Fun Theory, for instance: the questions of “What do we actually do all day, if things turn out well?,” “How much fun is there in the universe?,” “Will we ever run out of fun?,” “Are we having fun yet?” and “Could we be having more fun?” In order to answer questions like that, obviously, you need a Theory of Fun.
[...]
The question is: Is this what actually happens to you if you achieve immortality? Because, if that’s as good as it gets, then the people who go around asking “what’s the point?” are quite possibly correct.
By the way, is it linked to from the SIAI site somewhere? It’s a good summary, but I only ever saw the direct link (and the page is not in SIAI site format).
But indeed it’s not very prominently featured on the site. It’s a problem of most of the site having been written substantially earlier than this particular summary, and there not (yet) having been a comprehensive change from that earlier state of how the site is organized.
I see. This part of the site doesn’t follow the standard convention of selecting the first sub-page in a category when you click on the category, instead it selects the second, which confused me before. I thought that I was reading “Introduction” when in fact I was reading the next item. Bad design decision.
(it should probably be more prominent and maybe in the site format; the site format’s font is kind of small for such a long document, but should plausibly just be bigger)
A) doesn’t seem to be quoted verbatim from the supplied reference!
There is some somewhat similar material there—but E.Y. is reading out a question that has been submitted by a reader! Misquoting him while he is quoting someone else doesn’t seem to be very fair!
[Edit: please note the parent has been dramatically edited since this response was made]
I perceived it to be the gist of what he said and directly linked to the source. I have a hard time to transcribe spoken English. Would you do so please? Thanks.
I added a disclaimer. Still, it’s what he means. If I wrote, Yudkowsky says “we need to work on FAI” without pasting all of the sequences on LW, it still be right. But if you want to nit-pick you are probably right.
I haven’t followed the ins and the outs of this pointless drama, but I had assumed those were things Eliezer actually said. I’m pretty miffed to learn that those weren’t actually quotes, but rather something you had “inferred from revealed self-evident wisdom”.
That kind of stuff makes it tempting to pretty much ignore anything you write.
..assumed those were things Eliezer actually said.
Don’t be fooled by the other commenter’s, go and listen to the related videos I linked to. It would however be reasonable to paraphrase Yudkowsky in that way even if he never came close to saying that as it is reasonable to infer from his other writings that working on FAI and donating to organisations working on FAI (the SIAI being the only one I’m told) is the most important thing you could possible do. If not, why are people here actually doing just that?
I listened to the video. He said that while reading aloud a question someone was asking him.
I’m not objecting to the reformulation in your now modified post. I’m just pissed that you made me believe that it was an actual Eliezer Yudkowsky quote.
He said that while reading aloud a question someone was asking him.
Look, I didn’t know that everything within these “” symbols is taken to be the verbatim quotation of someone. I use them all the time to highlight or mark whatever I see fit. And the answers I wrote to the questions he has been asked resemble the gist of what he said. I simply didn’t expect anyone to believe that I transcribed two +4 minute videos which I linked to right after. I also never made anyone believe anything controversial. It is something that I think is widely accepted within this community anyway and it is what he said in the videos, although more long-winded.
Look, I didn’t know that everything within these “” symbols is taken to be the verbatim quotation of someone. I use them all the time to highlight or mark whatever I see fit.
But on a more “serious” note, when the implication is that you’re “quoting” someone, and you’re “using” quotation marks, “readers” will generally interpret the marks as quoting rather than “highlighting.”
Look, I’m quite often an idiot. I was looking for excuses while being psychologically overwhelmed today. If people here perceived that I did something wrong there, I probably did. I was just being lazy and imprudent so I wrote what I thought was the answer given by EY to the question posed in that part of a Q&A video series. There was no fraudulent intent on my part.
So please accept my apologies for possible misguidance and impoliteness. I’m just going to delete the comment now. (ETA: I’ll just leave the links to the videos.)
I’m trying for some time now to not getting involved on here anymore and to get back to being a passive reader. But replies make me feel constrained to answer once more.
If there is something else, let me know and I’ll just delete it.
How do your quotes claim that Eliezer Yudkowsky is the only person who should be leading?
(I would say that factually, there are also other people in leadership positions within SIAI, and Eliezer is extremely glad that this is so, instead of thinking that it should be only him.)
How do they demonstrate that donating to SIAI is “spending on a particular future”?
(I see it as trying to prevent a particular risk.)
This post makes very weird claims regarding what SIAI’s positions would be.
“Spend most on a particular future”? “Eliezer Yudkowsky is the right and only person who should be leading”?
It doesn’t at all seem to me that stuff such as these would be SIAI’s position. Why doesn’t the poster provide references for these weird claims?
