{"id":179,"date":"2018-01-21T07:27:45","date_gmt":"2018-01-21T07:27:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sinceriously.fyi\/?p=179"},"modified":"2018-01-21T07:27:45","modified_gmt":"2018-01-21T07:27:45","slug":"lies-about-honesty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sinceriously.fyi\/lies-about-honesty\/","title":{"rendered":"Lies About Honesty"},"content":{"rendered":"
The current state of discussion about using decision theory as a human is one where none dare urge restraint<\/a>. It is rife with light side<\/a> narrative breadcrumbs<\/a>\u00a0and false faces<\/a>. This is utterly inadequate for the purposes for which I want to coordinate with people and I think I can do better. The rest of this post is about the current state, not about doing better, so if you already agree, skip it. If you wish to read it, the concepts I linked are serious prerequisites, but you need not have gotten them from me. I’m also gonna use the phrase “subjunctive dependence”, defined on page 6 here<\/a> a lot.<\/p>\n I am building a rocket here, not trying to engineer social norms.<\/p>\n I’ve heard people working on the most important problem in the world say decision theory compelled them to vote in American elections. I take this as strong evidence that their idea of decision theory is fake<\/a>.<\/p>\n Before the 2016 election, I did some Fermi estimates which took my estimates of subjunctive dependence into account, and decided it was not worth my time to vote. I shared this calculation, and it was met with disapproval. I believe I had found people executing the algorithm,<\/p>\n