All of dkl9's Comments + Replies

So the collapse is mistaking the one on the right for the one on the left. (This was an internet meme of some years ago, which happens to seem very relevant by how I understand the OP)

"Stimulating" here is not quite the opposite of "boring". Many minds are used to said temperature changes, water assaults, and laborious motions, such that they still stimulate, but are easily ignored, leaving much space for thoughts. Showers are boring by consistency, despite stimulation.

"older the human beings" -> "older than human beings"

"copper metal cube 16 centimeters in diameter" -> "copper cube 16 centimeters to an edge"

"stuck out your throat" -> "stick out your throat"

"exame" -> "exam"

"to boy is about to die" -> "to a boy who is about to die"

Except for the crucial paragraph near the end, the style reads more like Herbert than Lsusr. Good job.

Correction: "is that you experienced was real" -> "is that what you experienced was real"

> Now I knew how to not trigger those defense mechanisms.
The linked video looks like rhetorical aikido. If that's what you're talking about, link it. If you meant something else, what did you learn to do?

You're probably right. I neglected check how effective this would be in any quantitative sense.

I think you underestimate the cost of street-level murals ($100K / mi is about $60 / m), and neglect the benefit of tunnels' inevitable insulation, but the decision would probably end up the same.

• My phone runs iOS or Android
• My body mass is between 60 and 80 kg
• English is one of my native languages

That would be fun in the same way. If your goal in playing includes informing listeners, it's better to use thoroughly absurd facts and an equally-absurd lie; absurdity is low prior probability leads to surprise corresponds to learning.

The post answers most of that, except for the first question, for which my memories of childhood are too vague anyway, but it was surely before when I was 14.

Some of the difference may be the quality (enjoyability, negative of annoyance) of the songs we respectively get as earworms (based ultimately on the quality of the songs we hear). Some of it may be that I can get distracted from verbal thinking by earworm lyrics. The rest is arbitrary personal mind-differences.

I added intention-to-treat statistics in an addendum.

there might be a common antecedent that both improves your mood and causes you to listen to music. As a silly example, maybe you love shopping for jeans, and clothing stores tend to play music, so your mood will, on average, be better on the days you hear music for this reason alone.

There might be a common antecedent that both worsens my mood and causes me to listen to music. As a silly example, maybe I hate shopping for jeans, but clothing stores tend to play music, which actually improves my mood enough to outweigh the shopping. That is, confounding coul... (read more)

Haven't tried them.

I figure they're safer than literal bare feet, giving all the objective benefits and some (fewer) of the questionable benefits. I stick with bare feet, sith it's easier -- arguably the default action -- compared to the trivial inconvenience of getting better shoes.

Many small corrections:

Buddha statues on the alter -> altar

Then acquaintenances. -> acquaintances

recipe for Ecstacy -> ecstasy

Lots of mandelas -> mandalas

it was the hard doing math or lifting weights is hard. -> it was hard like doing math or lifting weights is hard.

that had more subjective conscious experience -> that I had

Lovecraftian summing ritual -> summoning

Your criticisms are mostly correct. I wrote the post to justify my actions rather than tell robust truth. Posting it as-is on LessWrong was my mistake.

"Entangled closer with physical reality" was a poor choice of words. I meant something closer to "experience my surroundings in more detail".

Reducing what you need implies broadening what you tolerate, in the same sense that a system with fewer axioms has more models. Interpreting it as twisted greed-avoidance is novel and odd to me. If you get used to walking barefoot, then you can better handle situations where you lack shoes. On further reflection, that broadening is small compared to other methods (as learning a language).

What exactly does "predictable" mean here?

You can infer the toki pona word (phrase) to match a meaning by joining words (standard base concepts) according to meaning-clusters of the base words and rules for adjective order. That is, making a toki pona word-phrase, you only need to understand the intended meaning of the whole phrase and the small set of base words.

