Double

• DoubleAug 11, 2024, 3:01 AM

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: Benjamin Kost’s comment on: Open & Wel­come Thread—Au­gust 2020

  I just skimmed this, but it seems like a bunch of studies have found that moving causes harm to children. https://​​achieveconcierge.com/​​how-does-frequently-moving-affect-children/​​

  I’m expecting Co-co and LOCALS to fail (nothing against you. These kinds of clever ideas usually fail), and have identified the following possible reasons:

  • You don’t follow through on your idea.

  • People get mad at you for trying to meddle with the ‘democratic’ system we have and don’t hear you out as you try to explain “no, this is better democracy.” —Especially the monetization system you described would get justified backlash for its pay-for-representation system.

  • You never reach the critical mass needed to make the system useful.

  • Some political group had previously tried something similar and therefore it got banned by the big parties.

  • You can’t stop Co-co and LOCALS from being partisan.

  • A competitor makes your thing but entrenched and worse

• DoubleAug 9, 2024, 3:38 AM

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: Benjamin Kost’s comment on: Open & Wel­come Thread—Au­gust 2020

  More bad news:

  “a section 501(c)(3) organization may not publish or distribute printed statements or make oral statements on behalf of, or in opposition to, a candidate for public office”

  You’d probably want to be a 501(c)(4) or a Political Action Committees (PAC).

  How would LOCALS find a politician to be in violation of their oath?

  That would be a powerful position to have. “Decentralization” is a property of a system, not a description of how a system would work.

  Futarchy

  I’d love to hear your criticisms of futarchy. That could make a good post.

  Mobility

  Political mobility is good, but there are limitations. People are sticky. Are you going to make your kid move schools and separate them from their friends because you don’t like the city’s private airplane policy? Probably not.

  Experimental Politics

  I want more experimental politics so that we can find out which policies actually work! Unfortunately, that’s an unpopular opinion. People don’t like being in experiments, even when the alternative is they suffer in ignorance.

  End

  I feel that you are exhausting my ability to help you refine your ideas. Edit these comments into a post (with proper headings and formatting and a clear line of argument) and see what kinds of responses you get! I’d be especially interested in what lawyers and campaigners think of your ideas.

• DoubleAug 9, 2024, 2:57 AM

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: Benjamin Kost’s comment on: Open & Wel­come Thread—Au­gust 2020

  The “Definition of a Linear Operator” is at the top of page 2 of the linked text.
  My definition was missing that in order to be linear, A(cx) = cA(x). I mistakenly thought that this property was provable from the property I gave. Apparently it isn’t because of “Hamel bases and the axiom of choice” (ChatGPT tried explaining.)
  
  ”straight-line property process” is not a helpful description of linearity for beginners or for professionals. “Linearity” is exactly when A(cx) = cA(x) and A(x+y) = A(x) + A(y). Describing that in words would be cumbersome. Defining it every time you see it is also cumbersome. When people come across “legitimate jargon”, what they do (and need to do) is to learn a term when they need it to understand what they are reading and look up the definition if they forget.

  I fully support experimental schemes to remove “illegitimate jargon” like medical latin, biology latin, and politic speak. Other jargon, like that in math and chemistry are necessary for communication.

• DoubleAug 7, 2024, 10:57 PM

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: Benjamin Kost’s comment on: Open & Wel­come Thread—Au­gust 2020

  There are different kinds of political parties. LOCALS sounds like a single-issue fusion party as described here: https://​​open.lib.umn.edu/​​americangovernment/​​chapter/​​10-6-minor-parties/​​

  Fusion parties choose one of the main two candidates as their candidate. This gets around the spoiler effect. Eg the Populist Party would list whichever of the big candidates supported Free Silver.

  A problem with that is that fusion parties are illegal in 48 states(?!) because the major parties don’t want to face a coalition against them.

