Ericf

• Ericf 22 Sep 2024 12:11 UTC

  2 points

  1

  on: Who Feels More Alone?

  The clean lines make me think you didn’t use hypergeometric calculations. If I have 2 extrovert friends, on any given day 0 (25%), 1(50%), or 2(25%) of them will want to hang out. If I want to hang out on day N, there is a 25% chance I fail to.

• Ericf 12 Sep 2024 23:36 UTC

  2 points

  1

  on: Two LessWrong speed friend­ing experiments

  Virtually no-one differentiates between a 4 and a 5 on these kind of surveys. Either they are the kind of person who “always” puts 5, or they “never” do.

  With Rat. Adjacent or other overthibkers, you can give more specific anchors (eg 5 = this was the best pairing). Or you can have specific unsealed questions (ie:

  1. I would go to another room to avoid this person at a party

  2. I do not want to see this person again

  3. Whatever

  4. If someone else did the work to plan it, I would show up and spend time with this person again

  5. I will schedule time to see this person again.

• Ericf 8 Jul 2024 21:34 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: Jiro’s comment on: I would have shit in that alley, too

  Airline tickets are a bad example because they are priced dynamically. So if more people find/​exploit the current pricing structure, the airline will (and does) shift the pricing slightly until it remains profitable.

• Ericf 12 May 2024 0:38 UTC

  7 points

  1

  on: Dyslucksia

  +1 for substituting brain processes. High-g neurodivergents of all flavors tend to run apps in the “wrong” parts of their brain to do things that neutotypicals do automatically. Low-g neurodivergents just fail at the tasks.

• Ericf 27 Apr 2024 0:15 UTC

  5 points

  0

  on: On Not Pul­ling The Lad­der Up Be­hind You

  Related content: https://​​www.shamusyoung.com/​​twentysidedtale/​​?p=168

• Ericf 13 Apr 2024 12:49 UTC

  5 points

  0

  in reply to: magic9mushroom’s comment on: Failures in Kindness

  Por que no los dos? It’s a minority of people who have the ability and inclination to learn how to conform to a different mileu than thier natural state.

• Ericf 13 Apr 2024 12:45 UTC

  6 points

  1

  in reply to: Pendertif’s comment on: Failures in Kindness

  CK, as used here, seems more transactional and situation specific. Emotional Labor is usually referring to a pattern over time, including things like checking for unknown unknowns, and “making sure X gets done” Both ideas are playing in similar space.

• Ericf 13 Apr 2024 12:37 UTC

  10 points

  0

  in reply to: Liron’s comment on: Failures in Kindness

  Bonus points in a dating context: by being specific and authentic you drive away people who won’t be compatible. In the egg example, even if the second party knows nothing about the topic, they can continue the conversation with “I can barely boil water, so I always take a frozen meal in to work” or “I don’t like eggs, but I keep pb&j at my desk” or just swipe left and move on to the next match.

• Ericf 5 Mar 2024 15:32 UTC

  3 points

  0

  in reply to: Ericf’s comment on: In­creas­ing IQ is trivial

  Follow up question: is this a permanent gain or temporary optimization (eg without further intervention, what scores would the subject get in 6 months?)

  We know for sure that eating well and getting a good night’s sleep dramatically improves performance on a wide array of mental tasks. It’s not a stretch to think other interventions could boost short term performance even higher.

• Ericf 2 Mar 2024 1:20 UTC

  15 points

  5

  on: In­creas­ing IQ is trivial

  For further study: Did the observed increase represent a repeatable gain, or an optimization? Within-subject studies show a full SD variation between test sessions for many subjects, so I would predict that “a set of interventions” could produce a “best possible score” for an individual but hit rapid diminishing returns.

• Ericf 27 Feb 2024 10:53 UTC

  3 points

  0

  on: How I build and run be­hav­ioral interviews

  Communication bandwidth: if you find that you’re struggling to understand what the person is saying or get on the same page as them, this is a bad sign about your ability to discuss nuanced topics in the future if you work together.

  Just pulling this quote out to highlight the most critical bit. Everything else is about distinguishing between BS and ability to remember, understand, and communicate details of an event (note: this is a skill not often found at the 100 IQ level). That second thing isn’t necessarily a job requirement for all positions (eg sales, entry level positions), but being comfortable talking with your direct reports is always critical.

• Ericf 20 Feb 2024 0:23 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: gilch’s comment on: OpenAI’s Sora is an agent

  The described “next image” bot doesn’t have goals like that, though. Can you take the pre-trained bot and give it a drive to “make houses” and have it do that? When all the local wood is used up, will it know to move elsewhere, or plant trees?

• Ericf 16 Feb 2024 23:52 UTC

  4 points

  0

  on: OpenAI’s Sora is an agent

  If you have to give it a task, is it really an agent? Is there some other word for “system that comes up with its own tasks to do”?

• Ericf 5 Feb 2024 5:45 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: Dave Scotese’s comment on: Tor­ture vs. Dust Specks

  Note that you have reduced the raw quantity of dust specks by “a lot” with that framing. Heat death of universe is in “only” 10^106 years, so that would be no more than 2^ (10^(106)) people (if we somehow double every year) compared to 3||3^(27), which is 3^ (10^ (a number too big to write down))

• Ericf 4 Feb 2024 2:30 UTC

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: Matt Goldenberg’s comment on: Pre­dic­tion Mar­kets aren’t Magic

  200 years ago was 1824. So compared to buying land or company stocks (the London and NY stock exchanges were well established by then) or government bonds.

• Ericf 22 Jan 2024 17:31 UTC

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: Matt Goldenberg’s comment on: Pre­dic­tion Mar­kets aren’t Magic

  Narrator: gold has been a poor bet for 90% of the last 200 years.

  (Don’t quote me on that, but it is true that gold was a good bet for about 10 years in recent memory, and a bad bet for most post-industrial time)

• Ericf 10 Jan 2024 12:26 UTC

  11 points

  0

  in reply to: Zane’s comment on: AI Risk and the US Pres­i­den­tial Candidates

  I can’t tie up cash in any sort of escrow, but I’d take that bet on a handshake.

• Ericf 8 Jan 2024 13:07 UTC

  4 points

  −1

  in reply to: Zane’s comment on: AI Risk and the US Pres­i­den­tial Candidates

  Mr. Pero got fewer votes than either major party candidate. Not a ringing endorsement. And I didn’t say the chances were quite low, I said they were zero*. Which is at least 5 orders of magnitude difference from “quite low” so I don’t think we agree about his chances.

  *technically odds can’t be zero, but I consider anything less likely than “we are in a simulation that is subject to intervention from outside” to be zero for all decision making purposes.

• Ericf 7 Jan 2024 14:42 UTC

  7 points

  −3

  on: AI Risk and the US Pres­i­den­tial Candidates

  There is an actual 0% chance that anyone other than the Democratic or Republican nominee (or thier replacement in the event of death etc.) becomes president. Voting for/​supporting any other candidate has, historically, done nothing to support that candidate’s platform in the short or long term. If you find both options without merit, you should vote for your preferred enemy:

  1. Who will be most receptive to your message, either in a compromise, or argument And/​or

  2. So sorry about your number 1 issue, neither party cares. What’s your number 2 issue, maybe there is a difference there?

• Ericf 18 Nov 2023 12:25 UTC

  3 points

  0

  in reply to: Gordon Seidoh Worley’s comment on: Ex­trap­o­lat­ing from Five Words

  Do you have a link to the study validating that the LLM responses actually match the responses given by humans in that category?