspirational empty words, but if they are meant to stand for something they need to stand for something.
Okay, I think I see some errors I made here:
You mention "paranoia" above. I see that more clearly now. I guess it felt like you're being pushed around by incentives that on the one hand demand a lot of you, but on the other hand are illegible and hard to predict.
In fact, since last time we talked, I've run into some major conflicts in my personal life, that have a shape very similar to this. (In a leadership position I've pushed certain standards on people, and they have reacted very negatively, and reported feeling paranoid because they didn't expect those things to be the standards.)
I'm sorry that my mistakes in this domain also ended up hurting you. I hope you'll continue practicing rationality and that it will be but a speedbump in the long run.
Overall, yeah, one might say it is my Hamming problem. I'm trying to make progress on it.
Now the key reason I'm not sure how to make progress is that I do care a lot about having and holding people to high standards. I think that's part of building a culture of greatness. I want the Babble challenges to mean something, to be an actual symbol of accomplishment. And for that, a line in the sand must be drawn somewhere.
But I'm not yet sure how to integrate the above feedback, from you and others, with the current jacobjacob policy. How can I get the best of both worlds into a new, improved, policy? I don't really know. And I don't want to mess up all the good things that come with high standards (many of my core abilities as a rationalist are derived from an extremely high internal expectation setting for myself).
Curious if you have any ideas.
(Also, for some reason I feel averse to changing the star ranking in hindsight. It is what it is and stands as a testament to this babble challenge and how it went. It will be useful learning for future. But I can see that you care and really want to improve. And I commend that. I'll try to build point systems in future that are better at capturing that.)
Thank you for acknowledging my diffcult spot in the conversation.
I think the issues could still use reveal and explanation of what happened. I still have a open question how "I have a problem of not having problems, what I can do about it?" does't meet the "high" standard of "What is one problem, that you can find 50 solutions to?"
I think you have a hard time being open about your standards. If it was suspicious or harsh or something like that I could understand flinching away from exploring what you are doing. But a dojo runner should be able to stand by his principles, even advertise and get known that he operates differently than others.
I don't really get the conflict about raising or lowering standards. One might get banned from a golf course by violating dresscode but that is helped by there being a clear dress code. If someone makes a hole-in-one and others try to get it disqualified because it was done wearing jeans, societal class based "standards" are very different from athletic dexterity and body control "standards". A golf club that would be ashamed of the clothing fashion might want to just scrutinise people who dress wrong for other violations such as ball-out-bounds or accidental shot touches harder. Whether a dresscode is essential to the sport or not, being frank and straigth about it increases reliability of ruling.
Sure some lines need to be drawn. And for any given position there are different places where it could have been drawn to make something over or under. But given that the line seems at the moment be drawn there and my foot is over here, how is it on the wrong side of the line?
For the part how I understand the high standard, it was met. So either the actual standard is something yet still unstated or I am missing something.
Part of culture of greatness would also probably involve that exercise runners not be tardy or unjust. Having low standards for students and low ones for runners seems hypocritical. In a sport if a referee makes a judgement the game rolls with it but referees get accountable for their judgement quality in the long run. I think that solidifying the result into history books by processing complaints about it slowly is not an accountable direction.
I do not expect to actually get a star on this ever but I feel that gettig a rejection with no explanation is an unjust outcome and that a proper enough remedy would be to dig out the reason why it was rejected. Currently it feels like the reason is both painful and won't be uncovered. Which effectively means that the exercise runner can do no wrong as they are their own review.
FWIW, I just posted [a new challenge-like thing](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5HTaBuxRyRSc4mHnP/thread-for-making-2019-review-accountability-commitments), and following your feedback, among others, I tried making the stakes and norms clearer upfront, and be more explicit about what people are opting in to.
---
I'll try to elucidate the standards underlying my judgement call:
I don't think I had made it at all explicit or clear to everyone involved that these were actually the standards. But they are the ones I abode by, nonetheless.
So to 'how "I have a problem of not having problems, what I can do about it?" does't meet the "high" standard of "What is one problem, that you can find 50 solutions to?"' the answer is is was a forbidden type of problem.
In my opinion the submission conforms to "having babble be used to solve one very particular problem in your life". i don't understand your interpretation how it would not. I understand that at one point you read it as searching for 50 problems and I tried to explain how itis only one problem and why the answers to this problem can look like problems instead of solutions. Did you understand and agree with this argument step?
One could be worried that Math olympiad scores would be too abstract or too forward looking to count as valid practical questions. Or insomnia would be too psychological or nebolous. However those were given as positive examples or good target problems. If insomnia is good why is aimlessness not good?
