I guess reporting just a sum helps to bring sense of unity by eliminating feedback on disagreement, and result in a better multi-people happy-death-spiral, as the unknown-origin evidence propagates in cycles, stripped of all information that allows to prevent cyclic updates.
You know, you didn’t need to assume the choice to only present the sum was explicitly made, and for bad reasons. I don’t understand it and would much rather see up and down separately. But that explanation is pretty insulting—that they intentionally did it to hide dissent and work contrary to their own stated goals. Seriously?
Come on there’s a post here about using synchronized moves to bring in sense of unity on meetings. Also, I did not say that it was deliberately or explicitly made (what ever that means anyway), just noted what it helps to do. It helps achieve that regardless of whenever that is what you explicitly wanted, what you implicitly wanted, or what you didn’t want at all. edit: And I think it is safe to assume that at some level, anyone wants to see rational people agree, and act together in harmony. The brain does tend to pick means rather unscrupulously though, regardless of high level intentions. Rationalists should know that better than anyone else.
The ‘helps to … and...’ construction really doesn’t convey that ‘it was all a fluke’ thought very distinctly, see? And just before you say it was accidental, you say how people mean it.
And… well, look at “Thoughts on the Singularity Institute (SI)”. It’s pretty devastating (much more incisive than any of the AI researchers’ arguments presented recently), and is sitting at +85 karma after a mere 8 hours.
‘Accidental’, ‘deliberate’, the real word humans do not have such binary distinction. You want people to agree rationally, you end up thinking how to do that, and then you get all the way to the shortcuts that you carefully designed to achieve a bad end state, while thinking good thoughts (you end up with a sort of meaning drift—you work to improve rationality, you work harder, rationality drifts and fuzzes out and now you are down to ideas like lets sign and dance synchronously).
Furthermore, this forum software was NOT written by Eliezer. It is Reddit. It was, matter of factly, designed to maximize irrational-ish behaviour (waste of time online) and it is entirely possible that originally it did not separate the ups and downs to bring sense of unity blah blah blah (which turned out to be unnecessary).
edit: also, read the post he made, it aligns with what i’ve been saying here about AI, even down to the tool-agent distinction. That didn’t really have great effect (not speaking from position of some power).
You know, you didn’t need to assume the choice to only present the sum was explicitly made, and for bad reasons. I don’t understand it and would much rather see up and down separately. But that explanation is pretty insulting—that they intentionally did it to hide dissent and work contrary to their own stated goals. Seriously?
Come on there’s a post here about using synchronized moves to bring in sense of unity on meetings. Also, I did not say that it was deliberately or explicitly made (what ever that means anyway), just noted what it helps to do. It helps achieve that regardless of whenever that is what you explicitly wanted, what you implicitly wanted, or what you didn’t want at all. edit: And I think it is safe to assume that at some level, anyone wants to see rational people agree, and act together in harmony. The brain does tend to pick means rather unscrupulously though, regardless of high level intentions. Rationalists should know that better than anyone else.
The ‘helps to … and...’ construction really doesn’t convey that ‘it was all a fluke’ thought very distinctly, see? And just before you say it was accidental, you say how people mean it.
And… well, look at “Thoughts on the Singularity Institute (SI)”. It’s pretty devastating (much more incisive than any of the AI researchers’ arguments presented recently), and is sitting at +85 karma after a mere 8 hours.
‘Accidental’, ‘deliberate’, the real word humans do not have such binary distinction. You want people to agree rationally, you end up thinking how to do that, and then you get all the way to the shortcuts that you carefully designed to achieve a bad end state, while thinking good thoughts (you end up with a sort of meaning drift—you work to improve rationality, you work harder, rationality drifts and fuzzes out and now you are down to ideas like lets sign and dance synchronously).
Furthermore, this forum software was NOT written by Eliezer. It is Reddit. It was, matter of factly, designed to maximize irrational-ish behaviour (waste of time online) and it is entirely possible that originally it did not separate the ups and downs to bring sense of unity blah blah blah (which turned out to be unnecessary).
edit: also, read the post he made, it aligns with what i’ve been saying here about AI, even down to the tool-agent distinction. That didn’t really have great effect (not speaking from position of some power).