Here’s a good reference for what SIAI’s position actually is:
http://singinst.org/riskintro/index.html
From the position paper I linked above, a key quote on what SIAI sees itself as doing:
“We aim to seed the above research programs. We are too small to carry out all the needed research ourselves, but we can get the ball rolling.”
The poster makes claims that are completely at odds with even the most basic familiarity with what SIAI’s position actually is.
Seconded, plus I don’t understand what the link from “worth it” has to do with the topic.
I’ll let the master himself answer this one:
By the way, is it linked to from the SIAI site somewhere? It’s a good summary, but I only ever saw the direct link (and the page is not in SIAI site format).
It’s linked from the sidepanel here at least:
http://singinst.org/overview
But indeed it’s not very prominently featured on the site. It’s a problem of most of the site having been written substantially earlier than this particular summary, and there not (yet) having been a comprehensive change from that earlier state of how the site is organized.
I see. This part of the site doesn’t follow the standard convention of selecting the first sub-page in a category when you click on the category, instead it selects the second, which confused me before. I thought that I was reading “Introduction” when in fact I was reading the next item. Bad design decision.
Overview → Introduction
(it should probably be more prominent and maybe in the site format; the site format’s font is kind of small for such a long document, but should plausibly just be bigger)
Less Wrong Q&A with Eliezer Yudkowsky: Video Answers
Q: The only two legitimate occupations for an intelligent person in our current world? Answer
Q: What’s your advice for Less Wrong readers who want to help save the human race? Answer
A) doesn’t seem to be quoted verbatim from the supplied reference!
There is some somewhat similar material there—but E.Y. is reading out a question that has been submitted by a reader! Misquoting him while he is quoting someone else doesn’t seem to be very fair!
[Edit: please note the parent has been dramatically edited since this response was made]
I perceived it to be the gist of what he said and directly linked to the source. I have a hard time to transcribe spoken English. Would you do so please? Thanks.
You should not use quotation marks unless the quotes are verbatim. The “gist” does not suffice.
I added a disclaimer. Still, it’s what he means. If I wrote, Yudkowsky says “we need to work on FAI” without pasting all of the sequences on LW, it still be right. But if you want to nit-pick you are probably right.
I haven’t followed the ins and the outs of this pointless drama, but I had assumed those were things Eliezer actually said. I’m pretty miffed to learn that those weren’t actually quotes, but rather something you had “inferred from revealed self-evident wisdom”.
That kind of stuff makes it tempting to pretty much ignore anything you write.
Don’t be fooled by the other commenter’s, go and listen to the related videos I linked to. It would however be reasonable to paraphrase Yudkowsky in that way even if he never came close to saying that as it is reasonable to infer from his other writings that working on FAI and donating to organisations working on FAI (the SIAI being the only one I’m told) is the most important thing you could possible do. If not, why are people here actually doing just that?
I listened to the video. He said that while reading aloud a question someone was asking him.
I’m not objecting to the reformulation in your now modified post. I’m just pissed that you made me believe that it was an actual Eliezer Yudkowsky quote.
Look, I didn’t know that everything within these “” symbols is taken to be the verbatim quotation of someone. I use them all the time to highlight or mark whatever I see fit. And the answers I wrote to the questions he has been asked resemble the gist of what he said. I simply didn’t expect anyone to believe that I transcribed two +4 minute videos which I linked to right after. I also never made anyone believe anything controversial. It is something that I think is widely accepted within this community anyway and it is what he said in the videos, although more long-winded.
The “blog” of “unnecessary” quotation marks
But on a more “serious” note, when the implication is that you’re “quoting” someone, and you’re “using” quotation marks, “readers” will generally interpret the marks as quoting rather than “highlighting.”
Look, I’m quite often an idiot. I was looking for excuses while being psychologically overwhelmed today. If people here perceived that I did something wrong there, I probably did. I was just being lazy and imprudent so I wrote what I thought was the answer given by EY to the question posed in that part of a Q&A video series. There was no fraudulent intent on my part.
So please accept my apologies for possible misguidance and impoliteness. I’m just going to delete the comment now. (ETA: I’ll just leave the links to the videos.)
I’m trying for some time now to not getting involved on here anymore and to get back to being a passive reader. But replies make me feel constrained to answer once more.
If there is something else, let me know and I’ll just delete it.
Upvoted for admission of error.
You really, really, really should have noted that; as it is, your comment is an outright lie. (Thanks for catching, Tim.)
How do your quotes claim that Eliezer Yudkowsky is the only person who should be leading?
(I would say that factually, there are also other people in leadership positions within SIAI, and Eliezer is extremely glad that this is so, instead of thinking that it should be only him.)
How do they demonstrate that donating to SIAI is “spending on a particular future”?
(I see it as trying to prevent a particular risk.)