Someone should probably start a bright home lighting company (2019) • Hacker News Board

Re: Someone should probably start a bright home lighting company (2019)

#101

Post by thewakalix » Mon, Feb 28, 2022, 9:22 AM UTC

Jiro wrote: post #84

thewakalix wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you honestly claiming that the author believes that Yudkowsky was literally the first person in history to suggest making lights brighter? Also, you should read anything Yudkowsky himself has written about Roko’s basilisk. He’s never claimed that it could work, or that it’s dangerous at all. (“Why did he ban it then?” Because he wanted to prevent it from inspiring an infohazard brainstorming session that could pr…

Yudkowsky claimed that the exact basilisk as described by Roko wouldn't work, but he also believes that something like it would.

Sort of. He believes that if people try to come up with infohazards and then immediately spread them, there’s a nonzero chance that they succeed. It’s unlikely, but still not something to encourage.

(This is not the same thing as “being certain that a minor modification of Roko’s basilisk would produce an evil time-travelling AI,” to be clear.)

Re: Someone should probably start a bright home lighting company (2019)

#102

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Feb 28, 2022, 9:23 AM UTC

Jiro wrote: post #84

thewakalix wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you honestly claiming that the author believes that Yudkowsky was literally the first person in history to suggest making lights brighter? Also, you should read anything Yudkowsky himself has written about Roko’s basilisk. He’s never claimed that it could work, or that it’s dangerous at all. (“Why did he ban it then?” Because he wanted to prevent it from inspiring an infohazard brainstorming session that could pr…

Yudkowsky claimed that the exact basilisk as described by Roko wouldn't work, but he also believes that something like it would.

[deleted]

Re: Someone should probably start a bright home lighting company (2019)

#103

Post by thewakalix » Mon, Feb 28, 2022, 9:24 AM UTC

pelario wrote: post #86

thewakalix wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you honestly claiming that the author believes that Yudkowsky was literally the first person in history to suggest making lights brighter? Also, you should read anything Yudkowsky himself has written about Roko’s basilisk. He’s never claimed that it could work, or that it’s dangerous at all. (“Why did he ban it then?” Because he wanted to prevent it from inspiring an infohazard brainstorming session that could pr…

From the article: >Elevator pitch: Bring enough light to simulate daylight into your home and office. >This idea has been shared in Less Wrong circles for a couple years. Yudkowsky wrote Inadequate Equilibria in 2017 where he and his wife invented the idea

Yes, I read the same article. Do you believe, based on a single word, that the author believes that literally zero people in the entire course of human history have ever suggested “brighter lights” until Yudkowsky came along?

Re: Someone should probably start a bright home lighting company (2019)

#104

Post by b112 » Mon, Feb 28, 2022, 9:24 AM UTC

formerly_proven wrote: post #92

ericye16 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but usually we don't look into that.

You don't look at the surface of the earth?

He's of the concave theorists, which take the flat Earth society one step further, and believe the Earth is concave.

And surely for them, you can see the horror of such large amounts of light being funneled, being reflected back and forth, over and over. So no, most assuredly, he does not look at the Earth!

Re: Someone should probably start a bright home lighting company (2019)

#105

Post by rocqua » Mon, Feb 28, 2022, 9:24 AM UTC

jakobov wrote: post #100

I wonder what one gains by using super bright lights. The pupil will adjust to counter the effects of lighting. Adding more lux just makes your pupil smaller. Or am I missing something? Maybe its non linear? Or maybe the idea is to reach the minimal pupil diameter? Or maybe happiness is somehow dependent on pupil diameter?

On a sunny day, your pupil also adjusts to the effects of lighting.

And yet, people tend to enjoy a sunny day just from the sight. This is attempting to replicate that.

Re: Someone should probably start a bright home lighting company (2019)

#106

Post by mschuster91 » Mon, Feb 28, 2022, 9:25 AM UTC

phgn wrote: post #97

traceroute66 wrote: post #61

> Someone should probably start a bright home lighting company Such a thing already exists. Its called a lighting design company. People need to admit that lighting (like cryptography) is hard, and that if you're serious about "doing it right" you need to bring in a suitably skilled professional. Each house/apartment is different and every room within it is different, you'll never be able to magically buy good lighti…

I thought the same. For me the article is missing an explanation of why existing artificial skylights cost $30k, and how to avoid those costs.

> For me the article is missing an explanation of why existing artificial skylights cost $30k, and how to avoid those costs.

Because people with rare diseases are willing to pay a lot of money for stuff sold by snake-oil peddlers after they have been let down by the traditional healthcare system, and other than people with SAD there's not much of a market for these things.

Re: Someone should probably start a bright home lighting company (2019)

#107

Post by austinjp » Mon, Feb 28, 2022, 9:26 AM UTC

> Elevator pitch: Bring enough light to simulate daylight into your home and office. This idea has been shared in Less Wrong circles for a couple years. Yudkowsky wrote Inadequate Equilibria in 2017 where he and his wife invented the idea

Uh, no. See "lighting design" [0] and the related field "daylighting" [1].

The more I read of Less Wrong the more it seems More Naive. Lighting solutions and their effects on mood have been explored outside of "Less Wrong circles" for decades, probably for centuries.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architectural_lighting_desig...

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylighting

Re: Someone should probably start a bright home lighting company (2019)

#108

Post by user-the-name » Mon, Feb 28, 2022, 9:29 AM UTC

thewakalix wrote: post #101

Jiro wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yudkowsky claimed that the exact basilisk as described by Roko wouldn't work, but he also believes that something like it would.

Sort of. He believes that if people try to come up with infohazards and then immediately spread them, there’s a nonzero chance that they succeed. It’s unlikely, but still not something to encourage. (This is not the same thing as “being certain that a minor modification of Roko’s basilisk would produce an evil time-travelling AI,” to be clear.)

This kind of utter gibberish is exactly why people don't take LessWrong seriously.

Re: Someone should probably start a bright home lighting company (2019)

#109

Post by JoelJacobson » Mon, Feb 28, 2022, 9:30 AM UTC

I live in Sweden (country with severe darkness) and just bought two Virtual Sun united from https://innerscene.com/

NOTE: Be extremely careful when transporting/moving these units, they easily break. The supplier who imported them on my behalf got two shipments with broken units until they finally got one that wasn't damaged. This happened despite FRAGILE markings on the packaging.

Innerscene's Virtual Sun is much smaller and lighter than the classic Coelux.

    Coelux:
    Weight: 300 kg (660 lb)
    Dimensions: 2375 x 1675 x 691 mm (93.5 x 65.9 x 27.2")

    Innerscene Virtual Sun:
    Weight: 39 kg (85.8 lbs)
    Dimensions: 1001 x 514 x 255 mm (39 7/16 x 20 1/4 x 10")

Re: Someone should probably start a bright home lighting company (2019)

#110

Post by thewakalix » Mon, Feb 28, 2022, 9:30 AM UTC

user-the-name wrote: post #108

thewakalix wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sort of. He believes that if people try to come up with infohazards and then immediately spread them, there’s a nonzero chance that they succeed. It’s unlikely, but still not something to encourage. (This is not the same thing as “being certain that a minor modification of Roko’s basilisk would produce an evil time-travelling AI,” to be clear.)

This kind of utter gibberish is exactly why people don't take LessWrong seriously.

“Ideas can be harmful” is gibberish?