Harley-ml/lesswrong huggingface dataset:
# Hoarding and Shortages

One of the main responses to yesterday's post on [preparing for a potential quarantine](https://www.jefftk.com/p/quarantine-preparations) was something like:

> *Hoarding causes shortages. Leave masks for people that need them.*

Another commenter made a similar argument with [food](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mQdTCKKB8p5mGaMfC/quarantine-preparations#KoYmWkkDG6spSNabS).

I think the biggest question here is whether you think there's time and capacity for producers to react to increased demand. For example, some mask factories are not running right now because they're in affected areas, but many others are still running. More people trying to buy masks raises the market price, which makes it worth it for these factories to run at higher output. For example, maybe a factory normally runs a 16hr day with two shifts but doesn't run at night because it's too expensive to hire people for night work. If masks are selling for 5x the normal price, the situation is different and they'll probably start running 24hr. \[1\]

This is a really big reason to [prepare ahead of time](https://www.jefftk.com/p/disasters), instead of when a disaster seems likely. I bought masks months ago after deciding they were something I would like to have on hand for dealing with a range of issues, which meant producers had plenty of time to react and make more. I know this doesn't help with the current situation, but if there are non-perishable things where a supply disruption would be really bad (ex: masks for taking care of an immunocompromised family member) set a reminder for six months from now to stock up on them.

I also don't think spreading the idea that one shouldn't buy masks is worth it: enough people are still going to be buying them that we're still going to have a mixture of outages at regular retailers and high prices at demand-responsive online ones. Even if you think that there's no ability for producers to react to high prices by creating more masks and so there's effectively a fixed pool of masks to divide up, refraining from buying ones for yourself helps others only minimally.

(Separately, there's a question of what situations masks are useful for. I know much less about this, though if someone in your household gets sick it seems like it would be very useful to have them on hand.)

  
\[1\] Raising prices in response to emergency-induced demand is often called "price gouging" and it is [sometimes illegal](https://www.jefftk.com/p/price-gouging), though in long-running emergencies like this I wouldn't expect to see the laws apply because documenting increased costs should be practical.
# What will be the big-picture implications of the coronavirus, assuming it eventually infects >10% of the world?

Brainstorming some possibilities, not taking myself too seriously:

--2020 will be remembered as a year of death and disruption; the economy will suffer massively, perhaps enough to count as a recession.

--Many old people will die (something like 10%?) this is a big higher than the [current fatality rates](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/) but I predict they will rise once hospital systems are overwhelmed. This will have a few knock-on effects: 1. Health care expenditures will drop for the next few years, since old and sick people are the biggest source of such expenditures and the population of old and sick people will be substantially smaller. 2. There will be a noticeable increase in average spending money available to younger people due to inheritances. 3. Politics in the USA at least will shift noticeably (though not dramatically) to the left, since the dead people will be disproportionately right-leaning. 4. Politics worldwide will generally shift in a more radical direction, since the proportion of young people to old people will increase. 5. One of the contenders for the US presidency might die before the election. (This is unlikely even if 50% of the world gets infected, but it is likely enough to deserve mention I think.)

--China's dramatic and draconian measures to contain the virus will come to be seen as a success story, something that would have worked if only other nations had behaved similarly (and perhaps, if China keeps its border closed, it actually will work for China at least?). This leads to an increase in authoritarianism in general around the world, made substantially stronger by the general tendency of authoritarianism to rise during crises.

--The world will, in general, take pandemic risks much more seriously from now on, making it substantially harder for something like this (or worse) to happen again.
# Abstract Plans Lead to Failure

Epistemic Status: Probably not generalisable to everyone, applies especially strong to me

It's very easy to decide to do something in the abstract on the basis that it should give you some particular skills. Here are some personal examples where I didn't get what I wanted out of my time:

*   Taking a class on art history
*   Reading a bunch of [articles on philosophy](http://sqapo.com/)
*   Studying a degree in psychology
*   Watching a bunch of short videos about history
*   Reading a book on human rights

These failure were basically my fault as I either just consumed the information or crammed any study I did do. Obviously I knew that this was less than ideal.

What I didn't realise was that I'd get basically nothing out of these activities. That I wouldn't be any better about talking about art, that I'd end up with only vague recollections of most of the philosophers, that I wouldn't have much more insight into psychology than someone who spent their time on Reddit, ect.

This isn't just limited to intellectual activities. I had the same experience with Salsa where I did a lot of classes, but never really put time into the basic skills. I learned more moves, but my basic skills really didn't improve.

The assumption I made in each of these cases was, "Surely doing X makes people better at Y, so I just have to do X and I'll get better at Y, maybe not as much as if I did Z, but it should still have a reasonable effect".

However, in my experience it doesn't work like that. You'll likely think it's working at the time, but any gains are unlikely to persist.

Instead, it's important to be iterative. Instead I suggest the following: Do something, see where you are improving and where you are not and then adjust. Repeat until you get the results you want.