Likewise, understanding a word-phrase to a good approximation depends only on the words in it and their arrangement. Understanding it exactly depends on context and conventions that build up aroun... (read more)

If you call a multi-word phrase a word, we can more appositely claim that the formation of words and their associations to meanings, in toki pona, is very systematic and predictable. However many words it truly has, toki pona remains very easy to learn. The definition of "word" is flexible/arbitrary, but that final observation is most obviously consistent with the few-words view.

• You would wash your hands properly at all the appropriate times.
• You would study with spaced repetition.
• You would stop looking at (mainstream, megacorporate) social media.

The ability to quickly recall what I studied for its application.

I thought that was obvious. Why do you ask? What am I missing?

You almost always have some information to concentrate your priors. Between mutually-helpful speakers, implicit with an answer to a question is that the answer gives all the information you have on the question that could benefit the questioner. E.g.

What will the closing price of Apple be at the end of the year?

"Almost certainly somewhere between $150 and $250."

positive statements like "Stay away from the wires" are more effective than negative statements, like "Don't touch the wires," because your brain basically ignores the negative part of it. "*mumble mumble* touch the wires? Don't mind if I do!"

That's what I was going for with

When reading or hearing a negation used in language, you must first process the positive form it contains to understand the entire statement. For example, to understand "the sky is not green", you must first understand "the sky is green", then negate it. Usually, this happens quickly and subconsciously, but it can harmfully slow down or weaken understanding by making you first consider a false idea.

I predict that it mostly gets worked around, by using only a few extra words.

"The sky is something other than blue" and "I will be somewhere else tomorrow" are both semantically-equivalent to the forbidden forms.  Even "I deny that the sky is blue" is a positive-form negation of the object-level statement.

I suspect all such workarounds depend on one of a relatively small set of negation-enabling words, such as "other", "else", and "deny", as you demonstrate. Prohibiting more words should eventually block all workarounds, while making writing more annoying.

An excellent alternative. I was going for something usable without any tools.

Just did it. Paradox.

Clever, but

to the point that I can't predict it

not further. If you increase redundancy, still unpredictable, as here, you probably went too far.

是年龄的影响，还是标识的影响？

机译

1 and 2 are absolutely correct, but for specific subsets. Outside such subsets, this optimisation still applies.

3 is correct sometimes as reversed advice. I see your point in 3 often (usually implicit). My post reverses that in response to it sometimes going too far.

It seems I went too far. Hence the expanded original:

Adjust how much to omit based on the concentration and domain-intelligence of the listener. Your starting point should probably err more on the side of "omit more redundancy" than it currently does.

Neither. Long-lasting deliberate idiosyncrasy, based on Shakespearean English.
What word is sufficiently Levenshtein-close to "sith" as to get there from a typo whilst also fitting grammatically into the sentence?

When you actually do these never-ending simple tasks, do you dislike/suffer-from the process itself? Or is this just the stress of having to do them sometime, when you're not doing them?
(Sorry if you already explained this, but it's not very clear from the question)

What did you think the right word would be?

(It's deliberate. Synonym of "because".)

I intended the latter. Ideally, instructors would start teaching students that in an act of educational reform, but that's harder and very unlikely from what I see now.

there are no widely-accepted models of how history works that are detailed enough to let you predict the outcomes of unfamiliar historical events

We don't need such a model. The students would be figuring it out for themselves, and we don't expect them to predict in great detail. There'd have to be a lot of partial credit in this.

in the few cases where students are asked to give causal explan

Thanks, but that's deliberate. Revived-archaic synonym of "because".

Nice. Is there some post about dath ilan that establishes that (I don't see it in Yudkowsky's original AMA), or did you just make this up?

I don't understand what you're getting at with your response to the question of personal evil.

You're right about trading.

Seeing an Onion headline say "X did Y" is teeny evidence that X didn't Y. 

...

I think that's doubtful.

In which direction? Do you mean to say that it's no evidence, or it's strong evidence? You speak of "a strong prior against the event", but the strength of the prior doesn't have any necessary relation to the strength of the evidence.

Fixed, thanks. I implicitly assumed that all ChatGPT use we cared about was about complicated, confusing topics, where "correct" would be little evidence.