  LOCALS would try to get the democrat and the republican candidate to use Co-Co to choose their policies (offering the candidate support in form of donations or personnel), and if they do then they get an endorsement. I’m still a bit iffy on the difference between an interest group and a political party, so maybe you are in the clear.

  https://​​en.m.wikipedia.org/​​wiki/​​Electoral_fusion_in_the_United_States

  I love your vision of how a politician should answer the abortion question. Separating the three questions “who do voters think is qualified” “what do voters want” and “what is true” would be great for democracy. Similar to: https://​​mason.gmu.edu/​​~rhanson/​​futarchy.html

  When it comes to local vs not local, if ¹⁄₁₀₀ people is an X, and they are spread out, then their voice doesn’t mean much and the other ⁹⁹⁄₁₀₀ people in their district can push through policies that harm them. If the Xes are in the same district, then they get a say about what happens to them. I used teachers as an example of an X, but it is more general than that. (Though I’m thinking about the persecution of Jews in particular.)

• DoubleAug 7, 2024, 9:39 PM

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: Benjamin Kost’s comment on: Open & Wel­come Thread—Au­gust 2020

  The translation sentence about matrices does not have the same meaning as mine. Yes, matrices are “grids of numbers”, and yes there’s an algorithm (step by step process) for matrix multiplication, but that isn’t what linearity means.

  An operation A is linear iff A(x+y) = A(x) + A(y)

  https://​​orb.binghamton.edu/​​cgi/​​viewcontent.cgi?filename=4&article=1002&context=electrical_fac&type=additional#:~:text=Linear operators are functions on,into an entirely different vector.

  I asked a doctor friend why doctors use Latin. “To sound smarter than we are. And tradition.” So our words for medicine (and probably similar for biology) are in a local optima, but not a global optima. Tradition is a powerful force, and getting hospitals to change will be difficult. Software to help people read about medicine and other needlessly jargon-filled fields is a great idea.

  (Putting evolutionary taxonomy information in the name of a creature is a cool idea though, so binomial nomenclature has something going for it.)

  You don’t have to dumb down your ideas on LessWrong, but remember that communication is a difficult task that relies on effort from both parties (especially the author). You’ve been good so far. It’s just my job as your debate partner to ask many questions.

• DoubleAug 7, 2024, 1:00 AM

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: Benjamin Kost’s comment on: Open & Wel­come Thread—Au­gust 2020

  What would draw people to Co-Co and what would keep them there?

  How are the preferences of LOCALS users aggregated?

  LOCALS sounds a lot like a political party. Political parties have been disastrous. I’d love for one of the big two to be replaced. Is LOCALS a temporary measure to get voting reform (eg ranked choice) or a long-term thing?

  I want more community cohesion when it comes to having more cookouts. More community cohesion in politics makes less sense. A teacher in Texas has more in common with a teacher in NY than the cattle rancher down the road. Unfortunately, the US political system is by design required to be location based.

  Is LOCALS a political party with “increase local community connection” as its party platform? If the party has some actionable plans, then its ideas can get picked up by the big parties if LOCALS shows that its ideas are popular. This might not be a bad idea and could solve the lack-of-community problem without overthrowing the big parties.

• DoubleAug 7, 2024, 12:01 AM

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: Benjamin Kost’s comment on: Open & Wel­come Thread—Au­gust 2020

  A software that easily lets you see “what does this word mean in context” would be great! I often find that when I force click a word to see it’s definition, the first result is often some irrelevant movie or song, and when there are multiple definitions it can take a second to figure out which one is right. Combine this with software that highlights words that are being used in an odd way (like “Rationalist”) and communication over text can be made much smoother.

  I don’t think this would be as great against “jargon” unless you mean intentional jargon that is deployed to confuse the reader (eg “subprime mortgages” which is “risky likely to fail house loans”).

  I’m under the impression that jargon is important for communication among people who have understanding of the topic. “Matrix multiplication is a linear operation” is jargon-heavy and explaining what it means to a fourth grader would take probably more than 30 minutes.

  Agree that more educated voters would be great. I wish that voters understood Pigouvian taxes. Explaining them takes 10 min according to YouTube. I’d love a solution to teach voters about it.

• DoubleAug 6, 2024, 11:46 PM

  4 points

  3

  in reply to: Benjamin Kost’s comment on: Open & Wel­come Thread—Au­gust 2020

  Voting: left for “this is bad”, right for “this is good.” X for “I disagree” check for “I agree”.

