Harley-ml/lesswrong huggingface dataset:
# Link: Elon Musk wants gov't oversight for AI

"I'm increasingly inclined to thing there should be some regulatory oversight, maybe at the national and international level just to make sure that we don't do something very foolish."

http://www.cnet.com/news/elon-musk-we-are-summoning-the-demon-with-artificial-intelligence/#ftag=CAD590a51e
# Things to consider when optimizing: Sleep

I'd like to have a series of discussion posts, where each post is of the form "Let's brainstorm things you might consider when optimizing X", where X is something like sleep, exercise, commuting, studying, etc. Think of it like a specialized [repository](/lw/i64/repository_repository/).  
  
In the spirit of [try more things](/lw/jgy/try_more_things/), the direct benefit is to provide insights like "Oh, I never realized that BLAH is a knob I can fiddle. This gives me an idea of how I might change BLAH given my particular circumstances. I will try this and see what happens!"  
  
The indirect benefit is to practice instrumental rationality using the "toy problem" provided by a general prompt.  
  
Accordingly, participation could be in many forms:  
  
\* Pointers to scientific research  
\* General directions to consider  
\* Personal experience  
\* [Boring advice](/lw/gx5/boring_advice_repository/)  
\* Intersections with other community ideas, biases  
\* Cost-benefit, value-of-information analysis  
\* Related questions  
\* Other musings, thoughts, speculation, links, theories, etc.  
  
This post is on sleep and circadian rhythms.
# Wikipedia articles from the future

Speculation is important for forecasting; it's also fun.  Speculation is usually conveyed in two forms: in the form of an argument, or encapsulated in fiction; each has their advantages, but both tend to be time-consuming.  Presenting speculation in the form of an argument involves researching relevant background and formulating logical arguments.  Presenting speculation in the form of fiction requires world-building and storytelling skills, but it can quickly give the reader an impression of the "big picture" implications of the speculation; this can be more effective at establishing the "emotional plausibility" of the speculation.

I suggest a storytelling medium which can combine attributes of both arguments and fiction, but requires less work than either. That is the "wikipedia article from the future." Fiction written by inexperienced sci-fi writers tends to generate into a speculative encyclopedia anyways--why not just admit that you want to write an encyclopedia in the first place?  Post your "Wikipedia articles from the future" below.
# Maybe you want to maximise paperclips too

As most LWers will know, Clippy the Paperclip Maximiser is a superintelligence who wants to tile the universe with paperclips. The LessWrong [wiki entry for Paperclip Maximizer](http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer) says that:

> The goal of maximizing paperclips is chosen for illustrative purposes because it is very unlikely to be implemented

I think that a massively powerful star-faring entity - whether a Friendly AI, a far-future human civilisation, aliens, or whatever - might indeed end up essentially converting huge swathes of matter in to paperclips. Whether a massively powerful star-faring entity is _likely_ to arise is, of course, a separate question. But if it does arise, it could well want to tile the universe with paperclips.

Let me explain.

[![paperclips](https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1100/1389849058_837ad09a38.jpg)](https://www.flickr.com/photos/williac/1389849058 "paperclips by William Clifford, on Flickr")

To travel across the stars and achieve whatever noble goals you might have (assuming they scale up), you are going to want energy. A lot of energy. Where do you get it? Well, at interstellar scales, your only options are nuclear fusion or maybe fission.

Iron has the strongest binding energy of any nucleus. If you have elements lighter than iron, you can release energy through nuclear fusion - sticking atoms together to make bigger ones. If you have elements heavier than iron, you can release energy through nuclear fission - splitting atoms apart to make smaller ones. We can do this now for a handful of elements (mostly selected isotopes of uranium, plutonium and hydrogen) but we don’t know how to do this for most of the others - yet. But it looks thermodynamically possible. So if you are a massively powerful _and_ massively clever galaxy-hopping agent, you can extract maximum energy for your purposes by taking up all the non-ferrous matter you can find and turning it in to iron, getting energy through fusion or fission as appropriate.

You leave behind you a cold, dark trail of iron.

That seems a little grim. If you have any aesthetic sense, you might want to make it prettier, to leave an enduring sign of values beyond mere energy acquisition. With careful engineering, it would take only a tiny, tiny amount of extra effort to leave the iron arranged in to beautiful shapes. Curves are nice. What do you call a lump of iron arranged in to an artfully-twisted shape? I think we could reasonably call it a paperclip.

Over time, the amount of space that you’ve visited and harvested for energy will increase, and the amount of space available for your noble goals - or for anyone else’s - will decrease. Gradually but steadily, you are converting the universe in to artfully-twisted pieces of iron. To an onlooker who doesn’t see or understand your noble goals, you will look a lot like you are a paperclip maximiser. In [Eliezer’s terms](/lw/l4/terminal_values_and_instrumental_values/), your desire to do so is an instrumental value, not a terminal value. But - conditional on my wild speculations about energy sources here being correct - it’s what you’ll do.
# [Link]"Neural Turing Machines"

[The paper.](http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5401)

Discusses the technical aspects of one of Googles AI projects. According to a pcworld the system ["apes human memory and programming skills"](http://www.pcworld.com/article/2841232/google-ai-project-apes-memory-programs-sort-of-like-a-human.html) (this article seems pretty solid, also contains link to the paper). 