This probably sounds stupidly obvious, but these things are easy to overlook when you are inside a situation.
# Draft: Models of Risks of Delivery Under Coronavirus

I’ve never considered prophylactically quarantining myself before, but now that I’m considering it I find it contains many more choices than I would have imagined. Let’s take my need to eat- I could go to a supermarket, but that’s full of people. I could get delivery, but that still has a human touch. I could eat my stores, but then I won’t have them later. This makes “when do I stop ordering delivery?” an important question. To attempt a more informed answer, I made a [guesstimate model](https://www.getguesstimate.com/models/15211). As of writing this (2/27) the numbers are completely made up: I just wanted to get comments on the underlying model. I’m working to fill in the variables with actual answers. If you want to follow along you can do so at my [Roam page](https://roamresearch.com/#/app/AcesoUnderGlass/page/dMvr6Deti). I am exceedingly grateful for comments on either the abstract model or information that could help me fill in variables.

Here are some general factors going into my thinking:

1.  COVID-19 seems to have a long dormant period during which people are contagious but not symptomatic
2.  Some additional portion of people have only mild symptoms
3.  The economics of pink-collar work are such that a lot of people will go to work until they are on death’s door.
4.  1+2+3 = if the virus is prevalent in the population, there will be a lot of contagious people handling stuff I order.
5.  The American government’s monitoring provides, at best, an extremely lagging indicator of prevalence, and is at worst made up.

Here are images of the model and Roam page now, for posterity

![Screen Shot 2020-02-27 at 8.05.58 PM](https://acesounderglass.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/screen-shot-2020-02-27-at-8.05.58-pm.png?w=840)

Note that this shows food delivery as less risky than package delivery, which is clearly wrong.

![Screen Shot 2020-02-27 at 8.06.54 PM](https://acesounderglass.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/screen-shot-2020-02-27-at-8.06.54-pm.png?w=840)
# Coronavirus: Justified Practical Advice Thread

*(Added: To see the best advice in this thread,* [*read this summary*](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/B9qzPZDcPwnX6uEpe/coronavirus-justified-practical-advice-summary)*.)*

This is a thread for practical advice for preparing for the coronavirus in places where it might substantially grow.

We'd like this thread to be a source of advice that attempts to explain itself. This is not a thread to drop links to recommendations that don’t explain why the advice is accurate or useful. That’s not to say that explanation-less advice isn’t useful, but this isn't the place for it.

**Please include in your answers some advice and an explanation of the advice, an explicit model under which it makes sense.** We will move answers to the comments if they don't explain their recommendations clearly. (Added: We have moved at least 4 comments so far.)

The more concrete the explanation the better. Speculation is fine, uncertain models are fine; sources, explicit models and numbers for variables that other people can play with based on their own beliefs are excellent. 

Here are some examples of things that we'd like to see:

1.  It is safe to mostly but not entirely rely on food that requires heating or other prep, because a pandemic is unlikely to take out utilities, although if if they are taken out for other reasons they will be slower to come back on
2.  CDC estimates of prevalence are likely to be significant underestimates due to [their narrow testing criteria](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-27/california-coronavirus-patient-was-not-tested-for-several-days-uc-davis-says).
3.  [A guesstimate model](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/82rYtupeRpWXwkHG6/draft-models-of-risks-of-delivery-under-coronavirus) of the risks of accepting packages and delivery food

One piece of information that has been lacking in most advice we’ve seen is *when* to take a particular action. Sure, I can stock up on food ahead of time, but not going to work may be costly– what’s your model for the costs of going so I can decide when the costs outweigh the benefits for me? This is especially true for advice that has inherent trade-offs– total quarantine means eating your food stockpiles that you hopefully have, which means not having them later.
# Epistea Workshop Series: Epistemics Workshop, May 2020, UK

Hi all!

We are excited to announce the **Epistea Epistemics Workshop**! This is the first out of a series of 3 workshops happening in Europe, organized and run by the Epistea team.

**Tl,dr:**

*   **What:** a 3.5 day workshop focusing on improving our epistemics and habits of belief formation
*   **When:** May 14th (Thu) - May 18th (Sun)  _(With optional and recommended stay until Monday morning)_
*   **Where:** in proximity to Oxford, UK
*   **Price**: 400£ _(In case you hesitate to apply because of financial issues, let us know.)_
*   **Who are we**: the [Epistea team](https://workshops.epistea.org/team/) and external instructors
*   **Application deadline**: Sun, 15th of March 

**[Sign up](https://forms.gle/z9h3LAokRVYg4DEA8)** here!

For more information, visit our [website](https://workshops.epistea.org/epistemics-workshop/) or send us an email at [rationality@epistea.org](rationality@epistea.org.).

We are looking forward to spending some exciting workshop days with you!

Best, 

The Epistea team
# What to make of Aubrey de Grey's prediction?

