Michael_G.R.

Karma: 101

Michael_G.R. 14 Mar 2008 17:58 UTC
0 points
on: Penguicon & Blook
“”Almost nobody (relatively) will be rediscovering them in a few years. That’s simply the nature of blogging. Who’s reading 3 years old BoingBoing posts right now?”″

“This is a very good point.”

I think it would be a waste, and very sad, if Eliezer had spent over a year writing enough high-quality material for a book and that material just stayed buried in Overcoming Bias’ archives, nearly forgotten in a matter of years.

For a little more effort, he can produce books that more chances of making a difference.

Tom, you say that people who are “helping” are a small group. That is true. But I don’t believe that everybody who could be convinced, who could help is already on board. Simply think about yourself; you are in now, but at some point in your life you weren’t. Something must’ve lit the fire. Imagine if back then you had seen an interesting review of Elizer’s book on Amazon and decided to check it out. I bet that would have been a great introduction.

Since that group of people is small, it means that it only takes a small number of additional people to make a relatively big difference. And besides, not everybody who’s already on board (however you define that) is thinking as clearly as Eliezer about these things. Many could learn from his book, I’m sure, and that could increase the quality of their contribution.

Another argument is that there is a chance (probably low) that the book(s) could sell a lot more than we can expect right now. Not giving that a shot when the book is almost already written would be a wasted opportunity, IMHO.

Michael_G.R. 14 Mar 2008 4:18 UTC
3 points
on: Penguicon & Blook
I’d definitely like to have that 500 pages book in my library as reference, and give the shorter popular book as gift to friends (or my future kids?).

Only a small subset of the small group (relatively) of people who have read these blog posts as they were published will use them as reference later. Almost nobody (relatively) will be rediscovering them in a few years. That’s simply the nature of blogging. Who’s reading 3 years old BoingBoing posts right now?

I’m currently reading “Godel, Escher, Bach”, and from what I’ve read here, I think that Eliezer’s book could become something like that. Maybe not a Pulitzer (but who knows?), but certainly something special that changes the way people think.

Michael_G.R. 14 Mar 2008 4:00 UTC
0 points
on: Penguicon & Blook
“I was planning a nigh-complete rewrite for the book—less than 50% previously published sentences, say. Would it be a problem if the ideas, but not sentences, all exist elsewhere?”

You might need to remove some posts from the net if you decide to use them as is in the book, but if it is all modified, there shouldn’t be a problem AFAIK.

Ideas can’t be copyrighted, and you wouldn’t be the first person to turn blog material into dead tree.

Michael_G.R. 3 Jan 2008 4:07 UTC
2 points
on: My Strange Beliefs
Keep using whatever examples and anecdotes you think best make your points, Eliezer. If that person doesn’t like what you write, he/she can just skip it.

Michael_G.R. 18 Dec 2007 20:54 UTC
1 point
on: Guardians of Ayn Rand
I really enjoyed reading this. Thank you Eliezer.

Michael_G.R. 6 Dec 2007 18:41 UTC
0 points
on: Fake Fake Utility Functions
This post put a big smile on my face. Thanks Eliezer.

Michael_G.R. 3 Dec 2007 16:58 UTC
0 points
on: Mere Messiahs
Excellent post, Eliezer. Thank you.

Michael_G.R. 3 Nov 2007 17:20 UTC
0 points
on: Evolutions Are Stupid (But Work Anyway)
Eliezer, it certainly seems that you go over your “writer’s molasse”. Congrats!

Michael_G.R. 2 Nov 2007 23:11 UTC
0 points
on: An Alien God
Great stuff, Eliezer. I’m really looking forward to you compiling your writings in a book.

Michael_G.R. 30 Oct 2007 18:36 UTC
0 points
on: Torture vs. Dust Specks
“For those who would pick SPECKS, would you pay a single penny to avoid the dust specks?”

To avoid all the dust specks, yeah, I’d pay a penny and more. Not a penny per speck, though ;)

The reason is to avoid having to deal with the “unintended consequences” of being responsible for that very very small change over such a large number of people. It’s bound to have some significant indirect consequences, both positive and negative, on the far edges of the bell curve… the net impact could be negative, and a penny is little to pay to avoid responsibility for that possibility.

Michael_G.R. 30 Oct 2007 15:03 UTC
1 point
on: Torture vs. Dust Specks
Hmm, thinking some more about this, I can see another angle (not the suffering angle, but the “being prudent about unintended consequences” angle):

If you had the choice between very very slightly changing the life of a huge number of people or changing a lot the life of only one person, the prudent choice might be to change the life of only one person (as horrible as that change might be).

Still, with the dust speck we can’t really know if the net final outcome will be negative or positive. It might distract people who are about to have genius ideas, but it might also change chains of events that would lead to bad things. Averaged over so many people, it’s probably going to stay very close to neutral, positive or negative. The torture of one person might also look very close to neutral if averaged with the other 3^^^3 people, but we know that it’s going to be negative. Hmm..

Michael_G.R. 30 Oct 2007 14:42 UTC
5 points
0
on: Torture vs. Dust Specks
Robin, could you explain your reasoning. I’m curious.

Humans get barely noticeable “dust speck equivalent” events so often in their lives that the number of people in Eliezer’s post is irrelevant; it’s simply not going to change their lives, even if it’s a gazillion lives, even with a number bigger than Eliezer’s (even considering the “butterfly effect”, you can’t say if the dust speck is going to change them for the better or worse—but with 50 years of torture, you know it’s going to be for the worse).

Subjectively for these people, it’s going to be lost in the static and probably won’t even be remembered a few seconds after the event. Torture won’t be lost in static, and it won’t be forgotten (if survived).

The alternative to torture is so mild and inconsequential, even if applied to a mind-boggling number of people, that it’s almost like asking: Would you rather torture that guy or not?

Michael_G.R. 30 Oct 2007 4:12 UTC
10 points
on: Torture vs. Dust Specks
The dust speck is described as “barely enough to make you notice”, so however many people it would happen to, it seems better than even something a lot less worse than 50 years of horrible torture. There are so many irritating things that a human barely notices in his/her life, what’s an extra dust speck?

I think I’d trade the dust specks for even a kick in the groin.

But hey, maybe I’m missing something here...