The abstract:

> We extend the capabilities of neural networks by coupling them to external memory resources, which they can interact with by attentional processes. The combined system is analogous to a Turing Machine or Von Neumann architecture but is differentiable end-to-end, allowing it to be efficiently trained with gradient descent. Preliminary results demonstrate that Neural Turing Machines can infer simple algorithms such as copying, sorting, and associative recall from input and output examples.

(First post here, feedback on the appropriateness of the post appreciated)
# November 2014 Monthly Bragging Thread

Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to comment on this thread explaining **the most awesome thing you've done this month**. You may be as blatantly proud of yourself as you feel. You may unabashedly consider yourself _the coolest freaking person ever_ because of that awesome thing you're dying to tell everyone about. This is the place to do just that.

Remember, however, that this **isn't** any kind of progress thread. Nor is it any kind of proposal thread. _This thread is solely for people to talk about the awesome things they have done. Not "will do". Not "are working on"_. **Have already done.** This is to cultivate an environment of object level productivity rather than meta-productivity methods.

So, what's the coolest thing you've done this month?
# First(?) Rationalist elected to state government

Has no one else mentioned this on LW yet?

[Elizabeth Edwards](http://ballotpedia.org/Elizabeth_Edwards) has been elected as a New Hampshire State Rep, self-identifies as a Rationalist and [explicitly mentions Less Wrong in her first post-election blog post](http://elizabethedwardsnh.wordpress.com/2014/11/06/beginning/).

Sorry if this is a repost
# Open Thread: What are your important insights or aha! moments?

Sometimes our minds suddenly "click" and we see a topic in a new light. Or sometimes we think we understand an idea, think it's stupid and ignore attempts to explain it ("yeah, I already know that"), until we suddenly realize that our understanding was wrong.

This kind of insight is supposedly hard to transmit, but it might be worth a try!

So, what kind of important and valuable insights do you wish you had earlier? Could you try to explain briefly what led to the insight, in a way that might help others get it?
# Link: Rob Bensinger on Less Wrong and vegetarianism

I'm currently unconvinced either way on this matter. However, enough arguments have been raised that I think this is worth the time of every reader to think a good deal about.

  

http://nothingismere.com/2014/11/12/inhuman-altruism-inferential-gap-or-motivational-gap/
# My new paper: Concept learning for safe autonomous AI

_Abstract: Sophisticated autonomous AI may need to base its behavior on fuzzy concepts that cannot be rigorously defined, such as well-being or rights. Obtaining desired AI behavior requires a way to accurately specify these concepts. We review some evidence suggesting that the human brain generates its concepts using a relatively limited set of rules and mechanisms. This suggests that it might be feasible to build AI systems that use similar criteria and mechanisms for generating their own concepts, and could thus learn similar concepts as humans do. We discuss this possibility, and also consider possible complications arising from the embodied nature of human thought, possible evolutionary vestiges in cognition, the social nature of concepts, and the need to compare conceptual representations between humans and AI systems._

I just got word that this paper was accepted for the [AAAI-15 Workshop on AI and Ethics](http://tinyurl.com/AIandEthics): I've [uploaded a preprint here](https://www.academia.edu/9308600/Concept_learning_for_safe_autonomous_AI). I'm hoping that this could help seed a possibly valuable new subfield of FAI research. Thanks to Steve Rayhawk for invaluable assistance while I was writing this paper: it probably wouldn't have gotten done without his feedback motivating me to work on this.

Comments welcome.
# Musk on AGI Timeframes

Elon Musk submitted [a comment](http://i.imgur.com/sL0uqqW.jpg) to edge.org a day or so ago, on [this article](http://edge.org/conversation/the-myth-of-ai). It was later removed.

> The pace of progress in artificial intelligence (I'm not referring to narrow AI) is incredibly fast. Unless you have direct exposure to groups like Deepmind, you have no idea how fast-it is growing at a pace close to exponential. The risk of something seriously dangerous happening is in the five year timeframe. 10 years at most. This is not a case of crying wolf about something I don't understand.

> I am not alone in thinking we should be worried. The leading AI companies have taken great steps to ensure safety. The recognize the danger, but believe that they can shape and control the digital superintelligences and prevent bad ones from escaping into the Internet. That remains to be seen...

  
Now Elon has been making noises about AI safety lately in general, including for example [mentioning Bostrom's _Superintelligence_ on twitter](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/495759307346952192). But this is the first time that I know of that he's come up with his own predictions of the timeframes involved, and I think his are rather quite soon compared to most. 