Aubrey de Grey (head of [SENS](https://www.sens.org/)) just had [an appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-z0kglwpwo). At some point during the interview, he made a fairly specific and extremely bold prediction about the near future.

See [56:40 - 58:45+](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-z0kglwpwo&t=3404s). The short version is: sometime in the near future ("could easily happen in the next 3 to 5 years"), there will be an extremely sudden shift in the public perception on aging through which the alleged fact that it can be reversed becomes common knowledge. At that point, there will be enormous pressure towards funding the field, and you won't get elected without promising to throw money at the problem.

A relevant reference class here could be something like "expert in a field predicting a massive near-term shift of awareness about something related to their field." Predictions in this class probably come true about 0% of the time. On the other hand, there are some reasons to think Aubrey is unusually credible.

My questions are

*   How seriously do you take this claim? Aubrey didn't specify a testable criterion in this conversation, but a reasonable one could be something like "a candidate in the 2024 presidential general election lists fighting aging as a campaign issue on their official website."
*   Suppose Aubrey is correct, and there is a massive shift within the next five years. Is there a way for a normal person to benefit financially out of knowing this now?
# Usable implementation of IDA available

Paul Christiano published his and Buck Shlegeris' implementation at https://github.com/paulfchristiano/amplification. It's the code behind the article [Supervising strong learners by amplifying weak experts](https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.08575).

With William Saunders' permission, I published a version modified by him and later me: https://github.com/rmoehn/amplification This one has changes and more documentation that allow you to run it almost out of the box.
# Reminder: Blog Post Day (Unofficial)

In case you missed the [earlier post](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/q972DHxCwZKFbEPMn/blog-post-day-unofficial), or saw it and forgot: You are invited to join us [online](https://discord.gg/j5TzpVF) today to write that blog post you've been thinking about writing but never got around to. Anyone and everyone is invited; you are especially encouraged to join if you have never written a blog post here before!
# Training Regime Day 15: CoZE

Note: this is going to be short because I spent some time doing [COVID-19 preparations](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5okDRahtDewnWfFmz/seeing-the-smoke), which I encourage you do to also. I think that it is better for my commitment to post at least one thing a day, even if it's bad. I anticipate heavily revising this later, when I have more time.

# Introduction
CoZE stands for Comfort Zone Expansion. The model is that people have a lot of beliefs about themselves and due to things like [positive bias](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/rmAbiEKQDpDnZzcRf/positive-bias-look-into-the-dark), some non-trivial chunk of these beliefs haven't ever been tested.

The goal of CoZE is to take beliefs about yourself and test them experimentally, both making your identity smaller and discovering new things about yourself. Remember to [try things](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NeGC3TFXMX8sxLNdY/training-regime-day-3-tips-and-tricks).

# Finding your comfort zone
The first step is to find your comfort zone. You should take 10 minutes and write down all of the beliefs that you have about yourself. You should include "obvious" things to avoid stopping idea generation.

My list included:
1. I don't like dancing
2. I'm slightly more attractive than average, but not that attractive
3. I'm only slightly socially awkward
4. I'm bad at singing
5. I'm OK at writing

# Find tests for your beliefs
 An idea test for one of your beliefs should make you say "ugh fine." A test is too weak if you don't react emotionally to it. A test is too strong if it makes you go "ahhhhhhh". 

For example, if I wanted to test "I'm not good at dancing", I might take a single beginner's dance class. I wouldn't want to go to a party and start dancing in front of everyone I knew. I also wouldn't want to take an advanced dance class.

It is important that you're fair to your belief. If I wanted to test "I'm bad at singing", then I should pick an easy song that I enjoy to try singing, I shouldn't pick a really hard song to sing. The test should actually behave differently depending on whether or not the belief is true. I might sing a hard song badly even if I'm good at singing.

# Exercise
Find one of the beliefs that you found above, devise a test for it, and do the test.
# What should be my triggers for initiating self quarantine re: Corona virus

\[Some answer [here](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LwcKYR8bykM6vDHyo/coronavirus-justified-practical-advice-thread?commentId=fWv9LSNgHWtKygcog), where I asked this question in comments.\]

Is there some reliable source on the triggers for quarantining one's self? Both immediate triggers (when X happens, I will not leave the house again until y happens), and warning signs (when Z happens, I'm going to leave the city, in preparation for quarantine, etc.).
# How many people in the Bay Area are infected with Covid-19 as of the end of 2/29/2020?

I want to know your estimate for how many people you think currently have it within the San Francisco Bay Area. _Not_ how many people who have been _measured_ to have it, since our measurement is garbage. Answers can be given as a distribution or point estimate.
# Blog Post Day Retrospective

Yesterday was Blog Post Day. I think it was a success! In this post I'll link to all the blog posts that were written as part of Blog Post Day, and then say some things about what I learned and when we'll do another one.

