This is why we need downvotes.
drethelin
Karma: 8,097
You can justify a belief in “Induction works” by induction over your own life.
I strongly disagree. Most classes are pathetically slow and boring, not to mention expensive and time consuming. For one example, I’ve learned more history just reading books on my own than I ever did in History class, and it’s not like I got bad grades back when I was in school. Showing up and being “carried along” was basically worthless.
It’s likely that there are some kinds of classes that are functionally better than learning on your own, but given that the vast majority of classes on most topics are de facto going to be aimed at the lowest common denominator, you’re gonna have to put in a lot of work to find good ones.
Voiding a transaction deletes it (I’m pretty sure), which removes the information trail. The other way records the transactions, so if they end up being criminal, the cashier in question is caught.
Sarcastic and rambling and not in a fun way to read. Either get to the point faster or make your asides less about mocking your target and more interesting.
THIS IS WHY WE NEED DOWNVOTES.
That’s kind of unfair, considering the sheer amount of point-scoring going on in the original post.
I like this comment but I think what this and the original trollpost miss out on is that LW community in general, due to having a lot of people with autism and sensory issues, has a ton of people who actually do NOT have “reasonable expectations of what other people want to guide their behavior”. The OP quoted here is making a common typical-mind type error. Of COURSE it’s better to live with people who intuit your preferences and act in accordance to them without being told what they are. But it’s obnoxious to shit on attempted to solutions to a problem by insisting that morally good people could never have the problem in the first place.
It’s an appeal to authority and someone shitting on an organization based on one line of a lesswrong comment by one member of that organization, with no request for clarification or depth.
Our ability to concretely describe the effects of social groups on people in general are kind of limited, but things like “person X joined social group Y and now they concretely do behavior Z” are available. If you see people join a group and then become concretely worse (in your own assessment), I think it can be valuable to refer to specifics. I think it can be important and virtuous to convey what you think is a pernicious process, and unfortunately naming someone you personally know is a very effective, if cruel way to do it. Anecdata, and especially anecdata based on the content of someone’s facebook feed, is not a great snapshot of a person at different times, but it’s still a source of information.
I’m not sure what you think a better sort of way to deliver this sort of message is, but to some extent any nicer way to do it would be less effective in conveying how bad you think the situation is.
I disagree.
Personally I think having some people living in a house who know how to improve and maintain it is a good way to avoid many of the potential longterm problems of living in what’s likely to be a century old building.
This is why we need downvotes.
This is why we need downvotes.
iteration speed is less important than core quality I think. Minecraft was worth millions while still in alpha/beta and that didn’t depend on how fast it was updated.
this is why we need downvotes
Part of being rational involves not trying the same thing over and over that doesn’t work. Giving people the factually correct, simple advice that you believe does not work.
“Anyone can just do x” is an insane and unrealistic way to frame solutions to a problem. Like saying “to stop the obesity epidemic we just need to tell people they have to eat less and exercise more.” or “we should tell people to save more money for retirement” the fact that you can frame a solution in simple terms does not in fact make it a non-issue.
also for much of the year in America going to school DOES in fact involve getting up well before dawn.
It might! the fewer people who are plausibly competing in arms race the more chance of negotiating a settlement or simply maintaining a peaceful standoff out of caution. If OpenAI enables more entities to have a solid chance of creating a fooming AI in secret, that’s a much more urgent development than if China and the US are the only real threat to each other, and both know it.
Why would it hack itself to think it’s getting paperclips if it’s originally programmed to want real paperclips? It would not be incentivized to make that hack because that hack would make it NOT get paperclips.