> The risk of something seriously dangerous happening is in the five year timeframe. 10 years at most.

We can compare this to MIRI's post in May this year, [When Will AI Be Created](https://intelligence.org/2013/05/15/when-will-ai-be-created/), which illustrates that it seems reasonable to think of AI as being further away, but also that there is a lot of uncertainty on the issue.

Of course, "something seriously dangerous" might not refer to full blown superintelligent uFAI - there's plenty of space for disasters of magnitude in between the range of the 2010 flash crash and clippy turning the universe into paperclips to occur.

In any case, it's true that Musk has more "direct exposure" to those on the frontier of AGI research than your average person, and it's also true that he has an audience, so I think there is some interest to be found in his comments here.
# I just increased my Altruistic Effectiveness and you should too

I was looking at the marketing materials for a charity (which I'll call X) over the weekend, when I saw something odd at the bottom of their donation form:

> Check here to increase your donation by 3% to defray the cost of credit card processing.

It's not news to me that credit card companies [charge merchants a cut](http://www.cardfellow.com/blog/credit-card-processing-fees/#assessments) of every transaction.  But the ramifications of this for charitable contributions had never sunk in. I use my credit card for all of the purchases I can (I get pretty good cash-back rates). Automatically drafting from my checking account (like a check, only without the check) costs X nothing. So I've increased the effectiveness of my charitable contributions by a small (<3%) amount by performing what amounts to a paperwork tweak.

If you use a credit card for donations, please think about making this tweak as well!
# Link: Simulating C. Elegans

[http://radar.oreilly.com/2014/11/the-robotic-worm.html](http://radar.oreilly.com/2014/11/the-robotic-worm.html "The robotic worm")

Summary, as I understand it: The connectome for C. elegans's 302-neuron brain has been known for some time, but actually doing anything with it (especially actually understanding it) has proved troublesome, especially because there could easily be relevant information about its brain function not stored in just the connections of the neurons.

However, the [OpenWorm project](http://www.openworm.org/) \-\- which is trying to eventually make much more detailed C. elegans simulations, including an appropriate body -- recently tried just fudging it and making a simulation based on the connectome anyway, though in a wheeled body rather than a wormlike one.  And the result does seem to act at least somewhat like a C. elegans worm, though I am not really one to judge that.  (Video is [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWQnzylhgHc).)

I'm having trouble finding much more information about this at the moment.  I don't know if they've actually yet released detailed technical information.
# Breaking the vicious cycle

You may know me as the guy who posts a lot of controversial stuff about LW and MIRI. I don't enjoy doing this and do not want to continue with it. One reason being that the debate is turning into a flame war. Another reason is that I noticed that it does affect my health negatively (e.g. my high blood pressure (I actually had a single-sided hearing loss over this xkcd comic on Friday)).

This all started in 2010 when I encountered something I perceived to be wrong. But the specifics are irrelevant for this post. The problem is that ever since that time there have been various reasons that made me feel forced to continue the controversy. Sometimes it was the urge to clarify what I wrote, other times I thought it was necessary to respond to a reply I got. What matters is that I couldn't stop. But I believe that this is now possible, given my health concerns.

One problem is that I don't want to leave possible misrepresentations behind. And there very likely exist misrepresentations. There are many reasons for this, but I can assure you that I never deliberately lied and that I never deliberately tried to misrepresent anyone. The main reason might be that I feel very easily overwhelmed and never had the ability to force myself to invest the time that is necessary to do something correctly if I don't really enjoy doing it (for the same reason I probably failed school). Which means that most comments and posts are written in a tearing hurry, akin to a reflexive retraction from the painful stimulus.

**<tldr>**

I hate this fight and want to end it once and for all. I don't expect you to take my word for it. So instead, here is an offer:

I am willing to post counterstatements, endorsed by MIRI, of any length and content\[1\] at the top of any of [my blog](http://kruel.co/) posts. You can either post them in the comments below or send me an email (da \[at\] kruel.co).

**</tldr>**

I have no idea if MIRI believes this to be worthwhile. But I couldn't think of a better way to solve this dilemma in a way that everyone can live with happily. But I am open to suggestions that don't stress me too much (also about how to prove that I am trying to be honest).

You obviously don't need to read all my posts. It can also be a general statement.

I am also aware that LW and MIRI are bothered by RationalWiki. As you can easily check from the fossil record, I have at points tried to correct specific problems. But, for the reasons given above, I have problems investing the time to go through every sentence to find possible errors and attempt to correct it in such a way that the edit is not reverted and that people who feel offended are satisfied.

\[1\] There are obviously some caveats regarding the content, such as no nude photos of Yudkowsky ;-)
# Request for suggestions: ageing and data-mining

Imagine you had the following at your disposal:

*   A Ph.D. in a biological science, with a fair amount of reading and wet-lab work under your belt on the topic of aging and longevity (but in hindsight, nothing that turned out to leverage any real mechanistic insights into aging).
*   A M.S. in statistics. Sadly, the non-Bayesian kind for the most part, but along the way acquired the meta-skills necessary to read and understand most quantitative papers with life-science applications.
*   Love of programming and data, the ability to learn most new computer languages in a couple of weeks, and at least 8 years spent hacking R code.
*   Research access to large amounts of anonymized patient data.
*   Optimistically, two decades remaining in which to make it all count.