  

The posts (in no particular order) were:

[My Updating Thoughts on AI Policy](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DhuPBkKA8ohyZEN8n/my-updating-thoughts-on-ai-policy), by Ben Pace.

[How to Choose a Massage Therapist](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/epc78F6BBMdoFG6Lq/how-to-choose-a-massage-therapist), by mingyuan

[An Analytic Perspective on AI Alignment](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/8GdPargak863xaebm/an-analytic-perspective-on-ai-alignment), by Daniel Filan

[Bayesian Inference with Partially Specified Priors](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3HkfkZi5q4eZRabNq/bayesian-inference-with-partially-specified-priors), by Christopher Clark

[Cortés, Pizarro, and Afonso as Precedents for Takeover](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ivpKSjM4D6FbqF4pZ/cortes-pizarro-and-afonso-as-precedents-for-takeover) by me

Edit: Also Ben Goldhaber's [shortform about depression](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/SJrL6Ysdwnuh79bDQ/bgold-s-shortform?commentId=gmHihzQQXeKq7jx6W)

  

I think I missed a few from this list--for example, Coscott said they finished a post but would not put it up yet because it was part of a planned sequence. There may have been people who participated but didn't finish, or at least didn't post about it where I could see that they finished. Please let me know if I missed you and I can link to your post here (if you want).

There was less chatting in the discord than I expected; for the most part people just worked on their posts. Nevertheless the chatting that did happen was positive and encouraging and made me feel good. There wasn't really any draft-swapping because everyone was finishing right before the deadline.

We had about 12 people express interest in participating, and maybe about 8 people actually participate, and it looks like we got 5+ posts out of it. (Maybe more will trickle in) That sounds good enough to me! I for one am happy with what I accomplished in just one day; I definitely want to repeat this procedure even if no one else joins me.

So, anyone interested in another Blog Post Day? Obviously not soon, but how far away? Three months from now? One month? I could make this a regular scheduled event if there is interest.
# Is Coronavirus active in Summer? 

It seems like the corona virus has spread mostly in cold climates on the northern hemisphere (in winter) and there are very few (confirmed) cases in Africa, South America and Australia. On the one hand the first two probably don't have the capabilities for testing on a large scale, but they should have it easier to detect the virus, since it can't be confused for the common cold. Could it be that the virus is transmitted (well) only in cold climates? And would that mean that the danger in Europe/the US will reduce drastically by May or June?
# "What Progress?" Gwern's 10 year retrospective

This is a thrilling read. Some favourite lines:

> And that was that. The FBI would later pay me some visits, but I was long done with the DNMs and had moved on.

and

> The key result was Rietveld et al 2013, the first truly successful IQ GWAS. Rietveld et al 2013 found GWAS hits; further, it found between-sibling differences. (This sibling test would be replicated easily a dozen times by 2020.) Reading it was a revelation. The debate was over: behavioral genetics was right, and the critics were wrong. Kamin, Gould, Lewontin, Shalizi, the whole sorry pack—annihilated. IQ was indeed highly heritable, polygenic, and GWASes would only get better for it, and for all the easier traits as well. (“To see the gods dispelled in mid-air and dissolve like clouds is one of the great human experiences. It is not as if they had gone over the horizon to disappear for a time; nor as if they had been overcome by other gods of greater power and profounder knowledge. It is simply that they came to nothing.”)

and the final line

> If I have not always been right from the start, I have at least been less wrong than most in updating faster than most (DNB, behavioral genetics, DL/DRL).
# Is there any value in self-quarantine (from Coronavirus), if you live with other people who aren't taking similar precautions?

I live in a house with four other people, including two that I share a bathroom with.

Does it help me at all to self quarantine, and not leave the house, if my housemates continue to go to work? I would mostly stay in my own room, except that I would need to go to the bathroom and wash dishes.
# How should I be thinking about the risk of air travel (re: Coronavirus)?

Is there any information about how much risk of exposure increases by air-travel?

Like **[Ŀady Jade Beacham](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LwcKYR8bykM6vDHyo/coronavirus-justified-practical-advice-thread?commentId=rQaZKExsqxrWu5row)**, I am considering flying out to my parents house in Arizona. If I need to quarantine for multiple weeks to months, that would be a much more comfortable place to be, for me.

The crux is how much risk going on an airplane entails. Does anyone have an estimate of how much the probability of infection goes up, given (~ 3 hours of) air travel?

What things can you do to make it safer? (Things like wearing a mask, wiping down the seat with disinfectant wipes, buying the seats on either side of you so that you're more isolated.) How much do those interventions help?
# What is the appropriate way to communicate that we are experiencing a pandemic?

