35. Consumption Isn't a Hobby

I have a problem with the way many people seem to think about hobbies. In particular, it bothers me badly when people claim that they have a hobby of anything from "listening to music" to "traveling" to "eating tasty food". Even trying to frame it as a matter of aesthetic appreciation or skilled curation doesn't change that for me. As far as I'm concerned, a hobby can't consist primarily of consumption of things other people have made, nor mere appreciation of enjoyable surroundings - there must be an active, creative component to it. Reading is not a hobby, but writing, even be it fanfic or DIY guides, is; eating tasty food is not a hobby, but experimental cooking and wild foraging are; shopping in full generality is not, while making in full generality is.

It's not clear to me where the mindset comes from; that mindset that considers watching films a hobby without ever seriously contemplating ever filming anything, that contents itself with playlist curation for a hobby without ever considering singing, let alone composition. Even board games and video games have more of the hobby-nature - for those, there's at least the argument that there is a skill to be developed. Maybe it's a matter of a complete absence of orientation towards Wizard Power, in the sense that has been described elsewhere?

For myself, give me hobbies and not mere pastimes - woodworking and metal-casting and sewing, cooking and paint-mixing and singing, even graphic design and people-watching and board games and this very writing. Maybe I'll even go for a radio operation license, or learn to ride a motorcycle. It seems best to have something to do that's worth doing, that leaves behind something precious and novel, or which at least leaves you stronger for the doing.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

20. A Sketch of Helpfulness Theory With Equivocal Principals

You may rightly wonder what else I’m up to, if it’s not just blogging and the occasional adventure. The short answer is that I spend most of my time and mental energy taking part in a summer research fellowship in AI safety called PIBBSS, where my research direction has to do with questions like “how does an agent help a principal, even if the agent doesn’t know what the principal wants?” and “how much harder is it for the principal to teach the agent what they want, and how much worse are the outcomes, if the principal doesn’t know for sure what they want?”. The long(ish) answer is this post. I’ll avoid jargon, mathematical notation, and recommendations to read other long papers, but some amount of that will be unavoidable. Here’s the basic setup - called a “Markov decision process”, sometimes with adjectives like “decentralized” or “partially observable” - which forms the ground assumption for the entire subfield my research direction lies in, called “inverse reinforcement learning”:...
Read more

4. Seven-ish Words from My Thought-Language

Seven entries from a dictionary that will never exist, even though it should. The words in [brackets] show up with some frequency in my thoughts, and I struggle with English’s semantic poverty. Some of them show up in other languages, like Korean or Lojban. Others among them, people I’ve spoken to share in wishing were wider-used words. [untranslatable 1: word-clogged/interference-silent] (adj): Of a person or their state of mind. Descriptive of the phenomenon where a person has multiple different things to say about a specific topic, or multiple different responses or reactions to a remark an interlocutor has made, only one of which can be taken. To be tongue-tied not out of a lack of things to say, but out of an overabundance of mutually exclusive things to say, all of equal priority, especially when each thing to say would result in following importantly different conversational paths. Often used instead in its natural verb form, which means “to be silent as a result of [word-clog]”...
Read more

11. Why the First “High Dimension” is Six or Maybe Five

Image
(Epistemic status: morally correct, in the mathematician’s sense; here to give flavor and intuition without too much rigor.) People toss around the concept of “high-dimensional space” a lot without having a good idea of where that starts. Interpretability researchers staring at vectors in hundreds of dimensions are clearly contemplating a high-dimensional space - loss landscapes packed full of saddle points and spheres where any given pair of vectors is almost certainly nearly orthogonal - but do they know what it means to be a high-dimensional space? Surely we can do better for ourselves than Justice Stewart’s infamous maxim - “I know it when I see it”! What do we care about, when we want to tell how many orthogonal axes we need in a space to start calling it high-dimensional? I claim that we should care about looking at unit-radius disks - like, literal filled-in two-dimensional circles - and in particular, checking when, whether, and how pairs of those unit-radius disks overlap when...
Read more