I also get a feeling that it is slippery which part is judgement call and which part is principle. I think there might be a pattern going on where promises are given without looking into what carrying out them would mean. If the rule is that a failure nulls out stars and it comes time to actually fail someone and a different rule is followed that seems like imagining how it would be to fail someone didn't get that much prethought. Then if in a different aspects we go "sorry I have to do this because of rule consistency" it sounds a lot more hollow and is more suspicious just to be an excuse. We can't be perfectly reflectived of all our implications of principles, some have to be just played out. But there is a definite carefullness in a style that tries to promise very little and keep very much. The conduct here is making very much sound about all kinds of stuff, some of them followed, some of them not. Nobody got into trouble for not upvoting stuff enough or making encouraging posts, so that was potentially just empty air. Being slow and evasive seems like something is trying to evade sunlight.
It is pretty basic lesswrong content to be sad about the state of fact that a lot of students try to guess their teachers password. But I am starting to see how if the words are just empty air it makes sense to follow what they do rather than what they say. If the student gives an answer which the teacher for some reason doesn't like the teacher has the power to punish for it. Having words have meanings restrictics the behaviour in that one needs to find a justification (which can be an excuse in the case of motivated cognition).
One of the worries about standards in babbles would be that if one follows all the stipulations can they get their submission be judged on their merits? It seems I encountered a situation where not all the stipulations were published in the prompt. So failing to follow an unpublished stipulation isn't that surprising. But knowing what the extra stipulations are it still seems that the submission was erroenously marked as failing those stipulations. So either there are yet more hidden stipulations or the stipulations are not in fact being followed.
From 2 months ago
"I think you answered the question: "What are 50 problems I could solve?" If that would have been the challenge, your submission would have been great" ... "The challenge, though, asked "What is one problem, that you can find 50 solutions to?"
"Wouldn't the answer to "What are 50 problems I could solve?" also answer "I have a problem of not having problems, what I can do about it?""... "With the problem of "I feel aimless" then aquiring an aim is a solution and not a problem in that regard." ... "Is not disinterest in your own life not a valid problem?"
This discussion has not moved much forward by the recent reply spurt. Because there was no clear answer I tried to extract to what extent the question was answered. If you didn't answer the question please do. I think I addressed the numericity problem (50 blue answers) but now it seemed that there was practicality problem (giving a red answer when asked for a blue answer). The point of is to try to understand how I failed the standard and my current understanding is that I didn't and I was errenously counted to do so or that the standards keep moving so much that it is not a true question about standards.
Wouldn't the answer to "What are 50 problems I could solve?" also answer "I have a problem of not having problems, what I can do about it?"
With the problem of "I feel aimless" then aquiring an aim is a solution and not a problem in that regard. I get that a listing of simple affordances. Is not disinterest in your own life not a valid problem? Did I not specify clearly enough that I am tackling a psychological problem and not just a neutral affordance listing.
Since last ping on the issue 22 days have passed which itself was about the same time. Now the final challenge is curated. Explaining why the rejection happened and signing off for that day seems like good and reasonable exercise upkeeping. Saying that one would get back to it and never getting back to it provides a false sense that things can be talked out. Setting and defining a bar is fine but not explaining discrepancies in the application of the standard leaves room that it is not actually followed but just a namesake.
What does "committing to run an activity" mean? I have developed a sense that I should go over jacobjacobs post history and link this event to all promises to "commit to run" and promises to reply as relevant data.
If replying proper would be too hard communicating that a reply is being formed later than anticipated or that willingness to reply has vaned would warm a lot. Other activity and reflection on the babble challenge has been going on. Ghosting people doesn't make for a environment that allows people to open up.
(Also, I'm signing off for the evening and will reply more tomorrow. If you'd like, also definitely feel free to PM me, or I could send you a link to my calendar so we can book a call to discuss.)
Last week we tried a more direct babble, on solving a problem in our lives. When I did it, I felt a bit like the tennis player trying to swing their racket the same way as when they were doing a bicep curl. I felt like I went too directly at the problem, while misunderstanding the mechanism.
Maybe a babble for "50 babble prompts that are both useful and not too direct"? :P
Seems to me that you want to gradually transition towards being able to babble about topics you don't feel very babbly about. It's the most important, most ugh-ish areas of our lives where we typically need fresh thinking the most, IMO.
Perhaps "50 ways to make it easier to babble about things that don't feel babbly"? ;)
This issue has become a lot less hypothetical, regards current events and is funny (while simultanoeusly being a very serious issue). Ant is a part of an information processing system more distributed than a single human that doesn't have wings.
I have a cube maker contact if anyone is interested.
As a sidenote: there are a few levels to the tactical manoeuvre I describe.