After spending 3 days reading all of Lesswrong's posts and comments (and sources cited) related to coronavirus, I started taking action (summarizing the information collected and planning the least harmful ways to alert my closest peers to start preparing - we only have two confirmed cases still in Brazil). In my entire network of friends, I have not yet seen a single person who even takes the matter seriously. When I show a small amount of data (2~5 minutes of reading) and its extrapolations for the next weeks/months, the natural reaction is "you are forgetting a lot, someone will invent a cure/vaccine, there is nothing to worry about". They don't care about the smoke.  
  
However, by showing a reasonable amount of data (1 hour reading) about coronavirus around the planet to my girlfriend and its long-term consequences (up to a year), she was convinced that it was a pandemic, that the consequences would be very bad, and her reaction was to cry. I showed an amount of data equivalent to 30 minute reading for my closest friend, his reaction was "tell me what you gonna do and when you gonna do, I'll do the same"  
  
As there are a reasonable amount of people who don't think the subject is relevant or even know anything about it, I'm creating a video for YouTube in Portuguese. But then I thought the psychological consequences for a not inconsiderable amount of people would be disastrous, as it seems to my girlfriend. However, I see a lot of valuable information that I can only find on Lesswrong and no other source in Portuguese and it seems it would be a mistake not to share. At the same time, I don't want to be a information hazard source.

On one hand, I can simply create the video, translate it to English and share with Lesswrong community to see if the community approves.

On the other hand, you could say what you think it would be an adequate sequence to explain the subject, like: \[what is coronavirus > why you should pay more than 1 minute attention to it > current number of deaths vs expected number of deaths > who is probably going to die > you have permission to be worried and take precautions > what are the precautions > what data should trigger behavior changing for more aggressive precautions > etc\]
# Is there a better way to define groups for COVID-19 impact?

I think everyone who has posted a table of stats for COVID-19 infection or deaths seems to do a 10 year grouping. For example [here](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/j9kxNcm2bM7A8XAc6/coronavirus-is-here). (Used only because I was looking at that post when it occurred to me.)

However, my understanding is that physiological changes in the human body are not linear over time but tend to be more like state changes. Now, it is true these changes are not on any annual schedule either but we do have some average ages for when changes in the human body seem to occur.

Could using the 10 year grouping actually hide important implications for those trying to make personal decisions based on that data presentation?
# Did everyone miss the big thing about your phone?

Have not read through all the comments, and probably won't, so perhaps this has already been pointed out.

I don't see that my phone is any more at risk than my hands, I can wipe the desk down with a sterilizing wipe, and do the same with my phone if I want. I tend to keep my phone either in my hand or in a pocket when outside my house. So as far as I can see the phone is not more a threat than my hands.

However, I is not uncommon for me to have my phone touching or very near my face, ears, mouth.

Has anyone suggested using speaker and holding the phone away from your face? Or is the assumption that everyone just used wired or bluetooth headsets/earbuds with a mic?
# To mask or not mask

A rather large disconnect between what I hear from medical side and how people act seem clear. The medical officials all say for the most part the general population, other than those infected, don't benefit from wearing the masks.

In part that is due to improper use. I discount that because I've seen too many pictures of the medical response staff wearing masks that simply cannot be ones that create a true, airtight seal.

The other part seems to be that the virus is not really an airborne infection but more about small droplets of human fluids which carry the virus. Hence the recommendation that those with the infection use the mask to limit how they are spreading it.

Still, infection is a random chemical reaction. As such your chance of contracting the infection is a function of likelihood of an individual virus (one individual protein group) times the number of viruses that entered.

Seems that as long as the probability of any given virus to succeed in infecting you is low, then anything one does to limit the number incoming would be helpful.

Granted, there may well be a large number, in absolute terms, in any micro droplet of fluid inhaled which might itself make the effort pointless. But has anyone seen any estimates or other data at this level rather than the more aggregate type data like R0 seems to be?
# What "Saving throws" does the world have against coronavirus? (And how plausible are they?)

Following up on [my earlier question](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/RukXjEvMfqDKRJaup/what-will-be-the-big-picture-implications-of-the-coronavirus), which asked about the implications of coronavirus infecting >10% of the world, I'm now more interested in discussing how likely it is that that will happen. To that end, I'm asking about "saving throws," i.e. reasons why the virus might be stopped before then.

I know of three plausible ones so far:

1\. Warm weather is coming and might dramatically slow or even stop the virus.

2\. A vaccine might be found and deployed.

3\. World governments might follow in China's footsteps and initiate massive quarantines etc.

Are there more?

And how plausible are these three?

My sense right now is that 1 is somewhat probable, 2 is improbable, and 3 is improbable.
# For viruses, is presenting with fatigue correlated with causing chronic fatigue?

Intuitively, one might expect that viruses which cause fatigue during acute infection are more likely to also cause chronic fatigue later. Is this in fact the case?

COVID-19 causes fatigue in [about 70% of cases](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-symptoms/) according to one study (though studies have had mixed results, most likely due to sampling patients at different levels of severity and differences in how symptom lists are collected).

