Airedale

Karma: 942

Airedale Dec 11, 2010, 5:06 PM
1 point
in reply to: timtyler’s comment on: Best career models for doing research?
I believe the numbers are actually higher than $200,000. SIAI’s 2008 budget was about $500,000. 2006 was about $400,000 and 2007 was about $300,000 (as listed further in the linked thread). I haven’t researched to see if gross revenue numbers or revenue from donations are available. Curiously, Guidestar does not seem to have 2009 numbers for SIAI, or at least I couldn’t find those numbers; I just e-mailed a couple people at SIAI asking about that.

That being said, even $500,000, while not trivial, seems to me a pretty small budget.

Airedale Dec 11, 2010, 4:32 PM
7 points
in reply to: ugquestions’s comment on: A sense of logic
I don’t understand the problem with “all men are created equal.”

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . .

Leaving aside the Creator/God implications of the original, this boils down to a claim about certain “rights” that all people should have and how the government should treat people, i.e., by leaving them free to pursue the same rights. Obviously the idea was implemented very imperfectly at the beginning, and continues to be implemented imperfectly today, but the idea itself – that all people have a right to live, to be free, and to own property, and that the government should set up a society in which those rights are protected and should not play favorites – doesn’t seem that crazy to me.

edited to add: I see that you’re a relatively new poster. Welcome to LessWrong!

Airedale Dec 9, 2010, 6:49 PM
8 points
in reply to: David_Gerard’s comment on: Best career models for doing research?

The essential problem is that with the (spectacular) deletion of the Forbidden Post, LessWrong turned into the sort of place where posts get disappeared. Those are not good places to be on the Internet. They are places where honesty is devalued and statements of fact must be reviewed for their political nature.

I’ve seen several variations of this expressed about this topic, and it’s interesting to me, because this sort of view is somewhat foreign to me. I wouldn’t say I’m pro-censorship, but as an attorney trained in U.S. law, I think I’ve very much internalized the idea that the most serious sorts of censorship actions are those taken by the government (i.e., this is what the First Amendment free speech right is about, and that makes sense because of the power of the government), and that there are various levels of seriousness/danger beyond that, with say, big corporate censorship also being somewhat serious because of corporate power, and censorship by the owner of a single blog (even a community one) not being very serious at all, because a blogowner is not very powerful compared to the government or a major corporation, and shutting down one outlet of communication on the Internet is comparatively not a big deal because it’s a big internet where there are lots of other places to express one’s views. If a siteowner exercises his or her right to delete something on a website, it’s just not the sort of harm that I weigh very heavily.

What I’m totally unsure of is where the average LW reader falls on the scale between you and me, and therefore, despite the talk about the Roko incident being such a public relations disaster and a “spectacular” deletion, I just don’t know how true that is and I’m curious what the answer would be. People who feel like me may just not feel the need to weigh in on the controversy, whereas people who are very strongly anti-censorship in this particular context do.

Airedale Dec 2, 2010, 11:24 PM
7 points
in reply to: VNKKET’s comment on: How to Save the World
I think you and Louie may be talking about two different kinds of matching donations. The GiveWell post is about an employer matching donations only to a specific charity. Some employers will hold this sort of pledge drive, particularly in the wake of an especially harmful natural disaster.

However, many employers will match donations, up to a certain level, to any qualified (e.g., 501(c)(3)) charity; I believe one can find such employers by searching the database linked by Louie.

2005 short story loosely about P-zombies

AiredaleNov 24, 2010, 6:12 PM

5 points

3 comments1 min readLW link

Airedale Nov 11, 2010, 8:56 PM
2 points
in reply to: orthonormal’s comment on: Chicago Meetup 11/14
We chose the Loop area for this meet-up because we hoped that residents from both Hyde Park and the North Side (as well as elsewhere) could meet kinda in the middle. If it turns out that no one from Hyde Park is coming, perhaps we could move it a bit further north. Steven and I are coming by train into Union Station, as is, I believe, multifoliaterose, so the Loop is pretty convenient for us. But if the consensus is that further north is more convenient, we are happy to move it. Do any other attendees want to chime in?

Airedale Sep 23, 2010, 4:33 PM
6 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: (Virtual) Employment Open Thread
Very interesting, and potentially helpful, comment; upvoted.

But it still made me laugh to read this in a bulletpoint about any sort of writing:

Copywriters who can show previous writing that proofs they can do it (I did this).

(emphasis added)

Airedale Sep 13, 2010, 3:29 PM
9 points
in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: More art, less stink: Taking the PU out of PUA

A not insignificant number of men here are terrified of contributing on this subject, due to their previous discussions. It reached the stage where people making a point that touched on human mating patterns apologised, asked for permission and generally supplicated and grovelled in an attempt to avoid reprisal. It nauseated me.