Tsuyoku Naritai!
The evening sun sets on the horizon. An owl hoots ominously. You stare at the ant hill in disbelief. You’ve checked the data many times, and there’s only one remaining hypothesis without vanishingly small probability.
Ant colonies are intelligent. Not the individual ants -- but the colony as a whole. They process information in a way metaphorically similar to what brains or GPUs do, without any of the constituent neurons or transistors being intelligent.
Through a somewhat haphazardly administered battery of tests you’ve determined the colony’s intelligence level to be around that of an average human. Despite only containing about a million ants.
But the world would not have looked like this had ant hills always been intelligent. No, they became intelligent, for reasons unknown, starting this week.
You realise that the world, as they say, will never be the same.
But what, exactly, are the consequences of this?
This week’s challenge: babble 50 ways in which the world would change if ant colonies of sufficient size had the intelligence of a human.
What would governments, entrepreneurs, or artists do differently? Would companies build use-at-home interfaces for talking to colonies? Would governments seal off colonies from public access? Would ant poison become illegal?
You tell me.
Looking back
Following a suggestion since last week, I’m changing the scoring system a bit. From this week onwards, you gain a star by completing the challenge, and lose a star for missing a week. (Instead of losing all your stars for missing a week).
Here are the current rankings. Great job everyone!
★★★★ gjm, jacobjacob, Tetraspace Grouping
★★★ Mark Xu, Bucky, Yonge
★★ Turntrout, Slider, Harmless
★ tinyanon, mingyuan, Rafael Harth, habryka, romeostevensit, WrongPlanet, Raemon, MikkW, amplemaple, Max Dalton, athom, johnswentworth, ryan_b, Ericf, CptDrMoreno
(Max Dalton and Turntrout answered a previous week’s challenge, but they did it within the last week. Slider and Elizabeth made submissions that were great in many ways, but ultimately disqualified. For motivation see their answers and my comment where applicable.)
Moving Forwards
This is week 5 out of my 7-week babble sprint.
Last week was a personal babble, so this week will be less so. I chose this week’s challenge because it relates to this question:
What is creativity for?
It might sound like an obvious question, but I want to give one gears-level answer. It relates to a particular tactical manoeuvre that I think is crucial in your rationality toolkit.
Let me give some examples.
What do these examples have in common?
You are trying to optimise some goal under some constraints. Suddenly, the constraints shift. New paths open up. The previously optimal strategy is no longer optimal. The gameboard changes. And the winners are those who can reorient quickly, or who come prepared.
I heard the following second-hand from a very successful entrepreneur:
There is also a similar anecdote about Feynman:
This week’s babble follows in that spirit.
(I previously wrote about this during the beginning of covid. It is also related to the notion of an OODA loop. Johnswentworth also has good LessWrong posts about it, but I can’t find them right now because my chrome is super slow for reasons I don’t know.)
A note of caution
To get stronger, a tennis player might lift weights. They do some motion with the weights (like a bicep curl) and their muscles grow. Out on the court those same muscles are used to swing the racket. However, a tennis player who tried to use the same arm motions to swing the racket as they used to lift weights, would probably perform terribly. They have misunderstood the connection between training and performance.
The babble challenge started out in a similar manner. We did some very artificial babbles, about going to the moon or escaping locked rooms. The idea was that we’d train the muscle of creativity. Then, whenever we needed it in real life, it would have grown stronger.
Last week we tried a more direct babble, on solving a problem in our lives. When I did it, I felt a bit like the tennis player trying to swing their racket the same way as when they were doing a bicep curl. I felt like I went too directly at the problem, while misunderstanding the mechanism.
We’ll see how this week feels.
Rules (same as usual)
Any answer must contain 50 ideas to count. That’s the babble challenge.
However, the 1 hour limit is a stretch goal. It’s fine if it takes longer to get to 50.
This is really important. Sharing babble in public is a scary experience. I don’t want people to leave this having back-chained the experience “If I am creative, people will look down on me”. So be generous with those upvotes.
If you comment on someone else’s post, focus on making exciting, novel ideas work — instead of tearing apart worse ideas.
Reward people for babbling — don’t punish them for not pruning.
I might remove comments that break this rule.
I've often found that 1 great idea can hide among 10 bad ones. You just need to push through the worse ones. Keep talking. To adapt Wayne Gretzky's great quote: "You miss 100% of the ideas you never generate."
If you spend 5 min agonising over not having anything to say, you’re doing it wrong. You’re being too critical. Just lower your standards and say something, anything. Soon enough you’ll be back on track.
This is really, really important. It’s the only way I’m able to complete these exercises.
Now, go forth and babble! 50 consequences of intelligent ant colonies!