Note that while there is pretty good data about the symptoms of viruses on presentation, data on chronic fatigue is relatively poor. So, a good answer to this question might look like "human examplevirus infects 20% of the population\[cite1\], causes fatigue 30% of the time\[cite2\], and is implicated in chronic fatigue on questionable patient forums\[cite3\]."
# Feature suggestion: Could we get notifications when someone links to our posts?

LessWrong (and the EA Forum) seems to have recently added a “pingbacks” feature, which shows at the bottom of each post what other posts on LW (or the EA Forum) link to it, if any. I reckon this is a great feature, for:

1.  following links to more recent work on the same topic
2.  tracing the influence a post seems to have had

I think it’d also be cool to get a _notification_ when someone (other than me) has linked to a post I wrote, for similar reasons:

1.  It’d allow me to see new work that’s likely to be on topics I’m particularly interested in, given that it links to my work. That new work might also be commenting, critiquing, or building on my work, so that seems particularly interesting to learn from and engage with.
2.  It’d allow me to see which of my posts (if any) people seem to be finding particularly interesting, valuable, worth-building-upon, etc., plus get a pretty solid dopamine hit to further my LW & EA Forum addiction (assuming the post linking to my post isn’t just critiquing it, but again, learning from such critiques is useful too)

Is this something that could be implemented? If some people would be opposed, perhaps it could be something people could opt into or out of.

(I happened to spot a pingback to [one of my LW posts](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ky988ePJvCRhmCwGo/using-vector-fields-to-visualise-preferences-and-make-them) by another user, and same for [one of my EA Forum posts](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/XCwNigouP88qhhei2/differential-progress-intellectual-progress-technological), but wasn't notified. So I can confirm that users currently don't get notified about pingbacks, rather than it just being that I haven't gotten a notification yet.)

**Related, additional suggestion:** Would there be any not-too-hard way for “pingbacks” to include links to a LW post from an EA Forum post, and vice versa? Currently they only show links on the same site.

_Note: In “Edit Settings”, I’ve ticked the box to “Opt into experimental features”, so maybe pingbacks is a new thing most people haven’t seen. But in any case, displaying pingbacks just inspired my notifications suggestion, rather than really being a necessary prerequisite for it._

_Also, let me know if there’s a better place to put feature suggestions like this. ETA: Maybe it should've been a "Question". Whoops._
# Post/Pre

Ken Wilbur has described the [Pre/Trans or Post/Pre Fallacy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH5Qn6K36Ug): that is, confusing not understanding a framework with being beyond the need for it. Imagine:

*   Aerial is an aspiring artist who identifies as a free spirit. She loves nothing more than manifest the images in her head onto the page, but she experiences the exercises she is assigned in class excruciating and dull. If she engaged with her classwork she could develop the technical skills to more fully realise her visions, but by merely following her impulses she remains at a plateau.
*   When Eli reads a science article or claim, he tries to pay very close attention of the potential motivations and bias of the author. However, he has extremely strong political opinions, so inevitably applies much more scrutiny to those claims he wants to disbelieve. This results in him being further from the truth than if he had just ignored the issue of bias altogether.
*   Valentine is an entrepreneur who has just started his own company. He refuses to do anything because “that is how it is normally done”, but insists on relying upon his own power of reason. While he is right most of the time, he also picks a decentralised leadership structure that none of his team has any experience or knowledge of beyond reading a book. The resulting inconsistency and lack of responsibility almost destroy the company.

Of course, the presenting post/pre as a dichotomy provides a very limited resolution. Skills are never completely mastered; there is always always a higher level. This means that the pre/trans threshold is somewhat arbitrary.

Nonetheless, many disagreements can be characterised as essentially being over whether a particular stance is post/pre in relation to a particular insight. Others can be characterised as relating to whether the post level even exists (ie. debates on post-modernism or post-rationality).

**Further Reading**:

*   [Highlights from “Integral Spirituality”](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7HY8HaRdFFnpeT9gx/highlights-from-integral-spirituality)
# How did the Coronavirus Justified Practical Advice Thread Change Your Behavior, if at All?

The point of the [CJPA thread](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LwcKYR8bykM6vDHyo/coronavirus-justified-practical-advice-thread) was for people to get information that changed their behavior in positive ways. It's a little soon to measure the infection rate and we'll never get an RCT of people who read the thread vs. didn't, but I'd at least like to find out what behavior changes came about from the thread. If you read the thread, can you answer with behavior changes you made at last partially as the result of what you read? That includes if the change was zero. The more detail you can include on what you learned and why things were or weren't useful, the better.
# You've Been Exposed to COVID-19: What Do You Wish You Knew?

A thing I've been really frustrated by with a lot of coronavirus advice posts is lack of specificity. What does "quarantine for 14 days" mean? Do I need to poop in a bucket? Can I use my private yard? Let deliveries be placed on my doorstep? If I'm recovered but my housemate is still sick, what are my obligations?

