I'm an admin of this site; I work full-time on trying to help people on LessWrong refine the art of human rationality.
Longer bio: www.lesswrong.com/posts/aG74jJkiPccqdkK3c/the-lesswrong-team-page-under-construction#Ben_Pace___Benito
Update after 2 weeks: this has worked out as intended. I now am happy to open Slack to ping individuals, I don't expect to get hijacked by recent channel convo. At the same time, it's no problem to click through all the channels once per day to see what's been going on. We have one time-sensitive channel that I haven't muted, and that's not been abused.
Am way happier with Slack than I've ever been.
Thank you, they were all helpful. I'll write more if I have more questions.
("sadly that's unprobable to work" lol)
Thank you, those points all helped a bunch.
(I feel most resolved on the calibration one. If I think more about the other two and have more questions, I'll come back and write them.)
I made notes while reading about things that I was confused about or that stood out to me. Here they are:
Sh*t. Wow. This is really impressive.
Speaking for myself, this (combined with your orthodox case against utility functions) feels like the next biggest step for me since Embedded Agency in understanding what's wrong with our models of agency and how to improve them.
If I were to put it into words, I'm getting a strong vibe of "No really, you're starting the game inside the universe, stop assuming you've got all the hypotheses in your head and that you've got clean input-output, you need far fewer assumptions if you're going to get around this space at all." Plus a sense that this isn't 'weird' or 'impossibly confusing', and that actually these things will be able to make good sense.
All the details though are in the things you say about convergence and not knowing your updates and so on, which I don't have anything to add to.
Gotcha, you saw the primary source.
What a sad state of affairs...
I also remember this! (And also cannot recall the link.)
See this tweet from my friend Andrew Rettek, noting that the head of the FDA is far from alone in failing statistics forever.
I look at these links for about 5 mins, and I want to register that my impression is consistent with the FDA person having correct beliefs about the facts on the ground and just being imprecise when trying to explain it in simple terms to the public. If 100 people were going to die of covid, then the plasma thing would have saved 35 of them.
But I'm also having difficulty finding primary sources, so perhaps they did just say the straightforward absolute-risk thing.
Let's do it. I'm super duper busy, please ping me if I've not replied here within a week.
I so want to see a bet come out of this.