It was around $4 when I wrote the FB post literally two days ago. :D
alexei
Karma: 643
Crypto autopsy reply
If I heard correctly that AF forum is moving to LW 2.0, you’ll have to solve the math blogging problem. ;) And with the current features you’re already 50% there. (Assuming they are working well, which right now it doesn’t quite look like that.)
Thanks for the response. After reading it, it’s now even more clear to what extent collaborative explanations is just not a thing that can easily work.
FWIW, I ran into the same issue with Arbital, and very quickly decided to change it to $$. Otherwise, any time you’re writing a post about money, it’s super inconvinient.
Of course it needs a good admin supporting it
Yup, that’s a nonstarter for most casual bloggers.
Huh!! 2015, no less. I’ll check them out.
Fun fact: originally Eliezer called the project Zanaduu (a play on Xanadu-doomed).
I’ll bet that parts of Arbital will show up across various products (and I’ve already seen some), but I would be very very surprised if we get something that has the entire package in the next 5 years.
… but if they did, they were not assertive enough in applying it.
… experience / domain knowledge are somewhat underrated in the community compared to generic rationality skills
Yes to both.
And yes, I’d love to see LW 2.0 execute my plan and become a social network. (They already did the first few steps; just instead of math, they did rationality.)
Two features I miss the most are greenlinks (hover over a link to see summary) and claims (vote with probability / agreement).
But I think this question should be answered by LW community needs.
Well, trying to build a system that will dynamically link pages together to form a sequence based on requisites would be hard. But I think basically all other features are very modular.
Yes, there are components one can put together to make it all work well. But there is nothing as simple and as good looking as Medium.
Which version of product are you talking about specifically?
Also, part of the reasoning was that if we had a functioning product, we could try many things with it. (In practice, we only got to try a few.)
Arbital postmortem
I’m curious if these papers / blogs would have been written at some point anyway, or if they happened because of the call to action? And to what extend was the prize money a motivator?
Sounds beautiful, thank you for sharing!
Link please.
You’re about to flip one now.
Now *that’s* how you end a post & a sequence! Well done.
This is kind of like Eliezer’s 12th virtue of rationality (the void) taking a human shape.
Playing poker at higher levels actually requires one to practice this skill a lot.
The cost is actually not that high. I spent may be 5-10 hours researching Bitcoin (about 5 hours before I invested; 10 hours total). There aren’t that many things one can invest 5-10 hours into and instantly make money. In fact, none of your examples come even close. Those are huge fields that you need to sink a ton of hours into before you can start reaping rewards. And none of them have direct monetary rewards like crypto.
Ok, then may be I’ve overestimating how easy it is to look at crypto coins and have a rough guess at how good they are. It’s also possible I’m overestimating my own skill at it; it’s not like I have that many data points yet. (Not knowing you very well, I won’t make hypotheses about you.)
Absolutely not. I’m advocating reading the thinking and research that smart people did and following their pointers, but then also checking for sanity. Sanity checks are usually pretty easy to do, but if you can’t do them, then this strategy just won’t work.