  This way you can communicate more in your vote. Eg: “He’s right but he’s breaking community norms. Left + check. “He’s wrong but I like the way he thinks. Right + X.”

  https://​​www.lesswrong.com/​​posts/​​HALKHS4pMbfghxsjD/​​lesswrong-has-agree-disagree-voting-on-all-new-comment

• DoubleAug 6, 2024, 1:43 AM

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: Seth Herd’s comment on: Dou­ble’s Shortform

  I guess maybe it is just an abstraction like any other. I can’t put my finger on it but it seems weird in a way that abstracting fingers into a “hand” does not. Maybe something to do with the connotation of “explosion” as “uncontrolled and destructive” when internal combustion is neither.

• DoubleAug 6, 2024, 1:38 AM

  2 points

  1

  in reply to: Benjamin Kost’s comment on: Open & Wel­come Thread—Au­gust 2020

  Welcome! I hope you have Claude a thumbs up for the good response.

  Everyone agrees with you that yeah, the “Rationalist” name is bad for many reasons including that it gives philosophers the wrong idea. If you could work your social science magic to change the name of an entire community, we’d be interested in hearing your plan!

  I’d be interested in reading your plan to redesign the social system of the United States! I’ve subscribed to be notified to your posts, so I’ll hopefully see it.

• DoubleAug 5, 2024, 1:13 AM

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: Benjamin Kost’s comment on: Open & Wel­come Thread—Au­gust 2020

  I’m curious what you asked Claude that got you a recommendation to LessWrong. No need to share if it is personal.

  I love your attitude to debate. “the loser of a debate is the real winner because they learned something.” I need to lose some debates.

• DoubleAug 5, 2024, 1:08 AM

  7 points

  0

  on: Dou­ble’s Shortform

  “Explosions considered fundamental”
  If you ask for a simple answer to how a car works, you might get an answer like:
  ”Cars work by having tiny explosions in the engine that push pistons to power the car.”

  When I was a kid, this felt like a satisfying explanations. Explosions push things, you can see that happening in movies and games.

  But really it is rather lacking. It doesn’t say why explosions push, and there does exist a lower explanation for why explosions push — the kinetic theory of gasses.

  This is even though “explosions are an ontologically fundamental object that applies force away from the explosion” is a simple hypothesis. You can code an explosion in a video game super easily: you just have a sphere collider (simple!) to detect what is affected and apply a force vector (simple!) to those objects pointing away from the center. It would be much harder to code a game where the air obeys the kinetic theory of gasses.

  “Explosions are fundamental” loses out to the Kinetic Theory of Gasses because the Kinetic Theory of Gasses can explain more things — not only explosions, but air conditioners, wind, etc.

  And once you know the Kinetic Theory of Gasses, calling every expansion of gas due to increased heat an “explosion” is really weird. Why does the breeze blow? “Sunlight causes an explosion that rises and then air flows to fill the space.”

  I don’t have much to say about this, I just thought it was an interesting case.

• DoubleJul 20, 2024, 4:52 AM

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: Double’s comment on: Ei­genKarma: trust at scale

  I’d also love a slider setting for choosing how much weight to give to my own karma and how much to give to other people’s. If 6 Billion people outside the people my Karma boosts upvote something, I want to see it anyways

• DoubleJul 20, 2024, 4:51 AM

  1 point

  0

  on: Ei­genKarma: trust at scale

  Can there be a mechanism that boosts posters who get upvotes from multiple nonoverlapping groups extra? If eg 50 Blues and 50 Greens upvote someone, I want them to get more implicit eigenkarma from me than someone with 100 Blue upvotes even if I tend to upvote Blue more often. Figuring out who is a Blue and who is a Green can be done by finding dense subgraphs..

• DoubleMay 22, 2024, 4:42 AM

  1 point

  0

  on: Against Com­put­ers (in­finite play)

  I’m sorry, but is there an argument here other than “it really feels like we are special”?
  Calling for war and giving your opponents silly names is not the kind of thing that LessWrongers want on the platform.

  The thing I find interesting about wheels → books → gears → computers is that each of those really is a good way to think about subjects. (In the case of wheels, the seasons are actually caused by something — the Earth — going around in a circle!). Computers in particular have a strong theoretical basis that they are and should be a useful framework for thinking about the world.