Imagine that your goal were to slow or prevent biological aging...

1.  What would be the specific questions you would try to tackle first?
2.  What additional skills would you add to your toolkit?
3.  How would you allocate your limited time between the research questions in #1 and the acquisition of new skills in #2?

Thanks for your input.

* * *

**Update**

I thank everyone for their input and apologize for how long it has taken me to post an update.

I met with Aubrey de Grey and he recommended using the anonymized patient data to look for novel uses for already-prescribed drugs. He also suggested I do a comparison of existing longitudinal studies (e.g. Framingham) and the equivalent data elements from our data warehouse. I asked him that if he runs into any researchers with promising theories or methods but for a massive human dataset to test them on, to send them my way.

My original question was a bit to broad in retrospect: I should have focused more on how to best leverage the capabilities my project already has in place rather than a more general "what should I do with myself" kind of appeal. On the other hand, at the time I might have been less confident about the project's success than I am now. Though the conversation immediately went off into prospective experiments rather than analyzing existing data, there were some great ideas there that may yet become practical to implement.

At any rate, a lot of this has been overcome by events. In the last six months I realized that before we even get to the bifurcation point between longevity and other research areas, there are a crapload of technical, logistical, and organizational problems to solve. I no longer have any doubt that these real problems are worth solving, my team is well positioned to solve many of them, and the solutions will significantly accelerate research in many areas including longevity. We have institutional support, we have a credible revenue stream, and no shortage of promising directions to pursue. The limiting factor now is people-hours. So, [we are recruiting](/lw/mdm/seeking_geeks_interested_in_bioinformatics/).

Thanks again to everyone for their feedback.
# I'm in a really dark place right now, I think I need help.

Hi!  
For a while now I've been having troubles with my life.

Today it got worse, likely I will feel better in a week, but problems related to a person I love and searching for the purpose of my life will not be solved, just ignored as I did for a couple of years now.

First thing to do would be to talk it out with friends or therapist (and I am now willing to spend money on it).

But the biggest problem is that they will probably not understand it, I tried to discuss it with a friend and got sympathetic and emotionally helpful advices that nonetheless don't contribute to solution at all.

I know that I will never let me kill myself (at least for anything less that amount of money that I can make in a lifetime), so I am lingering on with my life. Still I need help.

Conversations like this should not be held in comments, and I don't really know what kind of help am I expecting to get.

Sometime ago I saw an ad of therapist from lw that can council via Skype - please give me a link if you know anyone like that.

\[edited: 1.12.14; 6:42\] I thank everyone who send me link to Shannon at [http://anxietygoaway.com/](http://anxietygoaway.com/); i signed up for a free consultation, hope that something goog will come out of it.
# [LINK] Steven Hawking warns of the dangers of AI

[From the BBC:](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30290540)

> \[Hawking\] told the BBC:"The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race."
> 
> ...
> 
> "It would take off on its own, and re-design itself at an ever increasing rate," he said. "Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn't compete, and would be superseded."

There is, however, no mention of Friendly AI or similar principles.

In my opinion, this is particularly notable for the coverage this story is getting within the mainstream media. At the current time, this is the most-read and most-shared news story on the BBC website.
# Link: LessWrong and AI risk mentioned in a Business Insider Article

[Google Has An Internal Committee To Discuss Its Fears About The Power Of Artificial](http://www.businessinsider.com/if-google-is-worried-about-artificial-intelligence-then-you-should-be-too)

"Worryingly, cofounder Shane Legg thinks the team's advances could be what finishes off the human race. He [told the LessWrong blog in an interview](/lw/691/qa_with_shane_legg_on_risks_from_ai/) 'Eventually, I think human extinction will probably occur, and technology will likely play a part in this'. He adds he thinks AI is the 'no.1 risk for this century'. It's ominous stuff. ([Read about Elon Musk discussing his concerns about AI here.](http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-elon-musk-is-right-to-be-worried-about-killer-robots-2014-11))"
# Good things to have learned....

I was looking at a discussion of what should be in a college curriculum, and as such discussions seem to go, there was a big list of things everyone should study, and some political claims about what's being offered but shouldn't be. 

Instead, what do you wish you'd studied in college? What do you wish other people had studied in college? On the latter, do you think everyone should have studied it, or do you just wish more people knew about it? Approximately what percentage of people?

Of course, this doesn't have to be limited to college. People could learn the same things earlier or later.
# The Bay Area Solstice

![](http://alexaltair.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/10655288_10202991723613603_4297000247357932899_o-1.jpg?w=1200)

As the holiday season approaches, we continue our tradition of celebrating the winter solstice.