(emphasis added)

I’m curious what sorts of comments you have in mind here, although I understand if you don’t want to single anyone out specifically. This pattern is not something I have noticed, although it could be that we have just reacted to the same comments/commenters in different ways. For example, I have found HughRistik’s consistently measured tone in discussing mating patterns very refreshing. It’s my impression that his comments are generally well-received not only because of their intelligent content, but also because of their thoughtfulness and tact. Nor do I have the sense that HughRistik, in making the choice to use this sort of tone, has had to obfuscate his meaning or avoid making any points that he would like to make. But it could be that you have different sorts of comments in mind.

Airedale Sep 3, 2010, 4:53 PM
0 points
in reply to: Perplexed’s comment on: Less Wrong: Open Thread, September 2010
I meant that the religious connotations might not be a reason to use the term if Will is trying to come up with the most accurate term for what he’s describing. To the extent the term is tied up in Christianity, it may not convey meaning in the way Will wants – although the more Will explains how he is using the term, the less problematic this would be. And I agree that what you say suggests an interesting way that Will can appropriate a religious term and make some interesting compare-and-contrast type points.

Airedale Sep 3, 2010, 3:08 PM
9 points
in reply to: Will_Newsome’s comment on: Less Wrong: Open Thread, September 2010
The words righteous indignation in combination are sufficiently well-recognized as to have their own wikipedia page. The page also says that righteous indignation has overtones of religiosity, which seems like a reason not to use it in your sense . It also says that it is akin to a “sense of injustice,” but at least for me, that phrase doesn’t have as much resonance.

Edited to add this possibly relevant/interesting link I came across, where David Brin describes self-righteous indignation as addictive.

Airedale Sep 2, 2010, 6:17 PM
9 points
0
in reply to: TobyBartels’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 3
How would people characterize A Wrinkle in Time? It’s been ages since I’ve read it, but it’s another indisputably (?) classic children’s book. IT and a lot of the good/evil shadow imagery seem somewhat morally simplistic in my memory, but I seem to recall other moral complexity, e.g., with the Mrs. Ws.

I’m also having trouble characterizing Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in terms of moral complexity, but it also doesn’t fit in with the other examples in that it lacks a high-stakes struggle. Alice in Wonderland is the other major children’s classic fantasy I can think of, but I can’t recall what, if any, type of morality it presented.

Airedale Sep 1, 2010, 4:35 PM
4 points
in reply to: homunq’s comment on: Less Wrong: Open Thread, September 2010
I think such discussion wouldn’t necessarily warrant its own top-level post, but I think it would fit well in a new Meta thread. I have been meaning to post such a thread for a while, since there are also a couple of meta topics I would like to discuss, but I haven’t gotten around to it.

Airedale Aug 31, 2010, 10:20 PM
4 points
in reply to: sketerpot’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 3
Good point. Wicked also is an imperfect example because it was written for adults, unlike the examples in the grandparent.

I wonder if there’s something different about the way (most) authors write books for children and (some) authors write books for adults—HP, Narnia, Star Wars, and Oz all had young audiences in mind. Most of the more morally complex movies mentioned in the grandparent were for adults. Do any of Stephen King’s bestsellers have moral complexity?

I also wonder if those writing and creating works for children (if they do gravitate towards moral simplicity) have the correct understanding of what their audience wants? Of course, HP and Star Wars certainly broke out well beyond children, so maybe a lot of adults want moral simplicity too.

Airedale Aug 31, 2010, 7:46 PM
10 points
in reply to: PhilGoetz’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 3

Is stupid moral oversimplification necessary in a mass-market bestseller? E.g., Tolkien, Narnia, Star Wars.

Gregory Maguire, the author of Wicked and other books, achieved considerable success turning the morally simplistic world of Oz into something more complex. The Broadway musical was also very popular as such things go. Not quite on the same level of success as your examples, but it shows there’s some market for it. (Maguire also wrote similar retellings of Snow White and Cinderella, which I think sold pretty well, although not as well as Wicked.)

Edited to add: Although if you’re only asking about “war stories” strictly defined, it may not be a good example.

Airedale Aug 31, 2010, 5:49 PM
3 points
in reply to: homunq’s comment on: Existential Risk and Public Relations

As someone who had over 20 points of karma obliterated for reasons I don’t fully understand, for having posted something which apparently strayed too close to a Roko post which I never read in its full version, I can attest that further and broader discussion of the moderation policy would be beneficial.

I believe you lost 20 karma because you had 2 net downvotes on your post at the time it was deleted (and those votes still affect your total karma, although the post cannot be further upvoted or downvoted). The loss of karma did not result directly from the deletion of the post, except for the fact that the deletion froze the post’s karma at the level it was at when it was deleted.

