My name is Paweł Sysiak, “pav” for short. I am scheming how to improve epistemics and collective coordination using technology. I am currently working at AI Objectives Institute. I do UI / UX design, wrote AI Revolution 101 and have a background in art. Below are the values and directions I care about.
One of the main efforts of my learning is to figure out how to minimize Cognitive Biases. I am sure I suffer from many, especially from the mother of all My-side bias and her children Confirmation bias Hindsight bias Expert trap 🎨 Typical mind fallacy Creator’s bias 🎨. So pleassssse help and send Feedback. What truths about myself people are trying to avoid telling me?
I will prioritize precision over persuasion. I think the form and the flow of writing is important but it should never compromise the precision of arguments. I aim to include Epistemic status in my writing and include my confidence tags
I don’t want to force myself into any particular mold. I want to grow organically that means discovering my intrinsic values and further sprouting, listening in, distilling, shedding, pruning, figuring what’s mine and what’s handed down. I want to be the change I want to see but change that sprouts from what’s real, from my human flesh and particular genes. I want to be what loves becoming — that loves and laughs, and knows it wants to be fun.
“I am sorry that I didn’t have time to write a shorter letter” – Pascal. I try to distill knowledge into as few words as possible. I think this is one of the most important and neglected ideas about knowledge. The shorter the more valuable the message is (while simultaneously preserving its depth and quality).
This is a ****Polish expression meaning to communicate in the simplest possible terms. Knowledge is often a signaling tool – a vehicle for climbing a homo sapiens hierarchy ladder. "Look at my complex vocabulary!", "I belong to this type of people", "I am smart". I feel this force is largely active in our culture and in me. I try to see it but not engage in it. I keep asking myself: Which parts of my thinking are just there to make me look good? How can I say this in a simpler way? What's the dumbest, revealing question I could ask? And I am after Richard Feynman method
"If you can't explain it simply you don't understand it well enough".
Stylistically things may feel off. English is not my native language. On top of that I am also softly dyslexic. I believe it’s a feature not a bug (as dyslexic brains are organized in a way that maximizes strength in making big picture connections at the expense of processing speed and parsing fine details)
Also, I believe an important function of creation is figuring out better interfaces of knowledge. Tinkering on this comes to me naturally and language is a system I am trying to improve. That said, I'll only do it when grammar rules get in the way of precision, a proper weighing of arguments, or make ideas too long or less direct.
New knowledge is both a blessing and a curse. It is a blessing when you compare medieval to contemporary findings in medicine, ethics, physics. It is also a curse because we have a Recency bias . I try to resist the new and select the knowledge that has a long expiry date.