This event is the offspring of Raemon's [New York Solstice](/lw/l35/solstice_2014_kickstarter_and_megameetup/). The core of the event is a collection of songs old and new, silly and profound, led by the well-calibrated Bayesian choir. There will be bean bag chairs and candles. There will be campfire and chocolates (in case of dementors).

When: The Bay Area Solstice will be held on 13 December at 7:00 PM.

Where: We've rented the Humanist Hall, at 390 27th St, Oakland, CA 94612.

All humanists or transhumanists are welcome. We'll be diving our minds into the nature of the universe, both good and bad. We'll stare into the abyss of death, and into the radiance of our ability to remove it. We will recognize each other as allies and agents.

We're glad to provide aspiring rationalists with an alternative or addition to any holiday celebrations. There is an expected attendance of around 80 people. 

[Get your tickets here!](https://www.eventbrite.com/e/bay-area-solstice-tickets-14522572405) And if you'd like to help us put it together, PM me.
# Could you be Prof Nick Bostrom's sidekick?

If funding were available, the Centre for Effective Altruism would consider hiring someone to work closely with Prof Nick Bostrom to provide anything and everything he needs to be more productive. Bostrom is obviously the Director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, and author of Superintelligence, the best guide yet to the possible risks posed by artificial intelligence.

Nobody has yet confirmed they will fund this role, but we are nevertheless interested in getting expressions of interest from suitable candidates.

The list of required characteristics is hefty, and the position would be a challenging one:

*   Willing to commit to the role for at least a year, and preferably several
*   Able to live and work in Oxford during this time
*   Conscientious and discreet
*   Trustworthy
*   Able to keep flexible hours (some days a lot of work, others not much)
*   Highly competent at almost everything in life (for example, organising travel, media appearances, choosing good products, and so on)
*   Will not screw up and look bad when dealing with external parties (e.g. media, event organisers, the university)
*   Has a good personality 'fit' with Bostrom
*   Willing to do some tasks that are not high-status
*   Willing to help Bostrom with both his professional and personal life (to free up his attention)
*   Can speak English well
*   Knowledge of rationality, philosophy and artificial intelligence would also be helpful, and would allow you to also do more work as a research assistant.

The research Bostrom can do is unique; to my knowledge we don't have anyone who has made such significant strides clarifying the biggest risks facing humanity as a whole. As a result, helping increase Bostrom's output by say, 20%, would be a major contribution. This person's work would also help the rest of the Future of Humanity Institute run smoothly.

The role would offer significant skill development in operations, some skill development in communications and research, and the chance to build extensive relationships with the people and organisations working on existential risks.

  

If you would like to know more, or be added to the list of potential candidates, please email me: robert \[dot\] wiblin \[at\] centreforeffectivealtruism \[dot\] org. Feel free to share this post around.

  

Note that we are also [hiring for a bunch of other roles](/r/discussion/lw/laf/the_centre_for_effective_altruism_is_hiring_to/), with applications closing Friday the 12th December.
# [Link] Eric S. Raymond - Me and Less Wrong

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6549

> I’ve gotten questions from a couple of different quarters recently about my relationship to the the rationalist community around Less Wrong and related blogs. The one sentence answer is that I consider myself a fellow-traveler and ally of that culture, but not really part of it nor particularly wishing to be.
> 
> The rest of this post is a slightly longer development of that answer.
# Stupid Questions December 2014

This thread is for asking any questions that might seem obvious, tangential, silly or what-have-you. Don't be shy, everyone has holes in their knowledge, though the fewer and the smaller we can make them, the better.

Please be respectful of other people's admitting ignorance and don't mock them for it, as they're doing a noble thing.

To any future monthly posters of SQ threads, please remember to add the "stupid_questions" tag.
# Does utilitarianism "require" extreme self sacrifice? If not why do people commonly say it does?

Chist Hallquist wrote the following in an article (if you know the article please, please don't bring it up, I don't want to discuss the article in general):

"For example, utilitarianism apparently endorses killing a single innocent person and harvesting their organs if it will save five other people. It also appears to imply that donating all your money to charity beyond what you need to survive isn’t just admirable but morally obligatory. "

The non-bold part is not what is confusing me. But where does the "obligatory" part come in. I don't really how its obvious what, if any, ethical obligations utilitarianism implies. given a set of basic assumptions utilitarianism lets you argue whether one action is more moral than another. But I don’t see how its obvious which, if any, moral benchmarks utilitarianism sets for “obligatory.” I can see how certain frameworks on top of utilitarianism imply certain moral requirements. But I do not see how the bolded quote is a criticism of the basic theory of utilitarianism.

However this criticism comes up all the time. Honestly the best explanation I could come up with was that people were being unfair to utilitarianism and not thinking through their statements. But the above quote is by HallQ who is intelligent and thoughtful. So now I am genuinely very curious.