I only looked briefly at your post, don’t remember very much about it, and am only one reader here, but from what I recall, your post did not seem so obviously good that it would have recovered from those two downvotes. Indeed, my impression is that it’s more probable that if the post had been left up longer, it would have been even more severely downvoted than it was at the time of deletion, as is the case with the many people’s first posts. I’m not very confident about that, but there certainly would have been that risk.

All that being said, I can understand if you would rather have taken the risk of an even greater hit to karma if it would have meant that people were able to read and comment on your post. I can also sympathize with your desire for a clearer moderation policy, although unless EY chose to participate in the discussion, I don’t think clearer standards would emerge, because it’s ultimately EY’s call whether to delete a post or comment. (I think there are a couple others with moderation powers, but it’s my understanding that they would not independently delete a non-troll/spam post).

Airedale Aug 23, 2010, 2:53 PM
7 points
in reply to: multifoliaterose’s comment on: Transparency and Accountability
You should definitely do research to confirm this on your own, but the last I heard (somewhat informally through the grapevine) was that FHI does indeed have room for more funding, for example, in the form of funding for an additional researcher or post-doc to join their team. You can than evaluate whether an additional academic trying to research and publish in these areas would be useful, but given how small the field currently is, my impression would be that an additional such academic would probably be helpful.

Airedale Aug 23, 2010, 2:45 PM
7 points
in reply to: XiXiDu’s comment on: Should I believe what the SIAI claims?

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.

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.”

Airedale Aug 22, 2010, 1:03 AM
5 points
in reply to: Tyrrell_McAllister’s comment on: Transparency and Accountability
I don’t know that we disagree very much, but I don’t want to lose sight of the original issue as to whether EY’s characterization accurately reflected what multifoliaterose was saying. I think we may agree that it takes an extra step in interpreting multifoliaterose’s post to get to EY’s characterization, and that there may be sufficient ambiguity in the original post such that not everyone would take that step:

Also, multi isn’t denying that utilitymonster’s money would be better spent in some third way that directly pertains to existential risk. (However, such a denial may be implicit in multi’s own decision to give to GiveWell’s charities, depending on why he does it.)

I did implicitly read such a denial into the original post. As Carl noted:

The invocation of VillageReach in addressing those aggregative utilitarians concerned about astronomical waste here seems baffling to me.

For me, the references to the Givewell-approved charities and the lack of references to alternate existential risk reducing charities like FHI seemed to suggest that multifoliaterose was implicitly denying the existence of a third alternative. Perhaps EY read the post similarly.
What links here?
- Reflections on a Personal Public Relations Failure: A Lesson in Communication by multifoliaterose (Oct 1, 2010, 12:29 AM; 50 points)

Airedale Aug 21, 2010, 11:59 PM
9 points
in reply to: Tyrrell_McAllister’s comment on: Transparency and Accountability

He said that supporting a tuberculosis charity is better than donating to SIAI, not that supporting a tuberculosis charity is the best way to fight existential risk.

I hesitate to point to language from an earlier version of the post, since multifoliaterose has taken out this language, but given that EY was responding to the earlier version, it seems fair. The original post included the following language:

I believe that at present GiveWell’s top ranked charities VillageReach and StopTB are better choices than SIAI, even for donors like utilitymonster who take astronomical waste seriously and believe in the ideas expressed in the cluster of blog posts linked under Shut Up and multiply.

(emphasis added)

I believe there originally may have been some links there, but I don’t have them anymore. Nonetheless, if I correctly understand the references to utilitymonster, astronomical waste, and Shut Up and multiply, I do think that that multifoliaterose was arguing that even the sorts of donors most interested in minimizing existential risk should still give to those other charities. Does that reading seem wrong?

Airedale Aug 21, 2010, 7:06 PM
9 points
in reply to: XiXiDu’s comment on: Transparency and Accountability
Although I always love a good quote from Black Belt Bayesian (a/k/a steven0461 a/k/a my husband), I think he’s on board with my interpretation of multifoliaterose’s posts. (At least, he’d better be!)

Going on to the substance, it doesn’t seem that multifoliaterose is just playing devil’s advocate here rather than arguing his actual beliefs – indeed everything he’s written suggests that he’s doing the latter. Beyond that, there may be a place for devil’s advocacy (so long as it doesn’t cross the line into mere trolling, which multifoliaterose’s posts certainly do not) at LW. But I think that most aspiring rationalists (myself included) should still try to evaluate evidence for and against some position, and only tread into devil’s advocacy with extreme caution, since it is a form of argument where it is all too easy to lose sight of the ultimate goal of weighing the available evidence accurately.
What links here?
- arundelo's comment on Raise the Age Demographic by calcsam (Aug 7, 2011, 4:51 AM; 3 points)