it's crazy how people will latch on to an interpretation and then when served contradictory evidence double down on ignoring it lol
-
-
Replying to @nosilverv
It’s called “strength” in American. It’s a virtue because its opposite (rational mind-changing) has been demoted to an anti-virtue called “flip-flopping”.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @krzhang @nosilverv
The arguments against people for "flip-flopping" bother me a lot. How can there be growth without allowing for change?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @darthkiks @nosilverv
More concretely (and re:
@nosilverv , the only bad thing about the “Good Memory” idea that you and@DanielleFong had), there’s a weaponized mechanic where X shows Y had a different thought about Z 5 years ago to attack Y. This *induces* culture/ counterplay of doubling-down.1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
i agree, there should be good design in the sort of metric space of ideas so that context is maintained and augmented instead of being shredded and weaponized. I have an idea for how this will work, & it should work very well, but surely people will come up with other dumb abuse!
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
As a wise friend told me, “everything good gets weaponized” so I think that part is fundamentally unavoidable. However, creating good local incentives (non-sybilable ways of rewarding good behavior) may help offset. Love to see what you come up with though.
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @krzhang @DanielleFong and
Culturally, I feel we should *both* call out inconsistencies but also give people a chance to be wrong without too much dmg. We should treat wrongness the same way we treat a friend’s angry outburst: “that wasn’t cool, but lets move on.” Basically, create Nash equlibria =D
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @krzhang @DanielleFong and
fwiw i gave up a while ago on the idea of being able to reward 'good behavior' other than in context of a holistic human relationship (i.e. unfairly), because any atomized and automated (i.e. fair) way of doing it will reward mercenary optimization for criteria better than 'good'
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @DanielleFong and
Goodhart wins everywhere. Adversarial agents really ruin any automated system unless the system upper bounds wins per player, and that’s hard to merge with capitalism.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
I think capitalism lacks dimensionality. It’s too one-dimensional
-
-
Replying to @DanielleFong @krzhang and
Both Sacred Economics and RadicalXChange seem promising directions for possible futures of capitalism.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @forshaper @DanielleFong and
Thx for pointer. I was not aware of these things
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