Do you think utilitarianism really require such extreme self sacrifice and if so why? And if it does not require this why do so many people say it does? I am very confused and would appreciate help working this out.

edit:

I am having trouble asking this question clearly. Since utilitarianism is probably best thought of as a cluster of beliefs. So its not clear what asking "does utilitarianism imply X" actually means. Still I made this post since I am confused. Many thoughtful people identity as utilitarian (for example Ozy and theunitofcaring) yet do not think people have extreme obligations. However I can think of examples where people do not seem to understand the implications of their ethical frameowrks. For example many Jewish people endorse the message of the following story:

Rabbi Hilel was asked to explain the Torah while standing on one foot and responded "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation of this--go and study it!"

  
The story is presumably apocryphal but it is repeated all the time by Jewish people. However its hard to see how the story makes even a semblance of sense. The torah includes huge amounts of material that violates the "golden Rule" very badly. So people who think this story gives even a moderately accurate picture of the Torah's message are mistaken imo.
# Lifehack Ideas December 2014

> **Life hacking** refers to any trick, shortcut, skill, or novelty method that increases productivity and efficiency, in all walks of life.

— [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_hacking)

This thread is for posting any promising or interesting ideas for lifehacks you've come up with or heard of.  If you've implemented your idea, please share the results.  You are also encouraged to post lifehack ideas you've tried out that have not been successful, and why you think they weren't.  If you can, please give credit for ideas that you got from other people.

To any future posters of Lifehack Ideas threads, please remember to add the "lifehacks_thread" tag.
# What Peter Thiel thinks about AI risk

This is probably the clearest statement from him on the issue:

http://betaboston.com/news/2014/12/10/audio-peter-thiel-visits-boston-university-to-talk-entrepreneurship-and-backing-zuck/

25:30 mins in

TL;DR: he thinks its an issue but also feels AGI is very distant and hence less worried about it than Musk.

I recommend the rest of the lecture as well, it's a good summary of ["Zero to One"](http://zerotoonebook.com/)  and a good QA afterwards.
# A forum for researchers to publicly discuss safety issues in advanced AI

MIRI has an organizational goal of putting a wider variety of mathematically proficient people in a position to advance our understanding of beneficial smarter-than-human AI. The [MIRIx workshops](http://intelligence.org/mirix/), our new [research guide](http://intelligence.org/research-guide/), and our more detailed in-the-works technical agenda are intended to further that goal.

To encourage the growth of a larger research community where people can easily collaborate and get up to speed on each other's new ideas, we're also going to roll out an **online discussion forum** that's specifically focused on resolving technical problems in Friendly AI. MIRI researchers and other interested parties will be able to have more open exchanges there, and get rapid feedback on their ideas and drafts. A relatively small group of people with relevant mathematical backgrounds will be authorized to post on the forum, but all discussion on the site will be publicly visible to visitors.

Topics will run the gamut from [logical uncertainty in formal agents](http://intelligence.org/2014/06/23/new-report-non-omniscience-probabilistic-inference-metamathematics/) to [cognitive models of concept generation](http://intelligence.org/files/ConceptLearning.pdf). The exact range of discussion topics is likely to evolve over time as researchers' priorities change and new researchers join the forum.

We're currently tossing around possible names for the forum, and I wanted to solicit LessWrong's input, since you've been helpful here in the past. (We're also getting input from non-LW mathematicians and computer scientists.) We want to know how confusing, apt, etc. you perceive these variants on 'forum for doing [exploratory engineering](http://intelligence.org/2014/08/22/new-paper-exploratory-engineering-artificial-intelligence/) research in AI' to be:

1\. AI Exploratory Research Forum (AIXRF)

2\. Forum for Exploratory Engineering in AI (FEEAI)

3\. Forum for Exploratory Research in AI (FERAI, or FXRAI)

4\. Exploratory AI Research Forum (XAIRF, or EAIRF)

We're also looking at other name possibilities, including:

5\. AI Foundations Forum (AIFF)

6\. Intelligent Agent Foundations Forum (IAFF)

7\. Reflective Agents Research Forum (RARF)

We're trying to avoid names like "[friendly](http://lukemuehlhauser.com/some-alternatives-to-friendly-ai/)" and "normative" that could reinforce someone's impression that we think of AI risk in anthropomorphic terms, that we're AI-hating technophobes, or that we're moral philosophers.

Feedback on the above ideas is welcome, as are new ideas. Feel free to post separate ideas in separate comments, so they can be upvoted individually. We're especially looking for feedback along the lines of: _'I'm a grad student in theoretical computer science and I feel that the name_ \[X\] _would look bad in a comp sci bibliography or C.V.'_ or _'I'm friends with a lot of topologists, and I'm pretty sure they'd find the name_ \[Y\] _unobjectionable and mildly intriguing; I don't know how well that generalizes to mathematical logicians.'_
# Podcast: Rationalists in Tech

I'll appreciate feedback on a new podcast, [Rationalists in Tech](http://rationalistsintech.blogspot.com/).