  Maybe I just didn’t understand.

• DoubleMar 12, 2024, 7:16 PM

  5 points

  0

  on: Act­ing Wholesomely

  Sorry, I’ll be doing multiple unwholesome things in this comment.

  For one, I’m commenting without reading the whole post. I was expecting it to be about something else and was disappointed. The conception of wholesomeness as “considering a wider perspective for your actions” is not very interesting. Everyone considers a wider perspective to be valuable, and nobody takes that more seriously already than EAs.

  The conception of wholesomeness I was hoping you’d write about (let’s call it wholesomeness2 for distinction from your wholesomeness) is a type of prestige. Prestige is high status freely conferred by the beneficiaries of the prestigious. Contrast with dominance, which is demanded with force.

  It’s hard to pin down, but I think I’d say that Wholesomeness2 is a reputation for not being evil. Clearly, it would be good for EA’s ability to do good if they had wholesomeness2. On top of that, if actions that are not wholesome2 tend to be bad and actions that are wholesome2 tend to be good, then wholesome2 is a good heuristic. (Although the tails come apart, as they always do. https://​​slatestarcodex.com/​​2018/​​09/​​25/​​the-tails-coming-apart-as-metaphor-for-life/​​ ).

  If someone has wholesomeness2, then people will assume mistakes rather than malice, will defend the wholesome2 person from attack, and help the wholesome2 when they are in need.

  I was hoping your post would be about how to be wholesome2. Here are my thoughts:

  Incapable of plotting: dogs and children are wholesome because they don’t have the capacity to be evil.

  Wholesomeness2 chains, so since candy is associated with children who are wholesome2, associating yourself with candy can increase your wholesomeness2.

  Generating warm-fuzzies: the Make a Wish Foundation is extremely wholesome2, while deworming is not. When someone (like an EA) “attacks” Make a Wish by saying it doesn’t spend its funds in a way that helps many people much compared to alternatives, everyone will come to Make a Wish‘s defense.

  Vibes: “wholesome2 goths” feels like an oxymoron. The goth aesthetic is contrary to the idea of being not evil, even though the goths themselves are usually nice people. If you call one “wholesome”, they might even get upset at you.

  Actually being not evil: It doesn’t matter how wholesome2 he was before; Bill Cosby lost all his wholesome2 when the world found out he was evil. Don’t be Bill Cosby.

  I’d appreciate comments elaborating and adding to this list.

  ….

  By analyzing the concept like this, I lost some wholesomeness2, because I have shown that I have the capacity and willingness to gain wholesomeness2 independent of whether I’m really plotting something evil. I’d argue that I’m just not very willing to self-censor, so you should trust me more instead of less… but that is exactly what an unwholesome2 individual would do.

  EA will have some trouble gaining wholesomeness2 because it tends to seek power and has the intelligence and agency needed to be evil.

• DoubleMar 12, 2024, 5:08 PM

  4 points

  0

  in reply to: Viliam’s comment on: Dou­ble’s Shortform

  Plenty of pages get the bare minimum. The level of detail in the e/​acc page (eg including the emoji associated with the movement) makes me think that it was edited by an e/​acc. The EA page must have been edited by the e/​acc since it includes “opposition to e/​acc”, but other than that it seems like it was written by someone unaffiliated with either (modulo my changes). We could probably check out the history of the pages to resolve our speculation.

• DoubleMar 11, 2024, 5:57 AM

  10 points

  2

  on: Dou­ble’s Shortform

  It is worrying that the Wikidata page for e/​acc is better than the page for EA and the page for Less Wrong. I just added EA’s previously absent “main subject”s to the EA page.

  Looks like a Symbolic AI person has gone e/​acc. That’s unfortunate, but rationalists have long known that the world would end in SPARQL.

Dou­ble’s Shortform

• DoubleJan 7, 2024, 6:23 AM

  1 point

  in reply to: Neel Nanda’s comment on: A Longlist of The­o­ries of Im­pact for Interpretability

  I’d call that “underselling it”! Your description of Microscope AI may be accurate, but even I didn’t realize you meant “supercharging science”, and I was looking for it in the list!