4 ms·

I don't know who any of these people are, but that is exactly what the article says, so why should we not believe that that's what the author believes?

sokoloff 5y ago
Because it’s far more likely that the author chose slightly wrong words that ended up conflating a specific invention with being the first human “to invent the idea” that “hey, brighter lights would be closer to obviously brighter daylight” only 5 years ago. I’d wager that the author realizes that more than half of adults today had that insight sometime prior to 2017.
- jl6 5y ago
  Some people read websites the way they would read a math proof. One tiny error and the whole thing comes down. A more charitable reading is often perfectly appropriate.
  - necovek 5y ago
    If you are reading it as a math proof, I am only disputing the claim when the idea was invented. As I don't bring up the rest of the article's points, I am neither supporting nor refuting them with that particular comment. Math (or actually, logic) is a bit more resilient than you make it out to be.
  - forgetfulness 5y ago
    The LessWrong community is known for self-citations all over the place and heavy use of jargon created by themselves, and words redefined as terms-of-art. In light of this, if a member claims that one of their prominent figures "invented" something, you better take the claim at face value.
  - drcongo 5y ago
    On the flip side, interpreting everything you read through your own lenses of experience and bias instead of assuming that the author meant what they wrote seems fraught with pitfalls.
- necovek 5y ago
  Use of the word "invention" is usually a red flag. I've certainly done a number of things I never had knowledge of any prior art on, but I never said I "invented" those things. If I wanted to, I'd probably go and research prior art first before making use of the word. Also, I'd say that the article author is not referring just to brighter light as the invention, but rather as the use of extremely bright light indoors for different psychological effects.

sokoloff 5y ago

Because it’s far more likely that the author chose slightly wrong words that ended up conflating a specific invention with being the first human “to invent the idea” that “hey, brighter lights would be closer to obviously brighter daylight” only 5 years ago. I’d wager that the author realizes that more than half of adults today had that insight sometime prior to 2017.

jl6 5y ago
Some people read websites the way they would read a math proof. One tiny error and the whole thing comes down. A more charitable reading is often perfectly appropriate.
- necovek 5y ago
  If you are reading it as a math proof, I am only disputing the claim when the idea was invented. As I don't bring up the rest of the article's points, I am neither supporting nor refuting them with that particular comment. Math (or actually, logic) is a bit more resilient than you make it out to be.
- forgetfulness 5y ago
  The LessWrong community is known for self-citations all over the place and heavy use of jargon created by themselves, and words redefined as terms-of-art. In light of this, if a member claims that one of their prominent figures "invented" something, you better take the claim at face value.
- drcongo 5y ago
  On the flip side, interpreting everything you read through your own lenses of experience and bias instead of assuming that the author meant what they wrote seems fraught with pitfalls.
necovek 5y ago
Use of the word "invention" is usually a red flag. I've certainly done a number of things I never had knowledge of any prior art on, but I never said I "invented" those things. If I wanted to, I'd probably go and research prior art first before making use of the word. Also, I'd say that the article author is not referring just to brighter light as the invention, but rather as the use of extremely bright light indoors for different psychological effects.