sidkol
135 posts
sidkol
@sidkol12
https://t.co/49wUVsTzFX No more proofs!
Katılım Temmuz 2024
63 Takip Edilen12 Takipçiler
@anshikindacool So maybe your feelings make evolutionary sense, but not logical sense. A similar problem arises in the case of nonhuman animals, who are even more genetically apart from humans, and for whom we feel even less empathy.
English
@anshikindacool I think genes for unconditional altruism proliferate because even though they reduce your reproductive fitness, they increases the fitness of other people who could carry those same genes, provided that they are sufficiently related to you.
English
@anshikindacool Maybe because ethnic groups are like large extended families, people of your ethnicity enjoy some of the unconditional altruism you would (typically) extend to your immediate family.
English
@Aella_Girl No, the correct analog is “would you have bought things produced by slaves,” which is much less bad (albeit still somewhat bad).
English
@bagina_enjoyer @warty_dog Why does the method of encoding TMs (or choice of programming language) not matter?
English
@warty_dog Nm fuck you vaugueposter
scottaaronson.blog/?p=791
English
the only place this concept has been referenced is a 2011 shtetl-optimized post and its biannual twitter reposts. no one's ever tried to follow up on this, we don't know how
Burny - Effective Curiosity@burny_tech
English
sidkol retweetledi
It's a huge red flag when people aren't political. If I've learned one thing in my years online it's that people who are really into politics are almost always balanced, open, gentle, light of spirit et cetera.
English
sidkol retweetledi
i’m sorry for making your life more difficult this week and also always. also, i know that my apologies are pretty much meaningless at this point, and i’m sorry for that too.
English
sidkol retweetledi
sidkol retweetledi
@OddEdd @FrictionPhilo If you knew that people other than you were exactly evenly split between the two options, then whether to press blue is equivalent to whether to save the lives of the people who pressed blue.
English
@sidkol12 @FrictionPhilo Yes, if we were talking about a compleltly different game, this would be a meaningful statment.
English
In almost all realistic cases, pressing red is uniquely rational. I'm going to write a blog post later to explain why.
Tim Urban@waitbutwhy
Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
English
@Piccini @FrictionPhilo But when there are more voters, there are also more people at risk of dying (even though the chance that your choice is decisive is smaller).
English
@sidkol12 @FrictionPhilo Yes. If there are only 5 voters, you should vote blue. With 50 voters, probably still blue. 500 voters, probably red. 8 billion voters, definitely red.
English
@jack_whitcomb_ It’s a nice example where it’s plausibly worse to believe the truth (namely, that many other people will press blue). This belief creates a reason to press blue, and people responding to this reason causes the belief to be true.
English
I'm convinced this is just a poorly phrased question. If you pose it as:
- Anyone who presses the red button lives no matter what.
- Anyone who presses the blue button dies, unless > 50% of people also press the blue button.
then it's clear that pressing the blue button is dumb.
Tim Urban@waitbutwhy
Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
English