I have taken the survey.
EricHerboso
Karma: 308
He learned that he can will his own transfigurations to end wandlessly and without spoken words.
If the snitch is both the trigger and the epicenter of this spell in progress, then this would explain how the three wishes will be granted by “a single plot”. The game is played/watched by mostly Slytherin/Ravenclaw students, so mostly Slytherin/Ravenclaw students would die. I can see a school like Hogwarts then giving both these houses the House Cup as a way to deal with the trauma for surviving students and honor the lost children. So that’s all three wishes: both houses win the House Cup, and the snitch is removed from Qudditch, all using “a single plot”.
(from Iron_Nightingale on r/hpmor)
I agree that legilimensed Sprout’s magic is activating the sense of doom. But the troll was not legilimensed, so there’s no reason for the sense of doom to activate.
I may be wrong, but intuitively it seems that when Voldemort causes Sprout to cast a spell, that spell counts as originating from Voldemort, not Sprout—and that is what makes it activate the sense of doom. Whereas the troll was acting on its own accord, and so didn’t activate the sense of doom.
Just to be clear, it wouldn’t be “LW affiliation”; it would be “heard of EA through LW”. I’m sure there are quite a few like me who learned about LW through EA, not the other way around.
While your application correctly identifies Animal Charity Evaluators by its current name, the main EA Summit webpage lists ACE under its old name of “Effective Animal Activism”. Is there any chance you could update the page to use the new name?
After comparing my own answers to the clusters Bouget & Chalmers found, I don’t appear to fit well in any one of the seven categories.
However, I did find the correlations between philosophical views outlined in section 3.3 of the paper to be fairly predictive of my own views. Nearly everything in Table 4 that I agree with on the left side corresponds to an accurate prediction of what I’d think about the issue on the right side.
Interestingly, not all of these correlations seem like they have an underlying reason why they should logically go together. Does this mean that I’ve fallen prey to agreeing with the greens over the blues for something other than intellectual reasons?
Blindness affects cats less negatively than starving affects humans.
I’ve never seen that as an additional ambiguity. I’ve always understood “OP” to mean “the original article”, and never “the top level comment”. But maybe this is because I’ve just never encountered the other use (or didn’t notice when someone meant it to refer to the top level comment).
Maybe he’s counting the lack of an objective state as additional information?
In the future, we might distinguish “difficult” predictions from trivial ones by seeing if the predictions are unlike the predictions made by others at the same time. This is easy to do if we evaluate contemporary predictions.
But I have no idea how to accomplish this when looking back on past predictions. I can’t help but to feel that some of Kurzweil’s predictions are trivial, yet how can we tell for sure?
Case in point: Charity Navigator, which places unreasonable importance on irrelevant statistics like administrative overhead. There are already charity effectiveness evaluators out there that are doing counter-productive work.
Personally, I think adding another good charity evaluator to the mix as competition to GiveWell/Giving What We Can is important to the overall health of the optimal philanthropy movement.
I agree with the spirit of this comment, but I think you are perhaps undervaluing the usefulness of helping with instrumental goals.
I am a huge fan of GiveWell/Giving What We Can, but one of the problems that many outsiders have with them is that they seem to have already made subjective value judgments on which things are more important. Remember that not everyone is into consequentialist ethics, and some find problems just with the concept of using QALYs.
Such people, when they first decide to start comparing charities, will not look at GiveWell/GWWC. They will look at something atrocious, like Charity Navigator. They will actually prefer Charity Navigator, since CN doesn’t introduce subjective value judgments, but just ranks by unimportant yet objective stuff like overhead costs.
Though I’ve only just browsed their site, I view AidGrade as a potential way to reach those people. The people who want straight numbers. People who maybe aren’t utilitarians, but recognize anyway that saving more is better than saving less, and so would use AidGrade to direct their funding to a better charity within whatever category they were going to donate to anyway. These people may not be swayed by traditional optimal philanthropy groups’ arguments on mosquito nets over hiv drugs. But by listening to AidGrade, perhaps they will at least redirect their funding from bad charities to better charities within whatever category they choose.
That speaks to GWWC’s favor, I think. It would be odd for them to not take into account research done by GiveWell.
Remember that they don’t agree on everything (e.g., cash transfers). When they do agree, I take it as evidence that GWWC has looked into GiveWell’s recommendation and found it to be a good analysis. I don’t really view it as parroting, which your comment might unintentionally imply.
I am only one of the contributors, but you’re welcome to view my comments. I doubt it will be helpful for your purpose, though.
As a (perhaps) trivial example, consider the pair of predictions:
“Intelligent roads are in use, primarily for long-distance travel.”
“Local roads, though, are still predominantly conventional.”
As one of the people who participated in this study, I marked the first as false and the second as true. Yet the second “true” prediction seems like it is only trivially true. (Or perhaps not; I might be suffering from hindsight bias here.)
As one of the people who contributed to this project by assessing his predictions, I do want to point out that several of the predictions marked as “True” seemed very obvious to me. Of course, this might be the result of hindsight bias, and in fact it is actually very impressive for him to have predicted something like the following examples:
“[Among portable computers,] Memory is completely electronic, and most portable computers do not have keyboards.”
“However, nanoengineering is not yet considered a practical technology.”
“China has also emerged as a powerful economic player.”
Note also that some of the statements marked “True” are only vacuously true. For example, one of his wrong predictions was that “intelligent roads are in use...for long-distance travel”. But he follows this up with the following prediction which got marked as “True”:
“Local roads, though, are still predominantly conventional.”
As you can see, I do not think that looking just at the percentage of true predictive statements he made is enough. Some of those predictions seem almost trivial. And yet we can’t just dismiss them out of hand, because the reason I think they are trivial might just be because I’m looking at it from after the fact. Counterfactually, if intelligent roads had come about, but local roads were still conventional, would I still call the prediction trivial? What if local roads weren’t conventional? Would I then still call it a trivial prediction?
We had no choice but to just mark such statements as true and count them in the percentage he got correct, because there’s just no way I know of to disregard such “trivial” predictions. And this means we shouldn’t really be looking at the percentage marked as true except to compare it with Kurzweil’s own self-assessment of accuracy. Using the percentage marked as true for other reasons, like “should I trust Kurzweil’s predictive power more than others’”, seems like a misuse of this data.
While I don’t agree with much of the linked post, the line portraying civil disobedience as an application of might makes right really hits hard for me. I need to do more thinking on this to see if there is justification for me to update my current beliefs.
My initial impression was that the volunteer completion rate would be higher among a group like LW members. But now I realize that was a naive assumption to make.
I have taken the survey.