This is a thread for all of those questions. Nothing is too trivial to include, and I ask that people not downvote things they think are obvious (although still upvote the questions you find most useful). Note that even though these are questions, please submit them as answers to this question, rather than as related questions, just for simplicity.

How we plan to use this thread:

*   Maybe someone will answer your question. That would be cool.
*   It will help inform the LW COVID research agenda.
*   We've had some interest from an Official Government Agency in answering these kinds of questions in a truly exhaustive "So You Caught Coronavirus" guide. The relevant Official Government Agencies are pretty busy right now and this is the kind of project that can be dropped even when they're not, but it is a thing that might happen.

More example questions:

*   When should I seek treatment vs. toughing it out at home?
*   Do I need to avoid my pets?
*   How do I know when I'm safe to rejoin society?
*   Do I need an electrolyte solution with potassium or is table salt enough?
*   How do I get to a doctor safely when I don't have a car?
# A Proof Against Oracle AI

Armstrong et al. [suggest](http://www.aleph.se/papers/oracleAI.pdf) that an Oracle AI could be a solution to confine the harmful potential of artificial intelligence.  
While the benefits are certainly considerable, I believe that even an oracle could lead to an existential risk, or at least to unpleasant situations.  
I would like to share a _proof sketch_ of the above:

For simplicity, let's consider an Oracle AI that has the ability to answer only yes / no to the questions posed by human operators. It is clear that here we are talking about an even weaker version than the one suggested by Armstrong, Bostrom and Sandberg. We define the Oracle as a superintelligent agent with the aim of maximizing some function  ϕ. Suppose that for a number of steps, from 0 to n, the oracle collaborates with human, always responding correctly to gain their trust. At some time t, the oracle knows which is the most optimized version of ϕ (what is the procedure to follow in order to obtain the desired goal).  
Now a procedure is nothing but an algorithm (a set of rules) and as such can be encoded in a binary string of 0 and 1. So we have that at time t, oracle O knows ϕ and ϕ∈{0,1}n assuming the procedure has finite cardinality i.e. it will eventually halt, leading to the expected result. From this point on, O begins a strategic game against humans to get them to perform ϕ. If the history of all the answers since O was started is encoded in the string ψ , O need to include ϕ at a certain point in ψ. Since O is a Superintelligence and since every string can be reconstructed by only answering yes or no to questions like "is the first bit 1?" given that O has the complete trust of humans (and even if it falters it could return to behave correctly, adjusting the aim over and over again), eventually it can lead humans to act based on its responses and eventually to implement ϕ. Note that in all of this humans dont have the same overview and planning capacity of the Oracle and therefore they may not realize that, with their actions, they have set dangerous situations in motion.
# Coming Back to Biking

For about a year and a half starting in [September 2008](https://www.jefftk.com/p/what-bike-to-get), I rode my bike everywhere. I was very into it, in a [retrogrouch](https://www.jefftk.com/p/retrogrouch) way. Over time my [knees started hurting](https://www.jefftk.com/p/what-fixed-my-knees) so I stopped biking. I [just tried](https://www.jefftk.com/p/covid-19-things-im-doing-differently) coming back to it, easing into it so I don't hurt my knees again, and I was surprised at how many things were different:

*   Bike lanes: my old commute had no bike lanes. Now there are bike lanes almost my entire way. I'm in a slightly different place, biking West Somerville to Kendall instead of West Medford to Fresh Pond, but (a) if I did my previous commute now there's a mixture of bike lanes and a bike path and (b) the bike lines on my new commute didn't exist ten years ago.
    
*   More bikes: I didn't used to run into other bike commuters, but now when I stop at a light there's a whole line of us:
    
    [![](https://www.jefftk.com/bikes-in-bike-lane.jpg)](https://www.jefftk.com/bikes-in-bike-lane-big.jpg)
    
*   Helmets: I got a new cheap helmet ([this one](https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B01KJQ5L26/)) and they've gotten much better. They're easy to adjust to fit, and they stay adjusted. It's possible that fancier helmets like this were around then, but now it's even the cheapest ones.
    
*   My work has showers and a bike cage. Possibly this is just me working at a fancier place now?
    
    [![](https://www.jefftk.com/bike-parked-in-bike-cage.jpg)](https://www.jefftk.com/bike-parked-in-bike-cage-big.jpg)
    

The biggest thing is that I'd forgotten how much I enjoy biking. It's just really nice, moving along under my own power, being able to go wherever I want, enjoying the sun. I'm pretty much the slowest bike out there, but there's enough traffic during rush hour that I'm still faster than cars, which is also a fun feeling. I don't know if my knees will be up for this long term, so I'll still take it slowly, but I'm happy I decided to try coming back to it!
# How are people tracking confirmed Coronavirus cases / Coronavirus deaths?

I'm keeping a log of the number of Corronavirus cases (both active and total), in local-areas that I care about.