  

I'm interviewing founders, executives, CEOs, consultants, and other people in the tech sector, mostly software. Thanks to [Laurent Bossavit](/user/Morendil), [Daniel Reeves](http://http//lesswrong.com/user/dreeves), and [Alexei Andreev](/user/Alexei/) who agreed to be the guinea pigs for this experiment. 

*   The audience:

Software engineers and other tech workers, at all levels of seniority.

*   The hypothesized need

Some of you are thinking: "I see that some smart and fun people hang out at LessWrong. It's hard to find people like that to work with. I wonder if my next job/employee/cofounder could come from that community."

*   What this podcast does for you

You will get insights into other LessWrongers as real people in the software profession. (OK, you knew that, but this helps.) You will hear the interviewees' ideas on CfAR-style techniques as a productivity booster, on working with other aspiring rationalists, and on the interviewees' own special areas of expertise. (At the same time, interviewees benefit from exposure that can get them business contacts,  employees, or customers.) Software engineers from LW will reach out to interviewees and others in the tech sector, and soon, more hires and startups will emerge. 

  

Please give your feedback on the first [episodes of the podcast](http://rationalistsintech.blogspot.com/). Do you want to hear more? Should there be other topics? A different interview style? Better music?

>
# Has LessWrong Ever Backfired On You?

Several weeks ago I wrote a heavily upvoted post called [**_Don't Be Afraid of Asking Personally Important Questions on LessWrong_**](http://lesswrong.com/lw/l5w/dont_be_afraid_of_asking_personally_important/). I thought it would only be due diligence if I tried to track users on LessWrong who have received advice on this site and it's backfired. In other words, to avoid bias in the record, we might notice what LessWrong as a community is bad at giving advice about. So, I'm seeking feedback. If you have anecdotes or data of how a plan or advice directly from LessWrong backfired, failed, or didn't lead to satisfaction, please share below.
# Kickstarting the audio version of the upcoming book "The Sequences"

LessWrong is getting ready to release an actual book that covers most of the material found in the Sequences. 

There have been a few posts about it in the past, here are two: [the](/lw/h7t/help_us_name_the_sequences_ebook/) [title debate](/lw/h7t/help_us_name_the_sequences_ebook/), [content optimization](/lw/iop/help_us_optimize_the_contents_of_the_sequences/).

We've been asked if we'd like to produce the audiobook version and the answer is yes. This is a large undertaking. The finished product will probably be over 35 hours of audio.

To help mitigate our risk we've decided to Kickstarter the audiobook.  This basically allows us to pre-sell it so we're not stuck with a large production cost and no revenue. 

The kickstarter campaign is here: [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1267969302/lesswrong-the-sequences-audiobook](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1267969302/lesswrong-the-sequences-audiobook)

If you haven't heard of us before we've already produced some sequences into audiobooks.  You can see them and listen to samples which are indicative of the audio quality [here](http://castify.co/channels/).
# Giving What We Can - New Year drive

If you’ve been planning to get around to maybe thinking about Effective Altruism, we’re making your job easier. A group of UK students has [set up a drive](https://www.facebook.com/events/1581545938749145/) for people to sign up to the [Giving What We Can](https://givingwhatwecan.org) pledge to donate 10% of their future income to charity. It does not specify the charities - that decision remains under your control. [The pledge](https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/become-member) is not legally binding, but honour is a powerful force when it comes to promising to help. If 10% is a daunting number, or you don't want to sign away your future earnings in perpetuity, there is a [Try Giving](https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/try-giving) scheme in which you may donate less money for less time. I suggest five years (that is, from 2015 to 2020) of 5% as a suitable "silver" option to the 10%-until-retirement "gold medal".

We’re hoping to take advantage of the existing Schelling point of “new year” as a time for resolutions, as well as building the kind of community spirit that gets people signing up in groups. If you feel it’s a word worth spreading, please feel free to spread it. As of this writing, GWWC reported 41 new members this month, which is a record for monthly acquisitions (and we’re only halfway through the month, three days into the event).

If anyone has suggestions about how to better publicise this event (or Effective Altruism generally), please do let me know. We’re currently talking to various news outlets and high-profile philanthropists to see if they can give us a mention, but suggestions are always welcome. Likewise, comments on the effectiveness of this post itself will be gratefully noted.

About Giving What We Can: GWWC is under the umbrella of the Centre for Effective Altruism, was [co-founded by a LessWronger](/lw/fej/giving_what_we_can_80000_hours_and_metacharity/), and in 2013 [had verbal praise from lukeprog](/lw/gpm/giving_what_we_can_september_internship/8hfw).
# (Very Short) PSA: Combined Main and Discussion Feed

For anyone who's annoyed by having to check newest submissions for Main and Discussion separately, there is a feed for combined submissions from both, in the form of [Newest Submissions - All](/r/all/new/) ([RSS feed](/r/all/new/.rss)).  (There's also [Comments - All](/r/all/comments/) ([RSS feed](/r/all/comments/.rss)), but for me at least, it seems to only show comments from Main and none from Discussion.)