Currently, I'm using the [dashboard](https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6) put together by John Hopkins Center For Systems Science and Engineering. Every day, I manually open it, zoom into the Bay area (for instance), and count the number of active cases, total cases, and total deaths. I log those numbers in a personal google sheet, for each relevant metropolitan area.

Is there a better way to do this? Does anyone know of a system that is automatically recording the number of cases and number of deaths, in different populations (in the US)?

Thanks
# How long does SARS-CoV-2 survive on copper surfaces

I wrapped copper tape around a wood stick:

  

![](https://i.ibb.co/ZN0ckZC/img-20200306-153200-567.jpg)

  

I will use this stick to push any buttons in public and press door handles. How reasonable is it to touch the copper-coated stick after it touching potentially contaminated surfaces? Do I have to pay attention to not touch the stick at places where it touches other surfaces?
# Active Recovery

If you believe you've caught the virus, what are some beginning steps to take to start initial recovery? What are there changes to diet, foods to avoid, or supplements to take? At this rate, it feels as though infections will no longer be uncommon so adapting to better safety and lifestyle habits will have to be practiced. Are there any other lesser-known methods to recovery like the breathing exercises or the electrolyte solution you've mentioned?
# Winning vs Truth – Infohazard Trade-Offs

_\[Cross-posted from_ _[Grand Unified Crazy](https://grandunifiedcrazy.com/2020/03/07/winning-vs-truth-infohazard-trade-offs/).\]_

[This post on the credibility of the CDC](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/h4vWsBBjASgiQ2pn6/credibility-of-the-cdc-on-sars-cov-2) has sparked a great deal of discussion on the ethics of posts like it. Some people claim that the post itself is harmful, arguing that anything which reduces trust in the CDC will likely kill people as they ignore or reject important advice for dealing with SARS-CoV-2 and (in the long-run) other issues like vaccination. This argument has been met with two very different responses.

One response has been to argue that the CDC’s advice is _so bad_ that reducing trust in it will actually have a net positive effect in the long run. This is an ultimately empirical question which somebody should probably address, but I do not have the skills or interest to attempt that.

The other response is much more interesting, arguing that [appeals to consequences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences) are generally bad, and that meta-level considerations mean we should generally speak the truth even if the immediate consequences are bad. I find this really interesting because it is ultimately about [infohazards](https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Information_hazard): those rare cases where there is a conflict between [epistemic and instrumental rationality](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/RcZCwxFiZzE6X7nsv/what-do-we-mean-by-rationality). Typically, we believe that having more truth (via epistemic rationality) is a positive trait that allows you to “win” more (thus aligning with instrumental rationality). But when more truth becomes harmful, which do we preference: truth, or winning?

Some people will just decide to value truth more than winning as an axiom of their value system. But for most of us, ultimately I think this also boils down to an empirical question of just how bad “not winning” will end up being. It’s easy to see that for sufficiently severe cases, natural selection takes over: any meme/person/thing that prefers truth over winning in those cases will die out, to be replaced by memes/people/things that choose to win. I personally will prefer winning in those cases. It’s also true that _most of the time_, truth actually helps you win in the long run. We should probably reject untrue claims even if they provide a small amount of extra short-term winning, since in the long run having an untrue belief is likely to prevent us from winning in ways we can’t predict.

Figuring out where the cut-over point lies between truth and winning seems non-trivial. Based on my examples above we can derive two simple heuristics to start off:

*   Prefer truth over winning by default.
*   Prefer winning over truth if the cost of not winning is destruction of yourself or your community. (It’s interesting to note that this heuristic arguably already applies to SARS-Cov-2, at least for some people in at-risk demographics.)

What other heuristics do other people use for this question? How do they come out on the CDC post and SARS-CoV-2?
# At what level of coronavirus cases in a population should the people in that population start self-quarantining? 

The question and desiderata
===========================

I'm looking for a s**pecific number here**, even an equation. At what # of reported coronavirus cases (or estimated actual cases) within a population should the members of that population start self-quarantine measures (e.g. isolating themselves, avoiding contact with elderly, wearing masks)? Please **state your reasoning**, cite your sources, and/or show your math.

I know that **being excessive in viral response is a good thing**, and we should err on the side of doing too much, but I'm trying to be **optimal** in accounting for the behavioral costs of such measures.

Utah as a case study
====================

Utah has 1 reported case. ([source](https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6)) It has a population of 3.161 million. The transmission rate of coronavirus in the US is around X (I don't actually know if there's a good source for this). Given these numbers for Utah, what is the **"trigger point"\- the ratio of (COVID-19 cases / population)** at which we should self-quarantine? For example, we should begin self-quarantining when the number of CV cases reaches 1% of the population or 316,100 cases.

Or **more fine-grained**, what are the specific **series of trigger points** at which specific measures (mask-wearing, self-isolation, eliminating public gatherings) should begin?