Thanks to [RichardKennaway](/lw/le3/open_thread_dec_15_dec_21_2014/br10) for bringing this to my attention, and to [Unknowns](/lw/le3/open_thread_dec_15_dec_21_2014/br0w) for asking the question that prompted him.  (If you've got the time, head over there and give them some karma.)  I thought this deserved the visibility of a post in Discussion, as not everyone reads through the Open Thread, and I think there's a chance that many would benefit from this information.
# Rationality Jokes Thread

This is an experimental thread. It is somewhat in the spirit of the Rationality Quotes Thread but without the requirements and with a focus on humorous value. You may post insightful jokes, nerd or math jokes or try out rationality jokes of your own invention. 

ADDED: Apparently there has been an earlier [Jokes Thread](/r/discussion/lw/ki0/jokes_thread/) which was failry successful. Consider this another instance.
# Pomodoro for Programmers

Unless you’ve been living under a productivity rock, you probably have heard of the Pomodoro Technique, where you use a timer to do 25 minutes of focused work, and then take a five minute break.

I used to use this technique a lot, up until I started doing computer programming.

You see, with computer programming, I get into this mysterious flow that consumes me, and I keep blazing passed the 25 minute interval, and the buzz of the Pomodoro merely distracts me and derails my work.

However, it’s still important to re-focus, even as a programmer. So I’ve tentatively settled on the following: 45 minutes of intense work followed by 15 minutes of intense break, using this custom timer made in a snap. (Inspired by the idea of "tocks", attributed to the co-founders of Beeminder, though I can’t seem to find a canonical post explaining it. ** Update:** [a canonical post was just written](http://blog.beeminder.com/tocks/), seemingly by coincidence.)

You probably know what happens in the period of intense work — uninterrupted work in a distraction-free environment where I code like a mad man. If anything bubbles up in my mind that’s not a task, I write it down to address later.

But the intense break is important.

Here’s my routine:

1.) A bit of rest. Look away from the computer. Let loose. Focus.

2.) Ask myself — am I comfortable? Do I need to do anything to rearrange my working environment? Am I sufficiently free from distractions? Do I need to do anything to address past distractions? Do I need to refill my water bottle? Do I need to get more food?

3.) What did I do over the past 45 minutes? Did I do it right? Does it need revision?

4.) What did I miss over the past 45 minutes? Do I have any important emails that need to be processed right away? Did anyone send me messages over HipChat? Any FB notifications? I disconnect from these services while during my work sprint, but the urgency of work communication requires me to reconnect every once in awhile. I try to put off responding to messages until the end of the day if they don’t require an urgent response, though.

5.) What should I do during the next 45 minute interval? Am I on track to accomplish my goals? Will my next 45 minute interval be distraction-free? Do I need to do anything to address future distractions?

6.) Are there any quick tasks I can accomplish? Any emails I need to send? Any notes I need to take? Did anything bubble up that I should address now?

The breaks are just as important as the work, and it emphasizes self-care, which is important and often neglected. I find that each 15 minute break propels my next 45 minute block to be better than if I had spent the entire 60 minutes working nonstop.
# The buildup to Jaynes? 

Not too long ago, I asked LessWrong [which math topics to learn](/lw/l91/the_best_mathematicallyinformed_topics/). Eventually, I want to ask for what the prerequisites for each of those topics are and how I should go about learning them. This is a special case of that.

I'm rereading the sequences and Eliezer seems to love E.T. Jaynes. As part of my rationality self-study, I want to work my way through his [_Probability Theory: the Logic of Science_](http://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theory-E-T-Jaynes/dp/0521592712/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1419722612&sr=8-1&keywords=Jaynes).  What math topics do I already need to understand to prepare myself for this? I learned calculus once upon a time, but not fantastically well, and I plan to start by reviewing that.

Also,

Despite Eliezer's praise of the "thousand-year-old [vampire](/lw/ua/the_level_above_mine/)", it there a better book to learn probability theory?

Does anyone want to learn this (or the other math from my post above) with me? I'd love to have a partner or maybe even a work group. Location is no obstacle. \[Two caveats: 1. I'm busy with stuff and may not be able to get into this for a few months 2. I hard, but I am incredibly slow at computation (such that on every math test I have ever taken, it took me at least 3 times as long as the second slowest person in the class to finish). You might find that I go to slow for you.\]
# [LINK] Yudkowsky's Abridged Guide to Intelligent Characters

Some of you have likely seen this already, but for those of you who haven't, Eliezer recently finished a series of Tumblr posts on writing intelligent characters in fiction. It can be found at http://yudkowsky.tumblr.com/writing and is IMO worth a read.